Sarah Silverman is brilliant(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Sarah Silverman is brilliant
http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/14/ted-organizer-trashes-speaker-fails-social-iq-test/
I so wish I could have seen this talk @ TED.
20 comments
Personally, I can't really stand Silverman. She seems like more of a "female shock jock" than a "brilliant comedian" to me. Maybe I don't know enough about her, but I really have to wonder: (a) why was she even invited to TED to speak? and (b) what on earth did people think she was going to talk about–world hunger and infant mortality?
Furthermore, was Silverman really making a statement about political correctness and free speech–or was she just going after Palin?
On the actual issue, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, it bothers me when kids use "retarded" or "gay" or "fag" as an insult. On the other hand, everyone is way too sensitive about language and being a victim any time someone else says something careless.
Furthermore, was Silverman really making a statement about political correctness and free speech–or was she just going after Palin?
On the actual issue, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, it bothers me when kids use "retarded" or "gay" or "fag" as an insult. On the other hand, everyone is way too sensitive about language and being a victim any time someone else says something careless.
> Furthermore, was Silverman really making a statement about political correctness and free speech–or was she just going after Palin?
Both. So, here's the events in not-quite-chronological order:
1. Rahm Emanuel calls recalcitrant liberal democrats "retarded."
1.5. Palin is outraged.
2. Rush Limbaugh mentions the "retard conference."
2.5. Palin is not outraged, because "satire" is okay.
3. Sarah Silverman accepts this bet and makes a comedy routine that is incredibly outrageous, but obviously satirical.
Is it okay? Of course it's not okay, because Palin is a hypocrite and only cares about the issue as far as it is political leverage; she's been accused of using "the r-word" on multiple occasions from multiple sources.
So then Silverman's satire is a political joke of high caliber and razor wit. But, it's also highlighting a larger issue that people have with doing generous things for selfish and calculated reasons. The actual substance of her talk is basically that she wants a special needs kid because this makes her an awesome person.
Both. So, here's the events in not-quite-chronological order:
1. Rahm Emanuel calls recalcitrant liberal democrats "retarded."
1.5. Palin is outraged.
2. Rush Limbaugh mentions the "retard conference."
2.5. Palin is not outraged, because "satire" is okay.
3. Sarah Silverman accepts this bet and makes a comedy routine that is incredibly outrageous, but obviously satirical.
Is it okay? Of course it's not okay, because Palin is a hypocrite and only cares about the issue as far as it is political leverage; she's been accused of using "the r-word" on multiple occasions from multiple sources.
So then Silverman's satire is a political joke of high caliber and razor wit. But, it's also highlighting a larger issue that people have with doing generous things for selfish and calculated reasons. The actual substance of her talk is basically that she wants a special needs kid because this makes her an awesome person.
I just don't see how this kind of passing, topical crap that goes on at the shallowest level of politics is worth discussing somewhere like TED. This is the kind of crap that blows over in a couple weeks--and if you want to make a statement about how useless this surface level political dialogue is, there are better ways of doing it.
This "shallowest level of politics" is the shape of our entire cultural landscape being formed, man. Comics just tell it like it is.
Is it worth talking about at TED? I dunno. What really is? Some dude leaping around going "BAAAM" while the crowd figures out how to sing along? Leaders of influential companies talking about products? Why don't we discuss how very much against slavery we really are?
Sarah's commentary on politics and how people with unfortunate genetics people are unwitting pawns in a disingenuous political dialog that has the potential to deadlock our government? Seems fine to me.
Is it worth talking about at TED? I dunno. What really is? Some dude leaping around going "BAAAM" while the crowd figures out how to sing along? Leaders of influential companies talking about products? Why don't we discuss how very much against slavery we really are?
Sarah's commentary on politics and how people with unfortunate genetics people are unwitting pawns in a disingenuous political dialog that has the potential to deadlock our government? Seems fine to me.
What do you mean by "accepts the bet"? I still think you might be giving her too much credit. I agree certain issues were raised (at least among those who actually consider said issues) but I'm not convinced she did it on purpose.
I'd guess her thinking was "Palin says it's okay as satire so I'll trap her with the most outrageous, offensive satire possible." Then again, I'm not in her head.
Thanks for the rundown of events btw. It was helpful.
I'd guess her thinking was "Palin says it's okay as satire so I'll trap her with the most outrageous, offensive satire possible." Then again, I'm not in her head.
Thanks for the rundown of events btw. It was helpful.
"everyone is way too sensitive about language and being a victim any time someone else says something careless."
I'm still thinking in my own mind about the other points you raised, but +1 for exactly this.
Kids (and sometimes adults) should be taught or reminded that it's careless and insulting to use words like "retarded" and "gay" and "fag" in a careless or insulting way. It's a matter of good manners, not a March on Washington.
I'm still thinking in my own mind about the other points you raised, but +1 for exactly this.
Kids (and sometimes adults) should be taught or reminded that it's careless and insulting to use words like "retarded" and "gay" and "fag" in a careless or insulting way. It's a matter of good manners, not a March on Washington.
Although, like the article mentioned, there are plenty of words that we use without serious regard that are just as bad, we just have become numb to what they actually mean. For example:
moron - having a mental age between 8 and 12
dumb - slow to learn or understand; lacking intellectual acuity; lacking the power of human speech;
idiot - a person of subnormal intelligence
imbecile - retardation more severe than a moron but not as severe as an idiot
maniac, lunatic - an insane person
We throw these words around (as a society) all the time without regard to their original intent. Is this simply a case of forgiving the past and trying not to repeat those mistakes going forward? Where do we draw the line with allowing words to be used outside of their initial purpose?
moron - having a mental age between 8 and 12
dumb - slow to learn or understand; lacking intellectual acuity; lacking the power of human speech;
idiot - a person of subnormal intelligence
imbecile - retardation more severe than a moron but not as severe as an idiot
maniac, lunatic - an insane person
We throw these words around (as a society) all the time without regard to their original intent. Is this simply a case of forgiving the past and trying not to repeat those mistakes going forward? Where do we draw the line with allowing words to be used outside of their initial purpose?
I believe every one of those words was at one time used in a professional medical context (your "original intent"), to mean a specific thing. Over time they were all co-opted by laymen (us) as insults. Anal-retentive is another such term that's been co-opted, although I think it's still in current medical use.
Words are subject to fashion, just like clothes. 100 years ago Hillary was a male name, now it's more commonly a female name (in the US anyway).
"Where do we draw the line with allowing words to be used outside of their initial purpose?"
You can't. People are going to do whatever they want.
Words are subject to fashion, just like clothes. 100 years ago Hillary was a male name, now it's more commonly a female name (in the US anyway).
"Where do we draw the line with allowing words to be used outside of their initial purpose?"
You can't. People are going to do whatever they want.
"Anal-retentive is another such term that's been co-opted, although I think it's still in current medical use."
It's a Freudian term, so to whatever extent it's still in clinical use, it's barely even in use. There are few Freudians left.
It's a Freudian term, so to whatever extent it's still in clinical use, it's barely even in use. There are few Freudians left.
Exactly, it's not whether or not a word is universally hurtful, it's just that some words are only acceptable when you are talking to an audience you're comfortable with. I have close friends to whom I can say pretty much anything - that doesn't make everything I say to them ok to say at christmas dinner.
I can call my friend a 'retard' (I don't, as a result of habit/upbringing) but I had a professor once who had a daughter with CP. I would never DARE say that word in his classroom (or any other, really) not just because of the offense it would cause, but because it has no place in a scholarly discussion.
Know your audience - trying to make a splash by saying something crass or unnerving just to watch people squirm is a fun game and it has it's place - but that's not really what the TED stage is for. Granted, I'm not qualified to make that distinction, but I think Chris Anderson (if anyone) probably is. The tone at TED is generally challenging, but tempered with a good dose of respect, which Sarah notoriously lacks.
I can call my friend a 'retard' (I don't, as a result of habit/upbringing) but I had a professor once who had a daughter with CP. I would never DARE say that word in his classroom (or any other, really) not just because of the offense it would cause, but because it has no place in a scholarly discussion.
Know your audience - trying to make a splash by saying something crass or unnerving just to watch people squirm is a fun game and it has it's place - but that's not really what the TED stage is for. Granted, I'm not qualified to make that distinction, but I think Chris Anderson (if anyone) probably is. The tone at TED is generally challenging, but tempered with a good dose of respect, which Sarah notoriously lacks.
Sounds to me like your just redefining what you think is hurtful as it applies to a particular context. If Silverman said something that we don't like, that's our problem, not hers, unless she depends on public appearance speaking fees.
I never like this kind of talk regarding what's acceptable and what's not, no matter what words you wrap it up in, because when it happens in the US it denies us the greatest freedom of all, not freedom of speech or expression, but freedom to be responsible for what you say and do. Silverman should be able to comment in her own words on anything she damn well pleases, and under any context. It's her responsibility to deal with the consequences of that action. More power to her, btw, even if her schtick is for just a bunch of shock value.
I never like this kind of talk regarding what's acceptable and what's not, no matter what words you wrap it up in, because when it happens in the US it denies us the greatest freedom of all, not freedom of speech or expression, but freedom to be responsible for what you say and do. Silverman should be able to comment in her own words on anything she damn well pleases, and under any context. It's her responsibility to deal with the consequences of that action. More power to her, btw, even if her schtick is for just a bunch of shock value.
I upvoted you because I think you made a great point—even though I don't completely agree. I feel that there is a point where speech, despite being allowed constitutionally, can be unacceptable. Not because it offends someone but because it is threatening, abusive, or demeaning. After all, verbally threatening someone is a crime (in most places) even though you're haven't actually harmed someone.
It's very interesting. It reminds me that here in Spain, we use 'f-words' constantly. We say "negro" (black) to our black friends and is nothing bad. Why would I say the ultra-political-correct "african" or "afroamerican"?
Same with gay, homosexual, etc. Doesn't mean anything bad.
I'm quite surprised with all the videoclips/songs, tv shows and videogames that avoid f-words or are edited (with noises).
People sometimes want to harm with words, words themselves mean nothing.
Same with gay, homosexual, etc. Doesn't mean anything bad.
I'm quite surprised with all the videoclips/songs, tv shows and videogames that avoid f-words or are edited (with noises).
People sometimes want to harm with words, words themselves mean nothing.
Spain is a bit further down the euphemism treadmill than we are--calling black people "negros" (btw, in America calling them "black" is acceptable) is okay because the actual racists still go to soccer matches and make monkey noises and throw bananas on the field whenever an African player has the ball[1]. In America, racism is taboo and that kind of nonsense will get you kicked out of the stadium (plus it makes no sense to heckle the majority of the athletes), so the actual racists can only act a little coy, forcing the rest of us to be extra polite, just so we don't seem racist.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Etoo#Racism
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Etoo#Racism
I end up having an if-by-whiskey argument with myself about this, especially regarding the "n-word."
If by saying the n-word casually, you mean removing the hatred and power behind a word which has divided our people for centuries by giving it a new and friendly connotation, then of course I am for it.
If by saying the n-word casually, you mean flippantly dismissing decades of institutionalized enslavement and murder, and a constant reminder that for all our progress we are still very much two nations, then I despise it.
Its clear to me though that the n-word still causes a great deal of pain to many of my brothers and sisters, and I want no part of that. So even though I hope that someday the n-word will lose this meaning, you're not going to hear it coming out of my mouth.
If by saying the n-word casually, you mean removing the hatred and power behind a word which has divided our people for centuries by giving it a new and friendly connotation, then of course I am for it.
If by saying the n-word casually, you mean flippantly dismissing decades of institutionalized enslavement and murder, and a constant reminder that for all our progress we are still very much two nations, then I despise it.
Its clear to me though that the n-word still causes a great deal of pain to many of my brothers and sisters, and I want no part of that. So even though I hope that someday the n-word will lose this meaning, you're not going to hear it coming out of my mouth.
I don't think being offended by any word is rational. Be offended by actions and events.
The list of outlawed words is growing by the day which is just ridiculous.
Nigger is used in rap music all the time.
You'd hear it come out of my mouth:
The list of outlawed words is growing by the day which is just ridiculous.
Nigger is used in rap music all the time.
You'd hear it come out of my mouth:
1. If singing along to R&B Rap etc
2. If quoting some comedy or trying to be funny
I try not to use the word but it slips occasionally. And to be honest, the word in itself does not offend me, only how it is used. Now for the big but...about ten years ago I was at the mall. I saw a white kid and black kid hanging out together. They were going back and forth, saying nigga as if they were in a hip hop video.I wouldn't prefer it but still was not bothered enough to says something about it.
Now, this older lady walks past and she is at least in her 70's. She hears this white kid yelling nigga in the middle of the mall, laughing about it. I see her eyes and its not anger but hurt and fear. Those words meant something powerful and deep to her because she lived during that time when if you heard the word, there was a good chance you wouldn't make it home that night. After that, I as a black person feel guilt every time I say it. It still slips out every now and then but I try my best.
Now, this older lady walks past and she is at least in her 70's. She hears this white kid yelling nigga in the middle of the mall, laughing about it. I see her eyes and its not anger but hurt and fear. Those words meant something powerful and deep to her because she lived during that time when if you heard the word, there was a good chance you wouldn't make it home that night. After that, I as a black person feel guilt every time I say it. It still slips out every now and then but I try my best.
Words themselves do not matter, it's after all just a sound we make. The important thing is the emotion behind the utterance, the context and also the interpretation of the meaning of the word.
Like what you said, the n-word means different things to the old lady and the kids. The kids are at ease using the word while the lady is not. Words which are very acceptable nowadays may turn out to be taboo in the future.
Like what you said, the n-word means different things to the old lady and the kids. The kids are at ease using the word while the lady is not. Words which are very acceptable nowadays may turn out to be taboo in the future.
Watch out. White people saying the word "nigger" because they're trying to be funny end up being this guy: http://www.tmz.com/2006/11/20/kramers-racist-tirade-caught-o...
Nah he wasn't being funny. He was just trying to shock people and being offensive.
Funny would be Ali G talking about his homies niggaz pimpin' gangsta stuff.
Funny would be Ali G talking about his homies niggaz pimpin' gangsta stuff.
I didn't say he was being funny. I said he was trying to be funny. The crucial point is that white people very rarely succeed in being funny when they say "nigger".
I'm not at all convinced he was trying to be funny, which is the crucial difference for me. If he had been really trying to amuse his audience, no matter how cringe-worthy, I think they would have (and should have) let him off the hook. But he was really angry at the hecklers and it definitely didn't seem to me like he was using the word to make them or anyone else laugh.
Angry shouting, and saying things to shock people, are both well-known comedic techniques though. So it's just as possible he's just a lousy comedian.
But this is a tangent. We should really be discussing the lousy comedian this thread is supposed to be about.
But this is a tangent. We should really be discussing the lousy comedian this thread is supposed to be about.
I am offended at people using it even on this board.
Yes, I am a rational person and words shouldn't affect me, but the fact of the matter is that there are deep seeded emotions behind the usage.
Whats so wrong with saying n-word when referring to it?
Yes, I am a rational person and words shouldn't affect me, but the fact of the matter is that there are deep seeded emotions behind the usage.
Whats so wrong with saying n-word when referring to it?
Whats so wrong with saying n-word when referring to it?
Because to matter how much lipstick you slap on a pig, it's still a pig.
(Apologies to my sus brethren.)((Oh, and just be clear, we're talking about the word and the word only.))
Because to matter how much lipstick you slap on a pig, it's still a pig.
(Apologies to my sus brethren.)((Oh, and just be clear, we're talking about the word and the word only.))
Whats so wrong with saying n-word when referring to it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N6Phmale_Q#t=1m58s (nsfw)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N6Phmale_Q#t=1m58s (nsfw)
There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying 'n-word' instead of 'nigger'. You can call it anything you feel comfortable with. If you take offense to others saying 'nigger' then I apologize, that was not the intent. Do you also get offended when you hear some rapper saying 'nigger' in a song or interview?
Well knowing that it does affect people, why would you use it at all? It kills me when people try to justify their nonsense.
Think of it this way. Membership in an oppressed group has its obvious detriments but it also has a few benefits...if you want to see it as a benefit. The benefit is that members can use the word but no one else can.
Gays can use the f word - noone else can Blacks can use the n word - noone else can women can use the b word - no one else can.
The real question is why are you fighting to be able to say it?
Think of it this way. Membership in an oppressed group has its obvious detriments but it also has a few benefits...if you want to see it as a benefit. The benefit is that members can use the word but no one else can.
Gays can use the f word - noone else can Blacks can use the n word - noone else can women can use the b word - no one else can.
The real question is why are you fighting to be able to say it?
People are offended by a ton of ridiculous stuff.
It's actually quite hard to work out what words you're talking about :/ Why not just write them.
>> "The real question is why are you fighting to be able to say it?"
Because I don't think it's healthy to attach such horror and outrage at simple words. It's like in Harry Potter where they dare not mention the V word, they just refer to him as 'he who should not be named'.
It's actually quite hard to work out what words you're talking about :/ Why not just write them.
>> "The real question is why are you fighting to be able to say it?"
Because I don't think it's healthy to attach such horror and outrage at simple words. It's like in Harry Potter where they dare not mention the V word, they just refer to him as 'he who should not be named'.
"It's actually quite hard to work out what words you're talking about :/ Why not just write them."
Here, I'll rewrite it, since I have no compunction against saying offensive words in a conversation about offensive words.
Gays can use the "faggot" - noone else can Blacks can use "nigger" - noone else can women can use "bitch" - no one else can.
Here, I'll rewrite it, since I have no compunction against saying offensive words in a conversation about offensive words.
Gays can use the "faggot" - noone else can Blacks can use "nigger" - noone else can women can use "bitch" - no one else can.
women can use the b word - no one else can.
This one's actually news to me. I'm glad I never bothered keeping up with trends in political correctness, it seems to be a battle fought over shifting sands that cannot be won.
This one's actually news to me. I'm glad I never bothered keeping up with trends in political correctness, it seems to be a battle fought over shifting sands that cannot be won.
In the US, "negro" was once the accepted term; you'll hear it in old TV and radio or in literature, and all in the same tone as one might say "caucasian" or "asian". Eventually, we decided it wasn't so great and switched to "black". When you, in Spain, say "negro", it's the equivalent of us saying "black".
I don't think any of us say "afroamerican", but we do use "African American" even when the person in question is not American--it's kind of silly.
And yes, we say f*ck (censored because I don't remember the HN rules) constantly here too, but that's generally in a specific context: working on something with friends, out with other college students, etc. My friends and I, and most people I know, tend to not swear much around our elders or children; it's censored on TV because the audience is much wider than the couple friends you're hanging out with.
I don't think any of us say "afroamerican", but we do use "African American" even when the person in question is not American--it's kind of silly.
And yes, we say f*ck (censored because I don't remember the HN rules) constantly here too, but that's generally in a specific context: working on something with friends, out with other college students, etc. My friends and I, and most people I know, tend to not swear much around our elders or children; it's censored on TV because the audience is much wider than the couple friends you're hanging out with.
Reminds me of this: http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/2008/09/12/louis-ck-hates...
As far as censorship goes, look what we can do now thanks to years of bleeping and blurring: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8Vh9_Hi1kY
As far as censorship goes, look what we can do now thanks to years of bleeping and blurring: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8Vh9_Hi1kY
And then there's this old classic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXFz7vqbk1o
[deleted]
[deleted]
barredo, I'm very surprised you say this. I don't use to watch TV, but every time I do, I find the politicians are noticeably more politically correct in their language than the previous time: "subsaharianos", "ciudadanos y ciudadanas" (even if Spanish, unlike English, doesn't ask for this kind of distinction), "discapacidad", "etnia"... IOW se la cogen con papel de fumar :-)
An interesting question is: will the TED video of Silverman's talk be made equally available as other talks?
There's a spectrum of things the organizers might do to try to distance themselves. Most extreme would be to not put Silverman's video up at all, or bleep it. Milder options would be hiding her talk from indexes, demoting it in search results, or wrapping it in disclaimers.
(I hope they treat her talk exactly the same as every other TED talk, but they may not be able to resist the strong social pressure to show 'sensitivity' and thus shun Silverman at some level.)
There's a spectrum of things the organizers might do to try to distance themselves. Most extreme would be to not put Silverman's video up at all, or bleep it. Milder options would be hiding her talk from indexes, demoting it in search results, or wrapping it in disclaimers.
(I hope they treat her talk exactly the same as every other TED talk, but they may not be able to resist the strong social pressure to show 'sensitivity' and thus shun Silverman at some level.)
Well I read an interview with the founder guy and he indicated that only 66%-75% of the talks ever make to videos on the site. Given that 25% to 33% of talks never make it up then even if Silverman's doesn't appear it's not necessarily been "singled out" or treated specially.
Given the amount of press around this particular talk, I'd say it's too late to claim that it's not being singled out. But there is a delay, and they might be able to give it a soft veto if all this blows over.
I seem to remember a talk about Abu Ghraib where the TED folks tagged a warning about the disturbing nature of some of the photos to the beginning of the video. I think they also censored the more disturbing photos (omitting them completely).
I'd hope, at a minimum, they post a bleeped version!
People are going to be asking to see it after all the attention it's received.
Plus it sounds like a number of folks gave her a standing ovation - so it's not exactly like it was a complete disgrace. Kind of bad enough for Chris Anderson to slam an invited speaker so publicly - hopefully TED doesn't act petty about it.
TEDtalks are licensed under Creative Commons. Anyone know if speakers have the right to obtain a copy of their individual talks to share, even if they don't make the site?
I'd hope, at a minimum, they post a bleeped version!
People are going to be asking to see it after all the attention it's received.
Plus it sounds like a number of folks gave her a standing ovation - so it's not exactly like it was a complete disgrace. Kind of bad enough for Chris Anderson to slam an invited speaker so publicly - hopefully TED doesn't act petty about it.
TEDtalks are licensed under Creative Commons. Anyone know if speakers have the right to obtain a copy of their individual talks to share, even if they don't make the site?
Everyone needs to lighten up. I like Sarah, I think part of her standup is funny. The joke isn't that she's using the word retarded, the joke is the utter ridiculousness of her approaching an adoption agency and saying, "please give me your most retarded baby, but I also want them to be terminally ill."
Maybe I'm insensitive or too immature, but that makes me laugh like crazy. Just imaging the look on the adoption agency person's face is hilarious.
Here's a similar clip of Evil Dave Letterman from the Howard Stern show calling an adoption agency asking for a black kid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXrhI2q-EeI
Maybe I'm insensitive or too immature, but that makes me laugh like crazy. Just imaging the look on the adoption agency person's face is hilarious.
Here's a similar clip of Evil Dave Letterman from the Howard Stern show calling an adoption agency asking for a black kid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXrhI2q-EeI
IMO, Silverman had less of a chance of getting away with this at a TED talk because she's really not that clever. Her schtick is: cute innocent jewish girl + naughty words = hilarity.
I cringed when the article compared her use of the word 'retard' to Colbert's routine where he calls Palin a 'fucking retard'. Here's the difference: Colbert spent about 10 minutes building up to the slur. The political allusions, the searing sarcasm, and the final shockingly unsubtle slur was brilliant. And made me cry from laughing.
Silverman, OTOH, has reached the level of humor that I got bored with in 7th grade. If her routine actually had some intelligence to it, she probably could have gotten away with much worse.
I cringed when the article compared her use of the word 'retard' to Colbert's routine where he calls Palin a 'fucking retard'. Here's the difference: Colbert spent about 10 minutes building up to the slur. The political allusions, the searing sarcasm, and the final shockingly unsubtle slur was brilliant. And made me cry from laughing.
Silverman, OTOH, has reached the level of humor that I got bored with in 7th grade. If her routine actually had some intelligence to it, she probably could have gotten away with much worse.
It doesn't matter if you're a fundamentalist Christian or a liberal progressive, the temptation to take something at face value and act morally superior is stronger than the one to interpret the intent behind what's being said.
The claim about Sarah Silverman's 'brilliance' seems to be this:
"Saying the word 'retarded' can only have extreme negative power if you let it and Sarah Silverman is brave, because she got on stage in front of some global minds and dropped it over and over and over."
To call Sarah Silverman 'brave' for repeating this naughty word in front of a TED audience really is retarded. If this is what it means to be a subversive comedian in 2010, Richard Pryor must be turning in his grave.
"Saying the word 'retarded' can only have extreme negative power if you let it and Sarah Silverman is brave, because she got on stage in front of some global minds and dropped it over and over and over."
To call Sarah Silverman 'brave' for repeating this naughty word in front of a TED audience really is retarded. If this is what it means to be a subversive comedian in 2010, Richard Pryor must be turning in his grave.
You have simultaneously missed the point of the article and demonstrated it.
From the descriptions, there is no question that Sarah used the word 'retard' in the technically correct context, and NOT as a derogatory term. Sarah's brand of humour is based on shock and blatant unabashed selfishness. It clearly shows the difference between using a 'politically incorrect' word a few times and being genuinely offensive.
Using the word 'retard' as an insult (the way you just did) doesn't just insult the person being referred to - it implies that people who are actually retarded have something to be ashamed of.
I understand why the audience may have been outraged by the jokes (i.e. adopting a vulnerable child for self-aggrandisement). YOU have also managed to be offensive.
From the descriptions, there is no question that Sarah used the word 'retard' in the technically correct context, and NOT as a derogatory term. Sarah's brand of humour is based on shock and blatant unabashed selfishness. It clearly shows the difference between using a 'politically incorrect' word a few times and being genuinely offensive.
Using the word 'retard' as an insult (the way you just did) doesn't just insult the person being referred to - it implies that people who are actually retarded have something to be ashamed of.
I understand why the audience may have been outraged by the jokes (i.e. adopting a vulnerable child for self-aggrandisement). YOU have also managed to be offensive.
What's subversive about it is that if she'd not used the word "retarded" her routine would not have had impact.
There is a sense in which PC language suppresses the real struggle that comes with difficult social issues, sterilizes them for us, and makes them into abstract problems that everyone can claim to care about but do nothing about.
Silverman's insight was that by breaking out of the PC mold she was able to shine the spotlight on a difficult social issue.
Is it the highest level of subversive comedy? Probably not, but it's certainly a courageous form of activism.
There is a sense in which PC language suppresses the real struggle that comes with difficult social issues, sterilizes them for us, and makes them into abstract problems that everyone can claim to care about but do nothing about.
Silverman's insight was that by breaking out of the PC mold she was able to shine the spotlight on a difficult social issue.
Is it the highest level of subversive comedy? Probably not, but it's certainly a courageous form of activism.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Was this a joke or did someone earnestly write this: http://twitter.com/gaberivera/status/8976199410
I find Sarah Silverman to be hilarious.
I find Sarah Silverman to be hilarious.
Gabe is the founder of Techmeme and, from what I've read of his, both heavy on the sarcasm and a little anti-Valley. I'm sure that was how this was intended.
From it's Twitter Bio "Sometimes I say what I mean. Sometimes I say the opposite." — That's a good alibi.
Amazing comment from original post (BenT):
"
Oh for pete’s sake it’s Sara Silverman! She’s a shock and insult comic! WTF did they expect!? Had they never seen a show of hers?
"Oh my god I bought this grenade pulled out the pin and it totally blew up my house! This grenade sucks!"
"
"
Oh for pete’s sake it’s Sara Silverman! She’s a shock and insult comic! WTF did they expect!? Had they never seen a show of hers?
"Oh my god I bought this grenade pulled out the pin and it totally blew up my house! This grenade sucks!"
"
Best line in article: "The world needs to take many things seriously and many things less seriously. The world needs to get its sense of humor back. It needs to allow people to express themselves without feeling the overwhelming pressures of society bearing down and being a social pariah."
[deleted]
I wish I could see her performance for myself, as I find her hilarious, but the description of Sarah's performance made me cringe.
Not because of the word "retarded," but because she said she would adopt a terminally ill person. I struggle to see how she could make light of something like that...
Not because of the word "retarded," but because she said she would adopt a terminally ill person. I struggle to see how she could make light of something like that...
She makes light of everything. The things that make you cringe are her favorite topics. You can get a sense from her movie, 'Sarah Silverman: Jesus is Magic', or Comedy Central TV series, 'The Sarah Silverman Program'.
If TED organizers didn't expect as much, their planning was performed in an intellectually-disabled manner. (Is that phrasing R-Word-campaign-approved?)
If TED organizers didn't expect as much, their planning was performed in an intellectually-disabled manner. (Is that phrasing R-Word-campaign-approved?)
TED has special needs
I think it was actually a really good. It was pushing poltically correct ideas to the extreme.
Comics like this are meant to shock and disgust us with what they say if nothing else to throw our own thoughts into perspective.
Comics like this are meant to shock and disgust us with what they say if nothing else to throw our own thoughts into perspective.
Season 1 - Episode 4 of Dinner for Five has Sarah Silverman as one of the guests. One of the "segments" has a discussion of a similar incident with Sarah Silverman and another word. Kevin Pollak and Ron Livingston's commentary is pretty interesting.
While I agree with the headline, the word "brilliant" isn't used in the article.
retard, v. To slow the progress of; impede or delay
retarded, adj. Slow or backward in mental or emotional development
Those sound innocuous enough to me, but "challenged" is the vogue and should be safe for 20 years or so.
retarded, adj. Slow or backward in mental or emotional development
Those sound innocuous enough to me, but "challenged" is the vogue and should be safe for 20 years or so.
Based on the reaction Sarah Silverman got, I'm pretty sure the TED audience would have lynched Bill Hicks.
>It pisses me off to no end that I can’t use that word out of fear for my own life
This is easily the most offensive sentence in the article. Black people are not mythical stabby monsters.
This is easily the most offensive sentence in the article. Black people are not mythical stabby monsters.
There are essentially two types of comedians: "intelligent humor" and "dick and fart jokes". Silverman falls into the latter; Bill Hicks in the former...
disagree.
words have power, and that aint going anywhere.
words have power, and that aint going anywhere.
Now I'm just plain confused. I had finally figured out that the tooth fairy, bigfoot, jimmy carter, and women with a genuine sense of humor were all just made up by my parents. And now you tell me that at least some of them are real?
Making fun of mentally retarded people isn't funny. They are victims of circumstance, and its sad that they'll never be productive, self-supporting individuals.
Making fun of people like Sarah Palin, who believe that they are virtuous because they choose to bring mentally retarded people into this world, is funny. In this case, the comedian attacks a cruel ideology that puts pain and suffering on a pedestal.
Sarah Silverman should have made it more clear who she was making fun of. Her audience was uncomfortable because they thought that she was making fun of retarded people.
Making fun of people like Sarah Palin, who believe that they are virtuous because they choose to bring mentally retarded people into this world, is funny. In this case, the comedian attacks a cruel ideology that puts pain and suffering on a pedestal.
Sarah Silverman should have made it more clear who she was making fun of. Her audience was uncomfortable because they thought that she was making fun of retarded people.
To anyone who down-voted, I'm curious to know why. There have been at least 5 down-votes, but no replies.
Because this reads like a pro-choice joke:
Making fun of people like Sarah Palin, who believe that they are virtuous because they choose to bring mentally retarded people into this world, is funny.
Sarah Palin is an idiot, but people who don't kill their own children merely because they have some issues are relatively virtuous.
Well you asked..
Making fun of people like Sarah Palin, who believe that they are virtuous because they choose to bring mentally retarded people into this world, is funny.
Sarah Palin is an idiot, but people who don't kill their own children merely because they have some issues are relatively virtuous.
Well you asked..
Thanks for replying. I completely disagree with the premises behind your statement that "people who don't kill their own children merely because they have some issues are relatively virtuous." But I know better than to argue with anti-abortionists.
But I know better than to argue with anti-abortionists.
Shame on you. Without that sentence, your comment would have been cool - instead you patronize me.
I'm an atheist, liberal (mostly), and almost certainly not one of the typical "pro-lifers" you're looking down your nose at. My distaste of laissez-faire abortions does not make me "anti-abortionist."
I believe abortion should be very much a "last choice" that's heavily regulated. In the standard terminology that makes me more "pro life" than "pro choice" - yet if someone makes a long, hard decision to have an abortion, I'm in support of them being able to effect that. It just shouldn't be easy to do.
Shame on you. Without that sentence, your comment would have been cool - instead you patronize me.
I'm an atheist, liberal (mostly), and almost certainly not one of the typical "pro-lifers" you're looking down your nose at. My distaste of laissez-faire abortions does not make me "anti-abortionist."
I believe abortion should be very much a "last choice" that's heavily regulated. In the standard terminology that makes me more "pro life" than "pro choice" - yet if someone makes a long, hard decision to have an abortion, I'm in support of them being able to effect that. It just shouldn't be easy to do.
[deleted]
I'm sorry I offended you. I should have said that I don't want to get into an argument with an anti-abortionist about abortion.
> I completely disagree with the premises behind your statement that "people who don't kill their own children merely because they have some issues are relatively virtuous."
Fair enough. So, let's find out what issues qualify and how this all works.
Let's start with the obvious - are fetus' special and when? For example, if a pregnant woman doesn't find out about the issues until a week before birth, do you think that it's wrong for her to not abort? How about if she finds out a week after birth? Should the kid be killed?
Now let's talk about issues. How retarded is too retarded to live? Is retarded the only issue? How about blind, deaf, missing a limb or two? What about the mother's circumstances? Suppose she's a crack addict. Or, just incredibly poor. Or retarded? (There's progressive supreme court decision arguing that "three generations of imbiciles is enough" - the case involved forcible sterilization.)
Me - I'm pro-abortion. (Yes, I know that pro-choice folks say that folks like me don't exist. Unlike some of them, I'm just honest.) However, I'd never tell someone that they're obligated to have an abortion.
Fair enough. So, let's find out what issues qualify and how this all works.
Let's start with the obvious - are fetus' special and when? For example, if a pregnant woman doesn't find out about the issues until a week before birth, do you think that it's wrong for her to not abort? How about if she finds out a week after birth? Should the kid be killed?
Now let's talk about issues. How retarded is too retarded to live? Is retarded the only issue? How about blind, deaf, missing a limb or two? What about the mother's circumstances? Suppose she's a crack addict. Or, just incredibly poor. Or retarded? (There's progressive supreme court decision arguing that "three generations of imbiciles is enough" - the case involved forcible sterilization.)
Me - I'm pro-abortion. (Yes, I know that pro-choice folks say that folks like me don't exist. Unlike some of them, I'm just honest.) However, I'd never tell someone that they're obligated to have an abortion.
Have a baby if you feel like having a baby, but there's lots of great reasons to have an abortion; almost 100% of them are none of our fucking business, unless we're involved in the fucking.
That's nice, but the claim was that there was something wrong with not having an abortion in certain circumstances. I'm trying to nail down some of those circumstances.
I don't see that claim anywhere. I only see the claim that not having an abortion in certain circumstances is not more virtuous than having one.
My guess, no one thinks she was making fun of retarded people and everyone knows she was making fun of Sarah Palin and her campaign to neuter the english language.
I'm not from North America and as such wasn't aware of Sarah Palin's campaign against the word "retard."
In fact, we happen to find Sarah Palin a bit of a comedian herself... And don't take her seriously.
In fact, we happen to find Sarah Palin a bit of a comedian herself... And don't take her seriously.
Yes, she's a joke.
But you won't be laughing when/if someday she ends up President with the nuke codes on her desk.
But you won't be laughing when/if someday she ends up President with the nuke codes on her desk.
In a poll taken earlier this month, 55 percent of the people surveyed had an unfavorable opinion of Palin, and 71 percent said she was not qualified to be President. I don't know why the media still treats her every tweet as newsworthy, because as a national political figure, she's a joke.
And I'm not sure she wants to become President. She can continue to have a lucrative career on the lecture/pundit circuit, playing to that sliver of the population that does consider her to speak for Real True American Common-Sense Values. Why ruin such a good thing by seeking votes from more moderate voters or, heck, actually trying to run a country?
And I'm not sure she wants to become President. She can continue to have a lucrative career on the lecture/pundit circuit, playing to that sliver of the population that does consider her to speak for Real True American Common-Sense Values. Why ruin such a good thing by seeking votes from more moderate voters or, heck, actually trying to run a country?
Turn those statistics around,
The disturbing thing is that some 30% of the electorate think she's so great she should run the country, 45% think she's pretty swell and some similar number didn't think she wasn't an automatic disqualification for the McCain campaign. More amazing is that these numbers are the numbers after the election, when she was revealed to be a dimwitted, incurious, manipulative, unethical and generally dishonest person of the highest caliber.
She's had the traditional upward trajectory of a shooting-star politician: local council, mayor, governor, and VP candidate (notice mostly executive positions, not legislative). At each stage she could have backed out and gone to the simple life of fishing and hunting while her husband ran snowmobile races or whatever in between trying to get Alaska to succeed from the Union. But she didn't, she kept stepping up and up and up, demonstrating a near limitless ambition. This is not the kind of thing one can indefinitely keep at bay with a few speaking gigs and some TV time on Fox.
She's not an ideals person (she can't even get through an interview without reading notes off of her hand), or somebody of a unifying or consistent internal vision, what she has is limitless ambition.
Considering that most people had never even heard of her before the election, and she still has this kind of following afterwards (despite these obvious shortcomings) would make me want to get her out on speaking engagements and doing favorable TV spots as much as possible for the next couple of years.
Mark my words, she will be a candidate for President in the next election cycle starting in a year or two.
The disturbing thing is that some 30% of the electorate think she's so great she should run the country, 45% think she's pretty swell and some similar number didn't think she wasn't an automatic disqualification for the McCain campaign. More amazing is that these numbers are the numbers after the election, when she was revealed to be a dimwitted, incurious, manipulative, unethical and generally dishonest person of the highest caliber.
She's had the traditional upward trajectory of a shooting-star politician: local council, mayor, governor, and VP candidate (notice mostly executive positions, not legislative). At each stage she could have backed out and gone to the simple life of fishing and hunting while her husband ran snowmobile races or whatever in between trying to get Alaska to succeed from the Union. But she didn't, she kept stepping up and up and up, demonstrating a near limitless ambition. This is not the kind of thing one can indefinitely keep at bay with a few speaking gigs and some TV time on Fox.
She's not an ideals person (she can't even get through an interview without reading notes off of her hand), or somebody of a unifying or consistent internal vision, what she has is limitless ambition.
Considering that most people had never even heard of her before the election, and she still has this kind of following afterwards (despite these obvious shortcomings) would make me want to get her out on speaking engagements and doing favorable TV spots as much as possible for the next couple of years.
Mark my words, she will be a candidate for President in the next election cycle starting in a year or two.
Sorry, I forgot to post the link to the poll numbers themselves:
http://www.pollingreport.com/p.htm#Palin
Observe how her unfavorable ratings have been going almost monotonically upward since the election. The more people hear about Palin, the less they like her.
http://www.pollingreport.com/p.htm#Palin
Observe how her unfavorable ratings have been going almost monotonically upward since the election. The more people hear about Palin, the less they like her.
Thank you. You've singlehandedly renewed my faith in humanity.
I hate to write a political comment, but looks like a slow day on HN.
Palin is like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or Pat Robertson. She is famous and popular among a measurable slice of voters, so she speaks to/for those voters.
I strongly doubt she has a future as a presidential candidate. But as a political figure and news magnet? She's probably just getting started.
One of the interesting things about Palin is that the more she is trashed, the more she is loved by her supporters. So there's a feedback loop going on there. If you really don't like her the best thing to do is simply to stop talking about her.
Palin is like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or Pat Robertson. She is famous and popular among a measurable slice of voters, so she speaks to/for those voters.
I strongly doubt she has a future as a presidential candidate. But as a political figure and news magnet? She's probably just getting started.
One of the interesting things about Palin is that the more she is trashed, the more she is loved by her supporters. So there's a feedback loop going on there. If you really don't like her the best thing to do is simply to stop talking about her.
My grandmother absolutely loves her and I fear if I discuss Palin with her, she'll just like her even more!
Palin is not campaigning against the word. Rather, Rahm Emmanuel, the White House Chief of Staff (who, in general, has a reputation for cursing like a sailor), described certain political opponents as “retarded”, and Palin, whose son has Down’s Syndrome, criticized him for it. If you think Palin was purely motivated by compassion for the developmentally disabled and not at all by the fact that the person she lambasted hails from an opposing political party, then I have a bridge to sell you.
I think that she was making fun of both people like Sarah Palin and retarded people. See this quote: "The only problem with adopting a retarded child is that the retarded child, when you are 80 is well, still retarded"
That's the set-up. The joke is that to fix this "problem", she is only going to adopt a "special needs" child who is also expected to die soon, thus negating the "problem" (that the child will still have "special needs" when you are 80), while being in our paradoxical cultural calculations even more praiseworthy than adopting a "special needs" child who is going to continue to be just as needy for much longer.
It can't really be parsed as mockery of "retarded people" unless you believe she was being earnest and sincere in her calculation and really believed what she was saying. She wasn't. She is a comedian.
It can't really be parsed as mockery of "retarded people" unless you believe she was being earnest and sincere in her calculation and really believed what she was saying. She wasn't. She is a comedian.
How is that making fun of anyone? It's true, and people who actually take care of retarded children and adults have to come to terms with it. Who's going to take care of them when you can't anymore?
The shock comes from finding selfishness in something that isn't selfish at all. How many people would volunteer to take care of retarded children they don't know for even a day?
The shock comes from finding selfishness in something that isn't selfish at all. How many people would volunteer to take care of retarded children they don't know for even a day?
It's making fun of them because she's doing it in the context of a comedian on a stage telling jokes.