• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Palin Blasts Emanuel for Calling Dem Idea 'Retarded'

jallman said:
And all that aside, Rush Limbaugh is expected to be tasteless and classless. He is radio shock jock with a side of political commentary, not some government appointed, high ranking official. There is an expectation of civility and respect in the discourse that Rahm is part of. There is no such expectation when it comes to Rush Limbaugh. You can turn Rush Limbaugh off. We're still paying for the services of Rahm until 2012.
Click to expand...

Those low standards didn't apply to Don Imus apparently.
 
apdst said:
Rahmbeaux is the president's chief of staff. According to the Liberals, Rush is just an entertainer. Remember?

Surely, the Liberals would want to hold the president's chief of staff to a higher standard.
Click to expand...

But see, now that you point out the obvious disparity in their positions, some dumbass is going to come behind you and start spewing that whole "Rush is the leader of the GOP" crap that disney screeches every chance he gets.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Those low standards didn't apply to Don Imus apparently.
Click to expand...

Which was also rather ridiculous honestly. That said, if I remember correctly, it was individuals becoming upset and threatening to boycott advertisers which caused CBS to take action against Imus and not them simply doing it because what he said was bad. Correct?

Not to mention, again, those are different situations as Rush was doing satire and parody where as Imus was actually being purposefully insulting.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Ok, we get it. The leader of the Republican Party and Conservative Movement should not be held to the same standards as the Whitehouse Chief of Staff. Thats a good point.
Click to expand...

Oh.

My.

God!!!!

Wait, I can't get points for calling someone a dumbass in the hypothetical sense in one post if they go and make it a self fulfilling prophecy in another post, can I?
 
jallman said:
But see, now that you point out the obvious disparity in their positions, some dumbass is going to come behind you and start spewing that whole "Rush is the leader of the GOP" crap that disney screeches every chance he gets.
Click to expand...

:doh Read up

SouthernDemocrat said:
Ok, we get it. The leader of the Republican Party
Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes, and Putin does not run Russia either. Mao did not run China, his premier did. I get it. Thats why Republicans are never afraid to stand up to Rush.

Zyphlin, you would be a pretty smart guy if you did not have your head so far up the GOP's ass. ;)
Click to expand...

It was a good laugh though. I really need to start keeping a running tally of how many time hyper partisans try to tell me how much I'm helping/biased for/have my head up the ass of the side opposite of them simply for daring to actually look at something with an ounce of intellectual honesty and objectivity and not just saying something purely based on party lines.
 
Zyphlin said:
:doh Read up





It was a good laugh though. I really need to start keeping a running tally of how many time hyper partisans try to tell me how much I'm helping/biased for/have my head up the ass of the side opposite of them simply for daring to actually look at something with an ounce of intellectual honesty and objectivity and not just saying something purely based on party lines.
Click to expand...

You do find that it's the same usual suspects almost every time. We all know who they will be and what team they will be batting for the moment we read the OP, usually. :shrug:
 
Rush not in white house

Neither is Mrs Alaska

But sadly Rham is

......

Failure of Healthcare

Rham is responsible for,

on substance that is

....

Holy **** I get the Prof now. He's speaking in Haiku!
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Ok, we get it. The leader of the Republican Party and Conservative Movement should not be held to the same standards as the Whitehouse Chief of Staff. Thats a good point.
Click to expand...

But, but, but, all this time you Liberals have been telling us that Rush isn't a real journalist; just an entertainer; not even a politician, nor public servant; therefore irrelevant.

However, let's just say--for the sake of argument--that Rush is the bonefide, certified official honcho of the Republican Party. I still think that the president's chief of staff should be held to a higher standard.

Rahmbeaux is on the govrnment payroll. He influences government policy. You're damn right he should be held to a higher standard.

Why wouldn't you want your guys to meet the higher standard?
 
Zyphlin said:
Holy **** I get the Prof now. He's speaking in Haiku!
Click to expand...

it's better than gossip, my opinion

either way, carry on

some more substance---

holder, too, not long for his job

geithner, as well

big shake ups soon to come

remember where you heard it first

sayonara
 
Zyphlin said:
:doh Read up
It was a good laugh though. I really need to start keeping a running tally of how many time hyper partisans try to tell me how much I'm helping/biased for/have my head up the ass of the side opposite of them simply for daring to actually look at something with an ounce of intellectual honesty and objectivity and not just saying something purely based on party lines.
Click to expand...

I don't ridicule your assertions because they are based in intellectual honesty and objectivity. I ridicule them because they are overly idealistic and not the least bit based in reality. You seem to be operating under some kind of fantasy world premise where political parties are not ultimately driven by their base. Rush Limbaugh has an audience of somewhere around 20 million listeners. That is a very significant portion of the Republican Base. In fact, he has a bigger audience than anyone in the party leadership does. Thus, he comes closer to being the party's leader than anyone in elected office does, and thats why Republicans in office will hardly ever take him on because they don't want a guy that talks to a significant portion of their voters on a daily basis to pick a fight with them. Thus this gives him more influence over the Republican Party than anyone else out there.
 
I knew you were going to ignor my post, Southern Democrat. The irony too much for you, or what?
 
apdst said:
I knew you were going to ignor my post, Southern Democrat. The irony too much for you, or what?
Click to expand...

Which post? The one where you asked if there was "a difference between a nigger and a black person". It's a flawed comparison. I made the observation that Sarah Palin is white trash. That is not the same thing as calling a black person the n-word. Its more comparable to calling an in city gangster, a thug.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I don't ridicule your assertions because they are based in intellectual honesty and objectivity. I ridicule them because they are overly idealistic and not the least bit based in reality.
Click to expand...

You mean sort of like the assertions that Rush is the head of the Republican party? Yeeeeah. Oooookay.:whothere:
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Which post? The one where you asked if there was "a difference between a nigger and a black person". It's a flawed comparison. I made the observation that Sarah Palin is white trash. That is not the same thing as calling a black person the n-word. Its more comparable to calling an in city gangster, a thug.
Click to expand...

So, all those black girls who got knocked-up at 16, what would you call them? Black trash?

You've been owned...admit it. You might want to rethink your white trash comparitives.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I don't ridicule your assertions because they are based in intellectual honesty and objectivity. I ridicule them because they are overly idealistic and not the least bit based in reality. You seem to be operating under some kind of fantasy world premise where political parties are not ultimately driven by their base. Rush Limbaugh has an audience of somewhere around 20 million listeners. That is a very significant portion of the Republican Base. In fact, he has a bigger audience than anyone in the party leadership does. Thus, he comes closer to being the party's leader than anyone in elected office does, and thats why Republicans in office will hardly ever take him on because they don't want a guy that talks to a significant portion of their voters on a daily basis to pick a fight with them. Thus this gives him more influence over the Republican Party than anyone else out there.
Click to expand...

Not going after a guy because he's influential, or a useful tool or even a dangerous enemy does not make someone a leader. The Republican Party is just that, a political party. It is not led by any radio host, or tv host for that matter. Influenced? Possibly. Led, not at all. Limbaugh is highly influential, and he reached that point through listernship and through individuals respect through him. This is far different than someone whose influential due to being a high ranking public servant that is supposed to serve the people. At its core the ONLY person Rush Limbaugh should be or needs to be caring about is himself.

And that's what he does. You'll note the GOP's nominee last year was NOT Mitt Romney, the person Rush was strongly pushing for, but John McCain, one of the bottom three guys running from Rush's perspective (McCain, Huckabee, Paul). For someone who is a leader of the political party, he apparently did extremely poorly and did not have quite the influence you believe him to have.

Now, to your second point that he may be a leader of the CONSERVATIVE movement...ie an ideological movement rather than a political party...that one I could potentially see. I don't completely agree 100%, but I would say that he is a definitive leader of his brand of conservatism which is hardly the exclusive form. But even then it would be tenuous to call him such because so much of his show revolves around entertainment and ratings as it does actual political purposes.

Limbaugh, in his stance as a radio show host, does not have the ability to truly "lead" anything. Influence? Definitely. Steer? Perhaps. But truly lead? No.
 
Zyphlin said:
Says you. It is similar. In both cases they are a SLUR against a group of people for a status that is upon them at birth of which they can not choose. Simply because YOU and some of society find one to be "worse" doesn't necessarily that:

1) it is worse
2) that even if it IS worse, that its not comparable

Retarded is a slur. Just as calling someone a nigger is. Just like calling someone a faggot is. Just because one of those three are very common vernacular, and the second is relatively common, doesn't mean they're somehow "less" of a slur than the third. Or if we routinely said "nigger" as a way to describe some random stereotype of people and it was more commonly socially used would you suddenly have a lot less problem with it?



Really? I explained the reasoning behind mine. You know, debate site and all, needing to actually EXPLAIN things instead of just making asinine statements. PARODY AND SATIRE are generally viewed as less offensive than actual, intended insults in our society.
Click to expand...



Please demonstrate, other than your claim, that calling an idea 'retarded' is a slur on par with addressing a person with the racial epithet 'nigger'. You CLAIM to support your debate, and yet, do not. You use alot of words, talk alot, insult board members, but in all those words, you never once demonstrated that calling an idea retarded was on par with this:

Unlike certain age-related comments which we have found too vague to constitute evidence of discrimination,6 the term "nigger" is a universally recognized opprobrium, stigmatizing African-Americans because of their race. That Pippen usually was circumspect in using the term in the presence of African-Americans underscores that he knew it was insulting. Nonetheless, he persisted in demeaning African-Americans by using it among whites. This is racism.7
989 F.2d 858
Click to expand...


Commentator John Ridley's view-point column "Why I'm Good with the 'N' Word" [Dec. 11] disregarded the word's legacy of dehumanizing black people. The mere utterance triggers a mental videotape of hatred, violence and oppression. It's not just "mollycoddles" who oppose it. Employment discrimination based on race and color was pervasive. The epithet nigger was directed daily against black workers. Despite the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's successes in combating discrimination, this practice persists. The N word is so clearly poisonous that even nonblack employees file lawsuits when their co-workers or employers use the term against them. Some white employees charge hostility when blacks use the slur around them. Some employers cite the N word's prevalence in popular culture--and endorsements like Ridley's--to defend referring to black employees as "niggers." Ridley recommended that we simply "relax. Take a deep breath. It's gonna be cool." But we cannot. We will continue our efforts to eradicate this harmful slur from the workplace--forever. NAOMI C. EARP CHAIR, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Washington

Read more: Letters: Jan. 15, 2007 - TIME
Click to expand...


^^^^^^^^^^^ Calling someone a nigger is racist.



re⋅tard
  /rɪˈtɑrd, for 1–3, 5; ˈritɑrd for 4/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-tahrd, for 1–3, 5; ree-tahrd for 4] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede.
–verb (used without object)
2. to be delayed.
–noun
3. a slowing down, diminution, or hindrance, as in a machine.
4. Slang: Disparaging.
a. a mentally retarded person.
b. a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way: a hopeless social retard.
5. Automotive, Machinery. an adjustment made in the setting of the distributor of an internal-combustion engine so that the spark for ignition in each cylinder is generated later in the cycle.

Retarded | Definition of Retarded at Dictionary.com:
Click to expand...


^^^^^^^ an idea to be retarded is not offensive; a person to be a retard is offensive.



nig⋅ger
  /ˈnɪgər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [nig-er] Show IPA
Usage note:
The term nigger is now probably the most offensive word in English. Its degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years, although it has been used in a derogatory manner since at least the Revolutionary War. Definitions 1a, 1b, and 2 represent meanings that are deeply disparaging and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense. Definition 1a, however, is sometimes used among African-Americans in a neutral or familiar way. Definition 3 is not normally considered disparaging—as in “The Irish are the niggers of Europe” from Roddy Doyle's The Commitments—but the other uses are considered contemptuous and hostile.

–noun
1. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive.
a. a black person.
b. a member of any dark-skinned people.
2. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.
3. a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nigger
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I don't see that usage note on the definition page for 'retard' / 'retarded'




So, tell me again, with evidence this time, how nigger and retarded are comparable?
 
Last edited:
jackalope said:
Please demonstrate, other than your claim, that calling an idea 'retarded' is a slur on par with addressing a person with the racial epithet 'nigger'.
Click to expand...

Of course it is.

The reason it became a slur is because it was applied to people with intellectual disabilities. It wouldn't be a slur otherwise.

an idea to be retarded is not offensive; a person to be a retard is offensive.
Click to expand...

As if there's a difference.
 
Using "retarded" to describe something as "slowed" or "hindered" is not a slur. If I say "The pressure on the break pad did not completely stop the cars descent down the ice, but simply retarded it" then I would not be using it as a slur, because I'm using it in teh form of "Slowed" or "hindered movement".

If I went "Its ****ing retarded that pushing the break didn't stop the car on the ice patch" that IS using it as a slur, as its referring to the fact that the breaks didn't stop as
stupid by referencing through slang mentally handicapped people.

If Rham Emanuel had said "The ideas of the Democrats are all conflicting which has retarded the forward movement on this proposal" I would have no issue with it, and would be going after anyone that tried to make a big deal about it.

But he didn't...

He used it as an insult and a slur, attempting to equate the idea through slang to being stupid, similar to a mentally handicapped person.

That is a slur, that is an insult. Simply because some in society seem to view nigger as worse, and honestly I DO think its worse, doesn't mean they're "not comparable" which is what you were arguing. They most certainly ARE comparable, they are both slurs, they are both made to insult and deride by comparing someone or something to something the person feels is a negative (Be it a black person, a gay person, a mentally handicapped person, etc).

To say that calling a person or thing "Retarded" is not comparable, at all, with calling someone a Nigger is to say that somehow its not used as a slur, which is just factually incorrect. YOU are the one that said its "Not comparable" not me, so don't get huffy when your words come back to bite you. They ARE comparable, in that they are both slurs. Could one argue that nigger, or faggot, or any other slur is worse? Sure. But they could not argue they are "not comparable" because they are all slurs.

Retarded, when used in a disparaging way to infer something to be compared to a mentally handicapped person which is the way Rham used it, IS a slur.
 
misterman said:
Of course it is.

The reason it became a slur is because it was applied to people with intellectual disabilities. It wouldn't be a slur otherwise.



As if there's a difference.
Click to expand...



Sorry - evidence? I see no evidence presented, nor have I come across any, to back up what you said.
 
Zyphlin said:
Using "retarded" to describe something as "slowed" or "hindered" is not a slur. If I say "The pressure on the break pad did not completely stop the cars descent down the ice, but simply retarded it" then I would not be using it as a slur, because I'm using it in teh form of "Slowed" or "hindered movement".
Click to expand...

Isn't retard as in to slow something down really a different word with a different pronunciation?

If I went "Its ****ing retarded that pushing the break didn't stop the car on the ice patch" that IS using it as a slur, as its referring to the fact that the breaks didn't stop as
stupid by referencing through slang mentally handicapped people.
Click to expand...

At one time that may have been true, but I think, at least to me, that "retarded" is a colloquialism for stupid. I don't think most people are thinking about handicapped people when they call something retarded.



He used it as an insult and a slur, attempting to equate the idea through slang to being stupid, similar to a mentally handicapped person.
Click to expand...

Again, I doubt that he was thinking about mentally handicapped people when he said it. It's a common phrase, and used mostly just to mean something is stupid.

That is a slur, that is an insult. Simply because some in society seem to view nigger as worse, and honestly I DO think its worse, doesn't mean they're "not comparable" which is what you were arguing. They most certainly ARE comparable, they are both slurs, they are both made to insult and deride by comparing someone or something to something the person feels is a negative (Be it a black person, a gay person, a mentally handicapped person, etc).
Click to expand...

While they are comparable, it's only in a vague way. When people say "niggar", it is with the intention of making a racial slur(with the exception of some in the black community who have taken it over in a way that gays have tried to take over the word "queer"). I think intent does matter. I also think that making the comparison to "niggar" here is over the top, because as you point out, it is worse...much worse to my mind. It's kinda like this type discussions "Godwin rule", when talking about insults, some one has to go to the big one to exaggerate the point.

To say that calling a person or thing "Retarded" is not comparable, at all, with calling someone a Nigger is to say that somehow its not used as a slur, which is just factually incorrect. YOU are the one that said its "Not comparable" not me, so don't get huffy when your words come back to bite you. They ARE comparable, in that they are both slurs. Could one argue that nigger, or faggot, or any other slur is worse? Sure. But they could not argue they are "not comparable" because they are all slurs.

Retarded, when used in a disparaging way to infer something to be compared to a mentally handicapped person which is the way Rham used it, IS a slur.
Click to expand...


While I agree that "Niggar" and "faggot" are worse, I think intent is important. Let's use another common phrase these days to compare. The word I am thinking of is "gay". When some one makes a comment "oh god, this is so gay" meaning lame or the like, I don't think they are thinking about gay people for the most part. Yes, it started from there, but these days, in this context, it's not about gays, and in fact I know a couple gay people who have and do make the "this is so gay" comment.
 
jackalope said:
Sorry - evidence? I see no evidence presented, nor have I come across any, to back up what you said.
Click to expand...

well then, here it is:

Association for RETARDED Citizens (ARC)

notice that slur?

me either
 
Zyphlin said:
Using "retarded" to describe something as "slowed" or "hindered" is not a slur. If I say "The pressure on the break pad did not completely stop the cars descent down the ice, but simply retarded it" then I would not be using it as a slur, because I'm using it in teh form of "Slowed" or "hindered movement".

If I went "Its ****ing retarded that pushing the break didn't stop the car on the ice patch" that IS using it as a slur, as its referring to the fact that the breaks didn't stop as
stupid by referencing through slang mentally handicapped people.

If Rham Emanuel had said "The ideas of the Democrats are all conflicting which has retarded the forward movement on this proposal" I would have no issue with it, and would be going after anyone that tried to make a big deal about it.

But he didn't...

He used it as an insult and a slur, attempting to equate the idea through slang to being stupid, similar to a mentally handicapped person.

That is a slur, that is an insult. Simply because some in society seem to view nigger as worse, and honestly I DO think its worse, doesn't mean they're "not comparable" which is what you were arguing. They most certainly ARE comparable, they are both slurs, they are both made to insult and deride by comparing someone or something to something the person feels is a negative (Be it a black person, a gay person, a mentally handicapped person, etc).

To say that calling a person or thing "Retarded" is not comparable, at all, with calling someone a Nigger is to say that somehow its not used as a slur, which is just factually incorrect. YOU are the one that said its "Not comparable" not me, so don't get huffy when your words come back to bite you. They ARE comparable, in that they are both slurs. Could one argue that nigger, or faggot, or any other slur is worse? Sure. But they could not argue they are "not comparable" because they are all slurs.

Retarded, when used in a disparaging way to infer something to be compared to a mentally handicapped person which is the way Rham used it, IS a slur.
Click to expand...


Huffy, huh? I'm sure if saying that the words 'retarded' and 'nigger' are not comparable is factually incorrect, you can demonstrate, with evidence, the idea that word 'retarded' is as offensive as - or worse than! - the word 'nigger'.


And, perhaps you could do it without using disparaging or insulting words in reference to me?


huff⋅y
  /ˈhʌfi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [huhf-ee] Show IPA
–adjective, huff⋅i⋅er, huff⋅i⋅est.
1. easily offended; touchy.
2. offended; sulky: a huffy mood.
3. snobbish; haughty.
Huffy | Definition of Huffy at Dictionary.com:
Click to expand...


Particularly since YOU'RE the one so easily offended, that you believe (still awaiting evidence) that the word 'retarded' is comparable to the word 'nigger'.


I have offered proof, with objective evidence, that the word 'nigger' is regarded to be a 'universally recognized opprobrium', has a 'legacy of dehumanizing black people. The mere utterance triggers a mental videotape of hatred, violence and oppression', so much so that the EEOC 'will continue ... efforts to eradicate this harmful slur from the workplace--forever.' So much so, that the dictionary.com notes that:

The term nigger is now probably the most offensive word in English. Its degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years, although it has been used in a derogatory manner since at least the Revolutionary War. Definitions 1a, 1b, and 2 represent meanings that are deeply disparaging and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense. Definition 1a, however, is sometimes used among African-Americans in a neutral or familiar way. Definition 3 is not normally considered disparaging—as in “The Irish are the niggers of Europe” from Roddy Doyle's The Commitments—but the other uses are considered contemptuous and hostile.​


Surely you have some objective evidence, other that your unsupported words, to demonstrate the comparably heinous and offensive nature of the word 'retarded'.
 
jackalope said:
Sorry - evidence? I see no evidence presented, nor have I come across any, to back up what you said.
Click to expand...

You need evidence that everyone is thinking of mentally retarded people when they use the term retarded, and that's where the term came from? Come on.

Fine, below is a link with some details about the etymology of the term. It was used for centuries to simply mean "slow" and then soon after it became an official term for intellectual disability, it suddenly was used to mean "stupid.".

Alicia's English 102 Blog: The Transformation of the Word "Retard"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom