Palin v. Letterman

[Liuzzo]

I can understand a joke, in fact I found Letterman funny until he made the comment. Evan if you don't like Palin, you should never laugh at a joke saying that her daughter should be raped.

Here's the problem with this. He made a joke with her older daughter in mind. Her older daughter is an adult and in fact did get "knocked up." There was much made if it during the campaign and now she's running around talking about abstinence. It's only rape because you presume is "statutory rape" of a 14 year old when you clearly know the joke was about the older ADULT daughter. Furthermore, no one should and could tell you what to laugh at. This country was born of the freedom of speech and that doesn't end because you get offended. There's no right to not be offended in our Constitution or case law. Bristol Palin as as adult who now chooses to speak out about abstinence. If this makes her feel good I support her in her quest. In the same token I am allowed to make as many funny or unfunny jokes about her that I want.

[Tmutarakhan]

Drill Palin, not oil!

[Verdigroth]

....... What? That doesn't relate to my post at all.

Was Bristol at the game?

Good question. Another good question, who cares?

Letterman, et al. need to learn to stop saying shit about Sarah Palin. She's like Ann Coulter (Except all natural XX chromosomes), a professional troll. Well that's not quite fair. Sarah's more of a professional victim.

John McCain was so unfair to her. Katie Couric was so mean! The liberal media is out to get her! Damn that David Letterman for being so vile!

Just ignore the twit and she'll fade back into her podunk little state where she belongs. Let the Alaskans suffer her stupidity not the rest of us.

Please I am tired of suffering her stupidity can't you guys take her off our hands for a while.

[You-Gi-Owe]

While the most recent example of extremely poor manners in the news is the dust-up between David Letterman and Sarah Palin (and their supporters), let's view the type of the matter in general sense, rather than a specific case. Let's also try and keep politics out of this, too, please.

In the less "civilized" eras of United States history, violence could break out when harsh words were uttered about a child to their parent, or even uttered about a parent to their child. Retribution for such bad manners was socially acceptable, or, if not acceptable was understood to be a possible consequence.

Being a "comedian" didn't grant any social immunity, either.

So, ignoring the cases of Sarah Palin (whether she put her daughters into the public light anymore than any other politician or not) and David Letterman, is there a moral limit to such behavior?

Is it generally socially acceptable to verbally attack a parent through their children?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Only if it's funny.

[Wilgrove]

Meh, the Palins were the one who put themselves out on the public spotlight, they should be prepared for any and all attacks.

[Luna Nostra]

If he said what he said in a comedy club, it would have been perfectly acceptable. He said on television so its horrible for some reason. Letterman has a solid, classy reputation so this doesn't blemish his record at all. His intent was not malicious, but its understandable that others might not interpret it right. The media tends to drown out intent and play up interpretation, though, which is not fair. That being said, Letterman should've known it would happen and he faced the social consequences. That kind of expected backlash is fine, but no need to censor him.

[Cameroi]

when crude, thoughtless and inconsiderate people attack each other, my primary concern is not for either of them, but rather for the negative influence of their example on others who might not otherwise go down the same path.

the title of this thread is self contradicting.

my sympathies are with the unfortunate offspring who have been made pawns, not for their irresponsible elders who have been playing them.

[You-Gi-Owe]

when crude, thoughtless and inconsiderate people attack each other, my primary concern is not for either of them, but rather for the negative influence of their example on others who might not otherwise go down the same path.

the title of this thread is self contradicting.

my sympathies are with the unfortunate offspring who have been made pawns, not for their irresponsible elders who have been playing them.

1. Thank you for keeping this in general terms. I'm really tired of hearing about Sarah Palin and David Letterman.

2. As for the title of this topic, do you see that some people try to defend indefensible behavior?

3. Suppose only one person attacks the second person through their children. Do you blame both of the adults?

[Milks Empire]

when crude, thoughtless and inconsiderate people attack each other, my primary concern is not for either of them, but rather for the negative influence of their example on others who might not otherwise go down the same path.

the title of this thread is self contradicting.

my sympathies are with the unfortunate offspring who have been made pawns, not for their irresponsible elders who have been playing them.

1. Thank you for keeping this in general terms. I'm really tired of hearing about Sarah Palin and David Letterman.

2. As for the title of this topic, do you see that some people try to defend indefensible behavior?

3. Suppose only one person attacks the second person through their children. Do you blame both of the adults?

Assuming it's someone in the public eye being attacked through a third party, I would fault both - the attacker for using a pawn, and the attackee for putting the third party in harm's way.

[Cameroi]

when crude, thoughtless and inconsiderate people attack each other, my primary concern is not for either of them, but rather for the negative influence of their example on others who might not otherwise go down the same path.

the title of this thread is self contradicting.

my sympathies are with the unfortunate offspring who have been made pawns, not for their irresponsible elders who have been playing them.

1. Thank you for keeping this in general terms. I'm really tired of hearing about Sarah Palin and David Letterman.

me three

2. As for the title of this topic, do you see that some people try to defend indefensible behavior?

frequently

3. Suppose only one person attacks the second person through their children. Do you blame both of the adults?

my intent is hold intentional players culpable, in all instances, past, present, and future.

[Tokyoni]

-shrugs-

Freedom of speech; who the fuck really cares?

[You-Gi-Owe]

Assuming it's someone in the public eye being attacked through a third party, I would fault both - the attacker for using a pawn, and the attackee for putting the third party in harm's way.

So, you believe that the person being attacked intentionally uses their child as a shield, eh?
Can't say I find your supposition very tasteful.
Now, suppose that the parent didn't intentionally use their child as a shield?

[Allanea]

Evan if you don't like Palin, you should never laugh at a joke saying that her daughter should be raped.

Do people genuinely think "statutory rape" and kidnapping a person and bodily forcing yourself on them (like, you know, real rape) are the same?

[Straughn]

Please I am tired of suffering her stupidity can't you guys take her off our hands for a while.

Aw, it's all good. Let's keep mumbling about her right into the 2012 presidency. Which, as many have noted, is the end to several different civilizations' calendars.
Won't matter to her, i'm sure, since those calendars seem to have those "gotcha" characteristics about 'em.

[Intangelon]

ROTTEN POLL.

No option for "depends on whether or not the target of the joke/comment/what-have-you has deliberately exposed their children to the media when it suits their needs and benefits them."

[Cameroi]

Assuming it's someone in the public eye being attacked through a third party, I would fault both - the attacker for using a pawn, and the attackee for putting the third party in harm's way.

So, you believe that the person being attacked intentionally uses their child as a shield, eh?
Can't say I find your supposition very tasteful.
Now, suppose that the parent didn't intentionally use their child as a shield?

that would certainly be a different situation. and a VERY different one from the one being cited.

[Cabra West]

Of course it's acceptable to attack parents through their children.
If they raise misbehaving little brats, it is to a great extend their fault after all.

[Blouman Empire]

Meh, the Palins were the one who put themselves out on the public spotlight, they should be prepared for any and all attacks.

No Sarah Palin put herself in the public spotlight, Willow, however, didn't.

So why should she be getting attacked?

Of course it's acceptable to attack parents through their children.
If they raise misbehaving little brats, it is to a great extend their fault after all.

So that is the childs fault?

[Cabra West]

Of course it's acceptable to attack parents through their children.
If they raise misbehaving little brats, it is to a great extend their fault after all.

So that is the childs fault?

*sigh* It's so difficult to be clear and concise in English, sorry.
It's the parents' faults.

[Soheran]

Is it generally socially acceptable to verbally attack a parent through their children?

No, it's morally abhorrent: it's not fair to the children, who are not public figures and do not deserve public ridicule and derision just as a means to go after their parent. But what do you honestly expect from comedians like David Letterman?

[Ifreann]

Only if it's funny.

Exactly this. What can I say, LG knows his shit.

[Treznor]

[Blouman Empire]

*sigh* It's so difficult to be clear and concise in English, sorry.
It's the parents' faults.

So it is good to rag and laugh at the children then?

[Ring of Isengard]

Is it even possible to defend the indefensible?