Sarah Silverman is brilliant (opens in new tab)

Spain is a bit further down the euphemism treadmill than we are--calling black people "negros" (btw, in America calling them "black" is acceptable) is okay because the actual racists still go to soccer matches and make monkey noises and throw bananas on the field whenever an African player has the ball[1]. In America, racism is taboo and that kind of nonsense will get you kicked out of the stadium (plus it makes no sense to heckle the majority of the athletes), so the actual racists can only act a little coy, forcing the rest of us to be extra polite, just so we don't seem racist.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Etoo#Racism

I end up having an if-by-whiskey argument with myself about this, especially regarding the "n-word."

If by saying the n-word casually, you mean removing the hatred and power behind a word which has divided our people for centuries by giving it a new and friendly connotation, then of course I am for it.

If by saying the n-word casually, you mean flippantly dismissing decades of institutionalized enslavement and murder, and a constant reminder that for all our progress we are still very much two nations, then I despise it.

Its clear to me though that the n-word still causes a great deal of pain to many of my brothers and sisters, and I want no part of that. So even though I hope that someday the n-word will lose this meaning, you're not going to hear it coming out of my mouth.

In the US, "negro" was once the accepted term; you'll hear it in old TV and radio or in literature, and all in the same tone as one might say "caucasian" or "asian". Eventually, we decided it wasn't so great and switched to "black". When you, in Spain, say "negro", it's the equivalent of us saying "black".

I don't think any of us say "afroamerican", but we do use "African American" even when the person in question is not American--it's kind of silly.

And yes, we say f*ck (censored because I don't remember the HN rules) constantly here too, but that's generally in a specific context: working on something with friends, out with other college students, etc. My friends and I, and most people I know, tend to not swear much around our elders or children; it's censored on TV because the audience is much wider than the couple friends you're hanging out with.

Reminds me of this: http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/2008/09/12/louis-ck-hates...

As far as censorship goes, look what we can do now thanks to years of bleeping and blurring: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8Vh9_Hi1kY

barredo, I'm very surprised you say this. I don't use to watch TV, but every time I do, I find the politicians are noticeably more politically correct in their language than the previous time: "subsaharianos", "ciudadanos y ciudadanas" (even if Spanish, unlike English, doesn't ask for this kind of distinction), "discapacidad", "etnia"... IOW se la cogen con papel de fumar :-)

> 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.

"everyone is way too sensitive about language and being a victim any time someone else says something careless."

I'm still thinking in my own mind about the other points you raised, but +1 for exactly this.

Kids (and sometimes adults) should be taught or reminded that it's careless and insulting to use words like "retarded" and "gay" and "fag" in a careless or insulting way. It's a matter of good manners, not a March on Washington.

Well I read an interview with the founder guy and he indicated that only 66%-75% of the talks ever make to videos on the site. Given that 25% to 33% of talks never make it up then even if Silverman's doesn't appear it's not necessarily been "singled out" or treated specially.

I seem to remember a talk about Abu Ghraib where the TED folks tagged a warning about the disturbing nature of some of the photos to the beginning of the video. I think they also censored the more disturbing photos (omitting them completely).

I'd hope, at a minimum, they post a bleeped version!

People are going to be asking to see it after all the attention it's received.

Plus it sounds like a number of folks gave her a standing ovation - so it's not exactly like it was a complete disgrace. Kind of bad enough for Chris Anderson to slam an invited speaker so publicly - hopefully TED doesn't act petty about it.

TEDtalks are licensed under Creative Commons. Anyone know if speakers have the right to obtain a copy of their individual talks to share, even if they don't make the site?

She makes light of everything. The things that make you cringe are her favorite topics. You can get a sense from her movie, 'Sarah Silverman: Jesus is Magic', or Comedy Central TV series, 'The Sarah Silverman Program'.

If TED organizers didn't expect as much, their planning was performed in an intellectually-disabled manner. (Is that phrasing R-Word-campaign-approved?)

I think it was actually a really good. It was pushing poltically correct ideas to the extreme.

Comics like this are meant to shock and disgust us with what they say if nothing else to throw our own thoughts into perspective.

To anyone who down-voted, I'm curious to know why. There have been at least 5 down-votes, but no replies.

You have simultaneously missed the point of the article and demonstrated it.

From the descriptions, there is no question that Sarah used the word 'retard' in the technically correct context, and NOT as a derogatory term. Sarah's brand of humour is based on shock and blatant unabashed selfishness. It clearly shows the difference between using a 'politically incorrect' word a few times and being genuinely offensive.

Using the word 'retard' as an insult (the way you just did) doesn't just insult the person being referred to - it implies that people who are actually retarded have something to be ashamed of.

I understand why the audience may have been outraged by the jokes (i.e. adopting a vulnerable child for self-aggrandisement). YOU have also managed to be offensive.

What's subversive about it is that if she'd not used the word "retarded" her routine would not have had impact.

There is a sense in which PC language suppresses the real struggle that comes with difficult social issues, sterilizes them for us, and makes them into abstract problems that everyone can claim to care about but do nothing about.

Silverman's insight was that by breaking out of the PC mold she was able to shine the spotlight on a difficult social issue.

Is it the highest level of subversive comedy? Probably not, but it's certainly a courageous form of activism.

Gabe is the founder of Techmeme and, from what I've read of his, both heavy on the sarcasm and a little anti-Valley. I'm sure that was how this was intended.

From it's Twitter Bio "Sometimes I say what I mean. Sometimes I say the opposite." — That's a good alibi.