quote: ... And over that 20 years, American civility has been on a steady decline. The impact of someone like Limbaugh isn't instantaneous. Initially rudeness is shocking, but the longer it is tolerated the more it become part of the norm. ...
I think people like Howard Stern, Opie and Anthony, Kidd Chris are an AU ruder and cruder than Limbaugh.
That's debatable...but the real difference is that those people are entertainment personalities. That's it. People like Limbaugh try to pass themselves off as political commentators. People listen to them and trust them for their political news and world events coverage. Don't you see the problem when you compare Rush Limbaugh to a guy that has porn stars on his show and convinces them to stick various objects in their private places?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm starting to lose my taste for religious threads because the unbelievers can be so coarse and rude.
I agree - but it goes both ways. When I said "the devout get so very testy", I meant devoutly religious and devoutly areligious alike.
We have so many hardliners these days (in all subjects) that feel any attempt at honest skepticism, curiousity or doubt is an attack on their sacred cow.
It seems there are fewer open minds, and more closed fists.
The last time I posted was probably around a year ago. I decided to exit for somewhat similar reasons. I simply realized that in my disagreement with someone, there was no common ground to reach, when one tries to argue with logic, and another tries to paint articles faith as fact, nobodies happy, and its very easy to get angry. I simply didn't have the ability other posters had to argue my points w/o distinctly upsetting a poster, and figured it was more adviseable to simply let it go and move on, before it had the potential to turn incendiary or just unpleasant.
I find this topic deeply interesting as I've been a forum addict since I first entered the net in '96. Probably been in 20 or 30 over the years, though there is usually only about five or six that I focus on, most I post on, hatrack and ornery were largely lurker forums because I found it difficult to interact without risking deeply upsetting certain posters on certain topics that mean a great deal to me or that I feel deeply and strongly about on a very visceral level.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Actually, a "circle jerk" has another, more insluting meaning.
Was that intentional? If not, best. freudian slip. ever.
I'm so glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this.Laughter can be too expensive when in front of a lap top.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hatrack, like any "forum" where people can remain anonymous, will at times suffer from a lack of sufficient care for our fellow man. It is the ultimate 30,000 foot view, where people can treat each other like unidimensional charicatures instead of real people who might have nuanced opinions.
At the same time, there are now, and always have been a few posters who take on the unidimensionality as a pose, or perhaps fall into it because they fail to invest themselves entirely in the things they say.
(NOTE: There are other types of users of the forum too, these are just the types that bear primary responsibility for things getting overheated on a somewhat regular basis.)
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: [QB] Please, go back through this very thread and see who started the personal attacks, it was not me; sorry for failing at my goal of not resonding to them. /QB]
Mal, In your very first post in this thread you said "It was fun for a while but the self proclaimed open minded can be so intolerable of people from the other side."
Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but that was a personal attack.
We have many posters here who are libertarian conservatives who have been accepted members of the community for years. Your perception that you are poorly received because of the content of your posts rather than your rude and inconsiderate posting style is inaccurate.
I truly am not aware that was a personal attack. That statement was not pointed at any particular individual. The personal attacks I'm talking about usually contain names and words like "you" and "he".
I am not only new to Hatrack, this is the first place I've ever bothered to post. If there is some kind of post etiquette that I'm missing, please educate me. No sarcasm there, I've seen people get angry at new golfers for stepping on their lie.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Etiquette/random advice (not all of which should be construed as reacting to YOU in particular, just what comes to mind in general):
- Well,you've already been told about terms like 'circlejerk'
- Broad characterizations of other members with whom you disagree are generally not appropriate. While two people might agree that you're wrong, they might not have the same reasons for thinking so, and they're likely to be very different otherwise.
- If someone points out a perceived logical fallacy, it's a good idea to take it seriously, and consider whether you can correct logical flaws in your argument or simply change your mind if the reasoning was indeed fallacious. If you weren't guilty of the fallacy mentioned, explain why.
- try not to use insulting or dismissive terms about other members. Examples: idiot, parrot, just a kid, sheeple, true believer, etc.
- Don't get upset if posts are coming too fast for you to respond to all of them. Dogpiling rarely indicates conspiracy to overwhelm, it's just a lot of individuals having individual reactions. Take your time and don't worry about keeping up with the pace of the conversation as much as you worry about providing thoughtful responses. If you don't have the time to respond to everything, silence won't generally be construed as defeat. (Aside from the occasional childish *crickets chirping* snark, which can be safely ignored, people understand that not responding immediately doesn't mean your brain sploded. If you're worried about it you can indicate that you'll respond later when you have time, but it's really not even needed.)
- Judiciously ignore trollish or overly rude posts. People can see those for what they are; feeding trolls rarely does any good.
- When you're making a controversial claim, it's often helpful to provide references to information that helped convince you. Know that people will not always be similarly convinced, but discussion about the meaning of the data can really be illuminating.
- Don't act like winning is the only thing that can make discussion worthwhile. Stating and defending your views can have value even if no one concedes you are right. It's taken me years to change certain opinions due to online discussions, but those discussions definitely persuaded me in a very gradual, incremental way.
- Read the "The Art of Practicing Polite Disagreement" thread.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I truly am not aware that was a personal attack. That statement was not pointed at any particular individual. The personal attacks I'm talking about usually contain names and words like "you" and "he".
Singling out an specific individual is not the hallmark of a personal attack. A personal attack can just as easily be made against a group of persons as an individual. Launching personal attacks on a group of people (hatrackers, Christians, Jews, Liberals, or even self-proclaimed open minded people) will often provoke more hostility than insulting one individual, which ought to be so obvious it does need to be stated.
If you had said, 'The Rabbit is so intolerant of anyone she disagrees with', I would likely be the only one offended but when you say "the self proclaimed open minded can be so intolerable of people from the other side." you have very likely offended a good fraction of those who consider themselves open minded.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's debatable...but the real difference is that those people are entertainment personalities.
it's debatable whether Howard Stern is ruder and cruder than Rush Limbaugh? So as long as someone says they are an entertainer they get a free pass on everything they do?
quote: People like Limbaugh try to pass themselves off as political commentators. People listen to them and trust them for their political news and world events coverage.
Lumbaugh isn't trying to pass himself off as a political commentator. He is a political commentator.
quote: Don't you see the problem when you compare Rush Limbaugh to a guy that has porn stars on his show and convinces them to stick various objects in their private places?
The problem I see is the claim of Limbaugh being responsible for rudeness, or at least the cause of the modern rude problem in politics. Politics has always been, and will always be, rude. Limbaugh is nowhere near as shrill as many others have been. Limbaugh is nowhere near as rude as Michael Moore.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, DK. If not for the sentence "Limbaugh is nowhere near as shrill as many others have been," I would have disagreed with every sentence in your post.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:it's debatable whether Howard Stern is ruder and cruder than Rush Limbaugh?
I might concede that those personalities are "ruder and cruder", well, at least cruder, but Rush and his ilk are certainly more vitriolic...which, in my opinion, is worse.
also, for all his crudeness, I think Howard Stern is a pretty ethical human being. I can't say the same thing about Rush. Though that's not really relevant to this conversation.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the tips. I never considered but now understand a quick flood of responses is not really a piling on and I'll remember that point in the future. Often though when you have multiple replies to a statement and you respond to one, one of the others accuses you of avoidance. Similarly, responding to multiple statements in one combined statement seems to induce a similar negative response.
I like controversial subjects and I believe the avoidance of controversy contributes to the problems in society. Bringing up and taking a position on a controversial topic is often percieved as being insensitive and indicative of prejudice in itself.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's tough sometimes when you get a lot of interest/responses to a post. It isn't always possible to respond to everyone.
Personally, I'm a fan of responding to multiple people in one post. Others will post multiple times, responding to each person in kind.
My biggest problem is all the time it takes out of my life to read, understand, and respond to all of the posts - and I generally apologize in my posts to those I did not get to.
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: [QUOTE] Limbaugh is nowhere near as shrill as many others have been. Limbaugh is nowhere near as rude as Michael Moore.
I would surmise from this opinion that you do not listen to Limbaugh much? Maybe you do, but then I would like to know what you consider rude that Moore does, and Limbaugh does not (or more importantly to this particular point, *would not*) do.
For my part, I find them both obnoxious. I agree more often with Moore, but that's rather like thinking Coke is better than Pepsi if you're a diabetic.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: [QB] Please, go back through this very thread and see who started the personal attacks, it was not me; sorry for failing at my goal of not resonding to them. /QB]
Mal, In your very first post in this thread you said "It was fun for a while but the self proclaimed open minded can be so intolerable of people from the other side."
Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but that was a personal attack.
We have many posters here who are libertarian conservatives who have been accepted members of the community for years. Your perception that you are poorly received because of the content of your posts rather than your rude and inconsiderate posting style is inaccurate.
I truly am not aware that was a personal attack. That statement was not pointed at any particular individual. The personal attacks I'm talking about usually contain names and words like "you" and "he".
I am not only new to Hatrack, this is the first place I've ever bothered to post. If there is some kind of post etiquette that I'm missing, please educate me. No sarcasm there, I've seen people get angry at new golfers for stepping on their lie.
You know, knowing that DOES make a difference. Thank you for telling us.
I don't agree with most of your posts to date, although I rarely post in your threads. However, if you are genuine, respectful, and understand that not everyone who disagrees with you is either an idiot or a liar, then I'd be glad to interact with you. If we all always agreed with each other the world would be a boring place.
I'd second (or third) the idea that a lot of what people see as "piling on" can just be that there are a lot of people on, and a lot of people are interested in what you had to day. That doesn't mean that they agree, mind you....but a lot of times the post times are within 2-3 min of each other, so people were writing concurrently and don't realize that 10 posters are hitting send at the same time.
Honestly, people here are usually objecting to HOW you are saying things, man, because your posting style seems very confrontational. Just tone it down a bit, and realize that it's OK for people to disagree with each other, and I bet you'd see a HUGE difference in how you are perceived.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: [QUOTE] Limbaugh is nowhere near as shrill as many others have been. Limbaugh is nowhere near as rude as Michael Moore.
I would surmise from this opinion that you do not listen to Limbaugh much? Maybe you do, but then I would like to know what you consider rude that Moore does, and Limbaugh does not (or more importantly to this particular point, *would not*) do.
For my part, I find them both obnoxious. I agree more often with Moore, but that's rather like thinking Coke is better than Pepsi if you're a diabetic.
This is almost exactly what I would have said, if you had not said it first. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Limbaugh is nowhere near as rude as Michael Moore.
"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. ... This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."
"Why should Blacks be heard? They're 12% of the population. Who the hell cares."
"If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people-- I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do--let the stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."
"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then there was the incident early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, "Did you know there's a White House dog?" Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was 13 years old at the time.
I can't think of anything Michael Moore has done that is remotely that rude and to someone whose only crime was to be the teenage daughter of one of his political opponents.
I'm not a particular fan of Michael Moore and don't follow everything he says. If he is doing and saying things that are that rude, please provide us some quotes.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
first off, I really think it's debatable whether Letterman was talking about the 14 year old. Why don't you believe him when he said he was talking about Bristol Palin? It was the obvious joke to make.
third, again, is there, and should there be, a difference between the standards we hold to comedians and entertainers vs political commentators?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:THIS WEEK David Letterman made jokes about the 14-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin having sex with adult men.
Well, no. To clarify, David Letterman made a joke about Sarah Palin and her daughter going to a baseball game and being impregnated. As Letterman has clarified, he did not know that the daughter in question was Palin's younger daughter; rather, his writing staff apparently assumed it was the older -- and famously fertile -- one.
Whether or not it's fairer to make fun of an adult daughter who'd already had one child out of wedlock (and made that pregnancy the subject of speaking tours) than it is to insult the looks of a middle-schooler is a matter of taste, I'd imagine.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Through mid-March, Leno had made 15 jokes about the Palin daughter's pregnancy, Stewart had told four on "The Daily Show," and Letterman checked in with eight, according to an analysis of late-night humor by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with George Mason University.
The comedian most likely to bash Bristol Palin? O'Brien, with 20 jokes at her expense.
"Saturday Night Live" has also parodied the Palin family in questionable ways. In a skit last September, a mock reporter joked about incest in the vice presidential candidate's family, saying, "I mean, come on. It's Alaska!"
Palin not only didn't protest, she appeared as a guest on the program a few weeks later.
posted
I actually think the different responses to the two jokes exposes a bigger problem. Limbaugh called a young teenager ugly. Letterman called a young teenager promiscuous.
Looks like it is worse for a young lady to be considered ugly rather than promiscuous.
Even if the joke was supposedly about Bristol, it was still tacky. All sexual partners are not made alike, and there is a world of difference between a high school boyfriend and an adulterous stranger 20 years older.
It looks like excuses get made for only one side. What a non-surprise.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I for one wasn't making excuses...I made 4 points:
1) that the joke wasn't about who you said it was about
2) that much of Palin's anger regarding the joke was not out of true anger, but a political move
3) That posters keep bringing up entertainers and comedians as examples of people who are rude and over the top, to contrast with the rudeness of some right wing political commentators.
4) that whether you think one joke is worse than the other is probably a matter of taste.
quote:All sexual partners are not made alike, and there is a world of difference between a high school boyfriend and an adulterous stranger 20 years older.
Side comment: I'm wondering, looking at a high school boyfriend versus a sports superstar like A-Rod, I think I'd expect a girl in her late teens to be more likely to have sex, especially unprotected sex, with the sports superstar if she could.
edit: Because I realized I left this out. The thing I'm wondering is if other people see it this way too?
quote:Looks like it is worse for a young lady to be considered ugly rather than promiscuous.
Well, for one thing, Chelsea Clinton did nothing to be considered ugly. Bristol Palin, on the other hand, was considered promiscuous specifically as a result of previous promiscuity. Note also that Bristol is 18, and has made her former promiscuity a matter of public interest by choosing to make it a central element of her media tour.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I for one wasn't making excuses...I made 4 points:
1) that the joke wasn't about who you said it was about
2) that much of Palin's anger regarding the joke was not out of true anger, but a political move
3) That posters keep bringing up entertainers and comedians as examples of people who are rude and over the top, to contrast with the rudeness of some right wing political commentators.
3) that whether you think one joke is worse than the other is probably a matter of taste.
I'm most curious to hear a reply to number 3.
Which number 3 would that be?
Though it is fun to watch the thread drift in action....
What happened to hatrack... Hatrackers have been harsher recently... This might be influenced by outside environment... OSC has grown more political... Political commentators can be very rude... Entertainers can be very rude... Should we hold entertainers and commentators to the same standard... Excuses are being made by "only one side. what a non-surprise"...
Now, if this were a BASIC program, I'd just put "Go To Line 1" and we'd be set.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I for one wasn't making excuses...I made 4 points:
1) that the joke wasn't about who you said it was about
2) that much of Palin's anger regarding the joke was not out of true anger, but a political move
3) That posters keep bringing up entertainers and comedians as examples of people who are rude and over the top, to contrast with the rudeness of some right wing political commentators.
3) that whether you think one joke is worse than the other is probably a matter of taste.
posted
kat, It seems like you've got your nasty witch hat on again. Especially in this thread, I think you might want to reconsider that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Rabbit, THIS WEEK David Letterman made jokes about the 14-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin having sex with adult men.
Are you as outraged about that as you are about (tacky, tasteless, over-the-line) Chelsea joke.
If not, what makes it okay to trash the children of only Republican politicians?
I hadn't heard of it until now so no I wasn't outraged about it. Now that you mention it, it does seem quite rude.
As other's have pointed out already, the two situations aren't analogous. There are many differences between the two besides republican/democrat or ugly/promiscuous so trying to pin peoples different reactions on one of those isn't reasonable or charitable.
Beyond that. I've already stated I thought there was a decline in civility and increasing acceptance of rude behavior on all sides of political spectrum. I was only questioning whether Michael Moore (specifically) had said things as rude as Rush Limbaugh (specifically). I'm not sure how your comment that Letterman made rude jokes about Bristol Palin relates to that discussion
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not wish to converse with you, Squick.
_______
Tom, I really am interested in your answer. Bristol had sex with her high school boyfriend and is now preaching against doing that. I wonder at your inclination to call her promiscuous - it looks like you consider that any teenage girl having sex is promiscuous. Is that true? If not, why are you calling her that? It is definitely a pejorative.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure how this became a Palin/Letterman, Republican/Democrat issue.
There was some talk about OSC's tone changing, and then a tie in to the tone of America changing, with Limbaugh as an example.
There was some tangential discussion about the degree of severity between Limbaugh and Moore...
And then all of a sudden Letterman/Palin get tossed in the mix, with a zinger of "what makes it okay to trash the children of only Republican politicians" coming out of left field...
And then entered the comfortable, hostile polarization that hatrack has grown accustomed to recently... in a thread expressing concern over that very same hostile polarization.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It doesn't actually support my thesis that politics hasn't really got more rude over the years. But I looked up and especially liked this incident: http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/prime_ministers/clip/2955/
That's hilarious. Especially if it happened the first time they met.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I'm honestly interested in what you have to say on the point of entertainers vs. political commentators. I understand the line gets real blurry these days. Any time your livelihood depends on the amount of people that listen to you, then to a certain degree you're a de facto entertainer. But how people see you is important. Sure, many comedians these days comment/joke about politics, but they at the same time acknowledge they are comedians and I doubt many people listen to someone like Howard Stern for serious analyzation of world affairs(Bill Maher is one that comes to mind that skirts that gray area). Rush Limbaugh doesn't view himself this way(at least not publically), and much of his audience doesn't view him that way either. Given the nature of his business, it'd be foolish to say that Rush Limbaugh doesn't say things at times(maybe often) specifically to rile people up and ruffle feathers. And yet if his audience views him as a trustworthy commentator about the facts of the world, then this creates a problem.
I have the same problem with Michael Moore. I find his films interesting, but you have to watch them with a discerning eye, he certainly isn't fair and balanced.
But the bigger point is, if you(or others) are bringing up comedians and entertains as examples to contrast the vitriolic nature of Rush Limbaugh's discourse, then what exactly is Rush Limbaugh. How can DK state:
quote:Lumbaugh isn't trying to pass himself off as a political commentator. He is a political commentator.
And then compare him to people like Howard Stern or David Letterman. If these are accurate comparisons, then why should I give Rush Limbaugh any more clout when he talks politics then say when Chris Rock talks politics. And isn't it a problem then that people give Rush Limbaugh much more credit than Chris Rock?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My personal opinion? I do have a definite personal opinion, but I recognize this is MY personal opinion. It is not meant, even by me, to be a template or starting point around which to form public policy.
But my personal opinions of the above topics are as follows:
1. Public figures are up for jokes, as long as the jokes are not racist or sexist.
2. A lot of comedy derives from making people the butt of jokes, so an ironclad rule is hard to draw. In those cases, if there are jokes about someone's gender, then there should be an equal amount between the genders, aggregate, over time, for each comedian. In other words, you can't just pick on women.
3. Jokes against the people in power are essential for free speech. Totally fine. It does mean, however, against whomever is in power, even if you voted for them.
4. Children of public figures are off limits, no matter who the public figure is. Minor children of public figures are definitely, definitely off limits. Find someone else to pick on - it isn't right or fair or moral to use a national soapbox to pick on kids who didn't offer themselves up for judgment, no matter who their parents are.
5. Accurate news and astute political commentary are essential.
6. Neither is found over the air. (I told you this is my opinion.) In fact, due to the format and the financial pressures, all television and radio news is suspect and should not be trusted on its own. A possible exception most of the time, depending on the topic, is NPR.
7. Everyone on the air is an entertainer. Some have a more political flavor, but they are all entertainers first.
I don't think how people view someone makes a difference as to what they are. People follow medical advice on Oprah - that doesn't make her a doctor. Lots and lots of people get their political news and views from Jon Stewart - that doesn't stop him from being an entertainer first. If you are on the air, you are an entertainer.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Kat, you have of late seemed more confrontational, which when combined with the history you and Mr. Squicky have here makes the response less surprising. That's not an accusation -- just an observation.
In regard to your question of Tom, he's made note in the past that he prefers to answer the question he thinks you want the answer to rather than the question you're asking. I suspect he would have been less likely to refer to her as "promiscuous" had it not been the term she herself used (presumably -- I really don't know), or at least the "pejorative" she seems to have claimed it is. True, a less charged way might have been to say "sexually active."
I wonder if I were to sit down and figure out a list of "acceptable approaches to humor in the public realm" if it would be similar to yours. The only one I can remember from my ComedySportz days is "cancer is never funny." And that got broken on occasion anyway, or at least someone attempted to break it.
While I don't think the rules should be the same for "political commentators" and "entertainers" inasmuch as those terms may not be well-defined, I do think that both positions contribute to the steady decline of "American civility."
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If she's ever called herself promiscuous, I've never seen it. She's publicly regeretted having sex, but hasn't ever, that I've seen, applied the word to herself.
If she has, I'd love to see a link to it. I don't believe that she has.
If you google the terms, there are piles and piles are articles and blogs where people call her that, but I can't find a single instance where she calls herself that.
Pop, I would prefer that Squick never, ever speak to me. [Removed remainder of paragraph. --PJ]
[ June 23, 2009, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:4. Children of public figures are off limits, no matter who the public figure is. Minor children of public figures are definitely, definitely off limits. Find someone else to pick on - it isn't right or fair or moral to use a national soapbox to pick on kids who didn't offer themselves up for judgment, no matter who their parents are.
I hate to say it, because normally I'd agree with you, but when a public figure makes family values a lynch pin of her tirades against large sections of the country, then has something like what happened to her daughter, and then instead of dropping the matter uses her daughter as political ammunition, then I think the children aren't off limits. If political parents want to shield their children from the outside world, they need to recognize the messages they are preaching, and not use their own children to score political points. Once they do, they've broken the seal, and, within reason, and one would hope not aimed at the children, they become fair game with certain restraints.
quote:7. Everyone on the air is an entertainer. Some have a more political flavor, but they are all entertainers first.
Why does it matter if they're on the air? If someone writes for the Wall Street Journal for 10 years and then goes on the air and becomes an entertainer, they lose their political commenting credentials? Wouldn't that make everything they did and said before also just for entertainment value? Saying that everyone on the air is an entertainer is so nebulous as to make the title of 'political commentator' totally useless, unless you're suggesting that only print media hold the keys to neutral commentary and analysis, which I can't imagine you are.
There are lines, and there is crossover, but the two have become so blurred that labeling everyone an entertainer like that almost removes a lot of meaning.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone writes for the Wall Street Journal for 10 years and then goes on the air and becomes an entertainer, they lose their political commenting credentials?
Yep.
quote:Wouldn't that make everything they did and said before also just for entertainment value?
Nope.
There are different kinds of entertainers, but if you are on the air, you are an entertainer at your soul. Politics is just your material.
As for the kids thing - the entire point is that it doesn't matter if the parent is Michael Jackson or those odious people who put their children on a reality show. If you are a minor kid, you are off limits. There is a nothing a parent can do that makes attacking a child okay.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I think it may not be that she's calling herself promiscuous, but may have called the activity promiscuity, and (either before or after that, I don't know) taken part in it. There's a transitive property at work. But again, I really don't know. I don't watch Letterman, didn't really follow the Bristol Palin stories back during the presidential campaign (or before or after), and so any/all information I have on it is at least third or fourth hand. I'm just throwing out possible interpretations.
[Edit -- wow, I almost didn't see the edit. I thought your post was sufficient before that. You really think that helps? Don't answer that -- or do, if you want, but don't expect a response from me again.]
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing - no variation on the word anywhere in any of the articles or transcripts. If someone has a link, I'd love to see it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... then instead of dropping the matter uses her daughter as political ammunition, then I think the children aren't off limits.
More to the point, Bristol Palin is a public figure in her own right who uses her own profile for a cause.
quote: In 2009 she worked with the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy to ask teens to abstain from having sex. Bill Alpert, the Campaign's spokesman, said working with Palin made sense because "she's had the highest-profile teen pregnancy of the year."[7] In May 2009 Palin was named a Teen Abstinence Ambassador for the Candie's Foundation,[8][9] a teen pregnancy prevention organization.[10] Her duties as a spokeswoman involved attending town hall meetings and giving interviews on morning talk shows. Palin said "Regardless of what I did personally, abstinence is the only ... 100% foolproof way you can prevent pregnancy."[11] Before becoming an abstinence spokeswoman Palin told Fox News that abstinence for teens is "not realistic at all".
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
fixed
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
