wow. just wow.

You could write a play about this incident.

I look forward to seeing A Raisin in the Sun.

This is almost exactly like that time Dan Savage committed that hate crime against the hilariously named Hex Bean at the University of Chicago.

Words like kike, nigger, wop, spic, mick, chink, tranny, and a whole constellation of others devised by humans to hurt other humans are loaded terms, gravid with the weight of the hatred surrounding their origins. But in treating discussion of such a word as the same as labeling a person with that word, we abandon our reason and fall prey to use-mention conflation.
Good God damn, is it possible for Rich Smith to write stories that aren't a bunch of imbecilic namby-pamby SJW tone policing? (I've co-opted the phrase "tone policing" to describe any argument I don't like that uses controversial words or style, because after all that's what the regressive left uses that phrase for, right?)

Fragile minds and fragile egos bashing down their walls of Meisner.

Abraham said that the theater takes this situation “very, very seriously” and that SRT believes it’s “never appropriate” to say the n-word outside the context of a play.

OK. So:
According to the stagehand, who would only speak to me under conditions of anonymity, there was a part in the dialogue where one actor says, “Tray is just another (pause) to you.” The stagehand in question wondered whether the pause indicated an implied use of the n-word in the script or if the actor was censoring herself (and the play) for the sake of the school children at the matinee.

While talking to a co-worker about that moment, the stagehand claims to have said, “She’s not-saying [n-word] right? That’s the word she’s not saying?” Instead of saying “n-word” the stagehand used the actual word.

Um... it looks very much like the stage hand was using the word WITHIN the context of a play, as in discussing the play with another member of the company. Unless by "context" you mean "script." (Or unless the stagehand is lying about his or her use of the word, and everybody but the reporter knows it.)

The whole thing seems kind of weird and overwrought.

Also yeah, what venomlash wrote while I was copy/pasting. (Except that I don't have strong opinions about Rich Smith)

This brings to mind a brief bit of scholarship on the issue. Key quote:

...it's bullshit because when you say "the n-word" you put the word "nigger" in the listener's head [...] you're making me say it

We have to be able to use language to discuss language. If it wasn't directed at someone, if it wasn't being used to describe or disparage someone, then there was nothing wrong with that kind of language. I don't want to live in a world where we can't use a word even in a completely legitimate discussion of that word!

>Instead of saying “n-word” the stagehand used the actual word.

Jesus fucking Christ do we all believe in magic? That's all this is about? The stagehand was asking a question, not insulting anybody. Why is this an issue?

I am curious, though, as to why Rich sees fit to air the Rep's dirty laundry in public in this manner. This doesn't really strike me as a "story" so much as a "Gawker-esque gossip piece". I trust this magazine will cover IATSE's informational picket of Rhino Staging later this month with another equally provocative headline, yes? If they bother to cover it at all, that is.

Lord knows a union fighting for its members' livelihoods doesn't move as much copy as a matter of internal conduct discipline like this, am i rite? :|

I wonder if the people who reported the situation to HR were actually offended by the question--or whether they thought they had to do this to "protect" others.

Nice that SRT has the resources to indulge in this kind of navel gazing.

Cut out his tongue! Cut out his tongue!

Why are people assuming no offense was taken by the use of the word, regardless of the context? That seems to be the issue here: someone used the word, someone for whom the word has decidedly negative connotations overheard them using it, took offense, and reported it. If he had uttered a similarly derogatory word for another ethnic group, no matter how the word was used, would a member of that group not also have the right to be offended?

Gee-willikers*! Who knew the drama kids could ever be so dramatic?

*Profuse, abject, insincere apologies if the minced oath with possible derivational reference to "Jerusalem" caused anyone to choke back tears.

Ridiculous. Indescribably inane and stupid. Shit like this is what drives people to vote Trump, for God's sake.

White privilege echo chamber on the SLOG. No surprise here.

Sounds like this stagehand might have been actually been racist in the moment looking for a laugh, got caught, and now is just trying to backtrack. "Actually, I was engaging my fellow stagehand in some intellectual ruminations on race and..." Come on. Own your racism Seattle! You could not find a more inept city around their understanding of being black in America.

@24: no one wants to "own their racism". do you?

your takeaway is that the stagehand was making a deliberately racist joke? that's conceivable, but that wasn't in the article.

Ok, this seemed a little ridiculous to me at first, as it appeared to be said within the context of the play, but if the SRT staff and cast who are people of color were made uncomfortable and unsafe by the use of the word, then I'm going to believe that it was not used innocently.

1) Slog writer, you have misrepresented the recent criticisms of the Mikado. White actors playing Asians is far less of an issue than the fact that it's entire representation of Asian women is mass of insulting demeaning stereotypes. Just because the tunes are fun and it's a blast to produce doesn't eliminate people's right to say that they feel massively insulted and threatened by the images it promotes.

2) It is one thing for Chris rock to decide to stop using the n-word in his stand up.

It is another for a playwrite to eliminate the word from the script but then strongly imply it in the play. The playwrite clearly made a choice to imply it. Isn't the whole point of a play for adults to get people to think about the characters and meaning of the play and the author's intent, including what is implied by the words the characters use or what it tells us about the characters and the world?

I am confused here because I don't see anything in this piece suggesting that the stagehand was doing anything different than what the audience of the play is intended to do as an objective of the play.

Would this have gone down this way if the speaker had been an actor instead of a lowly worker?

I'm not familiar with the writer who wrote this Stranger piece. Is making this go on and on in this roundabout way meant to be a comedy satire piece on organizational passive-aggressive self-criticism aimed at group education on the importance of extreme censorship in outward expressions of any kind?

3) Anybody who says "excessive" reactions to offensive speech are a rational reason to support Trump is already a fucking racist. No middle ground or questions about what is or isn't with Trump. You can either man-up, admit it, and do the right thing. Or you can go vote for Trump and the like, because your numbers are shrinking anyway, and the majority of Americans are sick of your criminal degenerate racism and misogyny.

@25 I think more than

... possible; I think likely. What scenario makes more sense?

Never ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to stupidity. In the case of stagehands, always ascribe it to stupidity.

And I say that with love.

@23 and @27....come on. I wasn't saying what you apparently think I was saying. This isn't a "rational reason" to support Trump. Seriously? I was being facetious. It's indescribably sad that I have to explain that, but I guess we're here. So, for the record: I was kidding.

Anyway, @19 and others, there's a difference between a person choosing to take offense at something--everyone always has the right to be offended, about anything--and being taken seriously. There's also a bar for what level of offense is involved and what the consequences should be. In this case, you have a person (if their account is to be believed) using a word in a completely and totally appropriate context (the play, at a playhouse), and in the context of what he thought was a private conversation, who was forcibly put on leave.

I just don't think that's right. If being on the side of a guy who apparently did nothing wrong and yet found himself accused of racism while having his pay docked is "privilege," then so be it. Regardless, I promise I won't vote for Trump over it.

@33: I agree! Unfortunately, that's not at all what happened here, or related in any way whatsoever to what I was saying, but good on ya.

@29: it's possible that the dude is a dumb fuck who didn't realize that anything he said on this set would be used against him (though he should have - he's in Seattle). but that's not in the article, either.

I'm not saying that's more likely.

@33: its more like they resent that black people can say it and they can't, and that constitutes oppression. they know they're not supposed to say it anymore.

Use/mention distinction just doesn't really exist. This is kind of alien to me, but the fact is, many people have a serious issue with any employment of the actual word, even talking about the play. (That is the word being not-said there, right?) Proceed accordingly I guess.

But still, was there something in the delivery that suggested the stagehand was trying to be a shock joker here? Because... wow.

@19 - one always has the right to be offended. That doesn't mean that it is right to take offense. I'm offended by all sorts of things people do around me, but I do not have the right to punish them for my sensitivities, particularly if they intended no harm as interpreted by a reasonable person.

@9: Really? You were there when he hilariously misinterpreted that Calvin Trillin poem about Chinese food.

We won't talk about why we won't talk about why we don't talk about the things we don't talk about.

In fact, I'm offended that you're even bringing it up.

As a stagehand familiar with the people in question, I will say that every backstage Rep staff member is white as the driven snow. However, while I have found the environment to be sexist at times (offhand comments, never direct insults, harassment or questioning my abilities as a female working in a male dominated environment), I have never heard racial slurs in over a decade of working at this venue. There are additional layers to this story that this article does not and cannot fully cover, as they are beyond the scope of the incident. It is unfortunate that people were made to feel unsafe, and it isn't terrible that the Rep staff will go through some sensitivity training. If the stagehand in question is fired over this, there are likely other factors involved.

The backstage person in question wasn't fired because the theater didn't have an official "no-tolerance" policy in effect at that time. Union rules require three official warnings before a person is fired. The theater has since instituted a no-tolerance person so that future incidents can result in an immediate firing.

@39 --- oh right, I'd forgotten about that. Jesus, that was embarrassing.

So yeah. I just realized that nothing in this article is to be taken as reliable. Thanks for the reminder.

@33 Yeah, I figured you likely were being facetious, but Trump supporters actually say and think that way. Another one of those realities that looks like satire. My strong reaction is strong because I think it is needed, given that the media has been pretending this rhetoric amping up the racism, migogyny, and promotion of violent war crimes is somehow a perfectly normal thing in America, while avoiding identifying it as what it is.

Lots more to say on this, but gotta go engage with life. For the non-Trumpeters, let's all keep trying to talk reality and try to listen to each other as best we can when we can.

2-week investigation, months of administrative leave, sensitivity consultant, all because someone mentioned (not used) a word...enjoy the world you have made, and have fun wondering why sane people take your cries of racism, sexism, etc. less and less seriously.

Our transition from a dignity culture to a victimhood culture continues.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch…

@45: For once we're on the same side of an issue, Satan.