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.
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 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.
Comments
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.
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 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.