Rahm Emanuel said an idea was "f**king retarded." That, I suggested, was unlovely, but didn't warrant Sarah Palin calling for his resignation. Lo these many hours ago, I said, "I do believe it is something of a dead metaphor. If Emanuel had actually, intentionally, singled out a disabled person (or the disabled community) for actual intentional ridicule, he probably should be fired. Or severely reprimanded. But he didn't. I know he didn't. You know damn well he didn't. Just as I don't when I use dumb, or lame, or idiot, or stupid, or moron, etc."
But Rush Limbaugh, bless his black, shriveled heart, did.
Our political correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. I mean these people, these liberal activists are kooks. They are looney tunes. And I’m not going to apologize for it, I’m just quoting Emanuel. It’s in the news. I think their big news is he’s out there calling Obama’s number one supporters f’ing retards. So now there’s going to be a meeting. There’s going to be a retard summit at the White House. Much like the beer summit between Obama and Gates and that cop in Cambridge. (Emphasis mine. Gross indecency his.)Need it be pointed out that there are differences between saying descriptively that someone is mentally retarded, calling a proposal "retarded," and calling cognitively disabled people "retards"? Well. It may indeed need be, but it's pointless. People like this man because they believe he tells it like it is. He is a popular cultural commentator. He will be defended for this.
Sigh.
Posts
It doesn't matter if Mr. Emanuel called an idea effing retarded or if he called the proponents of the idea effing retarded. He should be required to live up to the standards of the Progressives -- and isn't that one of Alinsky's rules? -- and if he doesn't, his opponents should pound him unmercifully. Let me, too, point and jeer at the CoS of President Progressive using insensitive, demeaning, and insulting language. Make him walk the plank, and set an example.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSince when should there be an ideological purity test on either side?
ReplyDeletePlease note that I did not call for Rush Limbaugh's resignation with this post. Not all progressives think there's only one thing to be done about offensive language.
If Progressives can demand political opponents pay a price for using offensive, demeaning language, it only seems fair that the political opponents can likelwise demand Progressives pay a price for using offensive, demeaning language. Otherwise, Progressives look like partisan hypocrites who are only offended when it is politically useful. I mean, fair is fair, right?
ReplyDeleteBy that argument, gay Republicans shouldn't marry when it becomes legal, even if they never had a problem with gay marriage. Why must we be held to a standard that people we sometimes agree with hold up?
ReplyDeleteIf Rahm Emanuel had ever demanded a resignation for someone saying something similar, that would be one thing. But as far as I know, he hasn't.
Look, nobody is arguing that Rahm Emanuel isn't kind of a jerk. Kind of a big jerk, by many accounts. Using the phrase "effing retards" lends credence to the opinion that he is something of a jerk. But he didn't use the phrase for the sake of being offensive. He used it because he's a jerk.
ReplyDeleteLimbaugh, on the other hand, not only used it to mean a particular set of people, but he did so knowing full well that it would be offensive. The offense is intentional. This is, of course, Limbaugh's entire raison d'etre, which is one of the major reasons I consider him one of the worst human beings ever to slither across the face of the earth, but it's no big surprise. However, it is a large part of why what he did was worse.
Any comment from Palin about the latter, by the way?
Just some blather about how no one should use the "r" word. No demanding resignation, natch.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth, I can guarantee that when gay marriage becomes legal, some on the Left will mock gay Rs who marry.
ReplyDeleteEither words have consequences, or not. Until the day comes when the Left offers understanding to the offensive language of the Right, I suggest tit-for-tat. Tit-for-tat is the most effective strategy for dealing with Prisoner's Dilemma type problems, which is essentially what we have here. Neither side is willing to give up the chance to bludgeon the other for miscues, and since the demeaning language schtick is primarily associated with the Left, I believe the Left carries the burden to go first in calming the waters.
Apologizing for Mr. Emanuel's mentally challengist speech as something everyone should cut him slack for isn't going to cut it anymore. Either everyone gets slack cut, or no one gets slack cut. It is as simple as that.
John, you cannot seriously want Emanuel to resign for saying something offensive. You are arguing for a turn of events that I know you do not actually support.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I don't think anyone should be forced to resign for something they said. Even people whose politics I loathe. As much as I detested Trent Lott, I thought it was unforgivably silly that he was forced to abandon his position because he said something thoughtless about Strom Thurmond. Yes, I know many of my liberal fellow-travelers made a lot of hay about it, but really they probably shouldn't have.
Now, this does not apply to things that indicate genuine flaws in the character of the speaker such that voters may question his fitness to seek office. George Allen's "macaca" moment is one example, since it was a shocking moment of clarity that, in fact, this man is racist.
Look, I would gladly throw Rahm Emanuel under the bus of your choice if it meant I never had to hear Rush Limbaugh speak about anything ever again. If you're willing to make that tit happen for my tat, then I'll take that deal. I still think that Limbaugh's utterance is worse, since he's clearly doing it to inflame, but either way I'll cut Rahm loose if you can make The Corpulent One disappear.
"Either words have consequences, or not."
ReplyDeleteAgain, gj, everything is one thing or the other. Obama criticizes Bush's 1200 signing statements, many which contravene Congressional statute, so therefore Obama can't do one signing statement! Democrats say don't torture, therefore it means that Democrats want to throw a parade for terrorists.
You are ignoring the most important aspect of use of words: Context. If Rahm said that to someone who is truly retarded, damn right he should be fired, but he didn't, and you know this. Papa Bush years ago pointed out his half hispanic grandchild at an event as "the little brown one." No one took it as evidence of his hatred of hispanics, everyone knows it was a simple descriptor, and that, in fact, he loves his grandchild.
And I want to second the good Doctor. I felt for Lott, he was at a the old scumbags 100 birthday party and thought he would say something nice (to me, the real controversy is why anyone celebrated that racist scumbag lechs life in any way, but that is another matter). I am a Democrat but I sent a letter of support to Lott.
And good lord Dan, I would love to know what Elizabeth said in the top posting, the one you censored. Hell, I will even pay.
charo
Er... Elizabeth censored her own comment. You'd have to ask her.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I guess maybe Elizabeth posted it, and thought better of it. I say flame on, I seriously doubt any unsuspecting children lurk about this web page.
ReplyDeletecharo
I actually just wanted to add a sentence, and didn't want to make two separate posts. Nothing very exciting, alas!
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm with you on both Trent Lott and Macaca
ReplyDeleteDan, I want Mr. Emanuel to resign because he belongs to a political movement that demonizes others for saying the same kinds of things he said. Making them live up to their standards is only fair. Oh, and also the fact that he's hurting people with his take-no-prisoners approach to governing America. He is exactly the kind of politician Obama campaigned against.
ReplyDeleteJohn, I think this thread has reaching its wheezing, lurching conclusion. However, there is no such "movement" that demonizes people for this kind of behavior. Yes, there has been a trend toward taking hysterical offense, fueled in large part by identity politics. Calling this a movement, and plopping Emanuel into the midst of it is a wee bit much.
ReplyDeleteHate to be semantic, but there is a big difference between saying and idea is "retarded" and saying people are "retards." Big, big difference. And not just because the process of retardation means stopping something that is developing, but because the insensitive colloquial use of retarded for something that one rejects out of hand is not directly insulting another person as being mentally less than another.
ReplyDeleteStill offensive, Emmanuel. Still stupid, given your boss's slip in the same direction less than a year ago. Yet really eggregious, Limbaugh, to make it a personally insulting attack rather than a rude dismissal.