> 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.
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.
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.
Comments
> 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.
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.
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.