It’s Only Offensive If I Don’t Like Your Politics
Last week there was a big stir because former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin called for President Barack Obama’s Cheif of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, to be fired. Her reasoning was that his use of the word “retard”, which he used to describe liberal groups against Democratic health care motions, calling them “fucking retarded”, was derogatory and basically the equivalent of using the “N-word”.
That was on Monday, and Palin directly called for Emanuel’s firing through her Facebook page (apparently she’s very into Facebook; honestly, I liked it better when you had to be in college to use it). On Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh, who’s no stranger to controversy, basically said he didn’t see anything wrong with what Emanuel said. In fact, he went further, marking it not only as a freedom of speech issue, but taking it a step further and deciding to used “retard” offensively as well, “Our political correct society is acting like some giant insults taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards.” He also said that in order to answer Palin’s complaint, “There’s going to be a retard summit at the White House”. Keep in mind that the “bunch of people who are retards” that he’s referring to there are liberals.
Honestly, both Emanuel and Limbaugh used “retard” in an offensive way. Both used it in the course of their job, so if their employers decide that the use of a derogatory term is enough to fire them, they should be fired. Both used it to refer to the same group of people, liberals, though Emanuel’s comment was limited to a select group of liberals. But, one big difference between what they did is that Emanuel made his utterance in a closed door, private meeting in front of a limited number of people, whereas Limbaugh made his comments, on his national radio show which gets roughly ten million listeners a week. From that perspective alone Limbaugh’s use of the word was far more devastating in its negative effect than Emanuel’s (though it shouldn’t be forgotten that both uses were offensive), so it would seem obvious that Palin, who is so adamant about the subject because she is the mother of a child with Down’s Syndrome, would also call for Limbaugh to be fired.
But, Palin was conspicuously silent on the issue for the majority of the week. While she literally ran to her Facebook page to call for Emanuel’s job, the only communique from Palin in regard to Limbaugh’s comments was a terse one-liner passed through one of her spokespeople, “Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name calling at the expense of others is disrespectful.” That’s hardly the harsh words she had for Emanuel. Hell, she doesn’t even refer to Limbaugh by name. And, Sunday night, we saw why. Speaking directly for the first time about the subject, she said two very different things; first, about Emanuel, she said, “I think he should step down,” then, about Limbaugh, she said, “He was hysterical in that…(Liberals) are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh.”
It’s kind of amazing to me that someone can be that hypocritical and not have their head explode or something. What we’re essentially left with is that Palin doesn’t honestly care about how the derogatory use of “retard” might affect both those with special needs and their family members, but how the derogatory use or “retard” by someone who doesn’t share her political beliefs can be used for her political benefit. When it was somebody she disagreed with politically she was all about calling for his job, but as soon as Rush Limbaugh, one of the few “popular” figures I can think of who’s even more radically right wing than Palin herself, she had no desire to call for his job. In fact, she said that “Rush Limbaugh was using satire” when he referred to liberals as “retards”. I guess it shouldn’t shock me that someone who’s that comfortable with being so openly hypocritical on a national stage doesn’t understand the meaning of satire. I think of the vast majority of politics as a detestable live-action theater that’s main function is to keep the people so pre-occupied with nonsense that they’re unable to wade through the bullshit to figure out what’s really going on, but I have to admit, in a sick sort of way, this was all very fascinating.
What gets me even more than Palin’s continued ridiculousness, is the fact that every article I looked up on the subject had “retard” right there in plain sight. You’ll notice that when I mentioned the comparison to the “N-word” I wrote ‘the “N-word”‘ and not the actual word. That’s because it’s become accepted in academic and journalistic circles that you’re not supposed to write out that word, but to use the “N-word” instead. But, if that’s the case, if that offensive word is to be censored, why is it acceptable to write out all the other offensive words? Why, in an article about how “retard” is offensive, is it Ok to write out “retard”? Why is it every time I read an article about offensive racial slurs toward Latinos or Asians or any other ethnicity they clearly write out the offending words, but when an article talks about offensive words aimed at black people, they never write out the “N-word”? In no way am I trying to trivialize this, or downplay the offensiveness of the “N-word”, I’m merely trying to understand why it’s Ok to write one word and not the other. Why (and how) do newspapers determine that one word is more offensive than the other? If they’re all offensive, wouldn’t it make sense to just not have any of them in there, to censor them all? This is just one of those things that’s never made sense to me.
