Sarah Palin: ”Is It any Wonder Why We Call Them Lame?”
Cidu Bill on Jun 2nd 2010
Sarah Palin’s latest article criticizing the media wasn’t all that interesting. What is interesting is her use of the word “lame” given her indignation over people and things being casually referred to as “retarded.”
That’s just so gay.
Filed in Bill Bickel, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin | 58 responses so far
paperboy Jun 2nd 2010 at 06:31 pm 1
I’m going to be presidential and make a comment on something I haven’t read yet. (you have to be on FaceBook to read Palin’s article).
I’m assuming she didn’t use the term “lame” to mean “physically disabled esp. in the foot or leg…”. In my Webster’s an entry says : “Slang. Out of touch with modern fads or trends; unsophisticated.” What I mean is, the word “lame” CAN be used in a derogatory way without reference to people who cannot walk well. And IS “lame” a derogatory description of one who can’t walk well?? I didn’t know that; guess I’m out of touch and unsophisticated.
Powers Jun 2nd 2010 at 06:49 pm 2
paperboy, “retarded” can also be used without reference to people who have mental retardation. Yet Palin complained about it. Yet here she is using “lame” in exactly the same way.
Paperboy Jun 2nd 2010 at 06:57 pm 3
Power#2- Right you are about “Retarded”, but my main point is that I don’t think “lame” has reached the same “P.C.” level as “retarded”. (reminds me of the “Family Guy” episode where Peter is found to be Mentally Challenged. Brian asks him: “So, Peter, you’re okay with being Retarded?”. Peter: “Please, Brian; we prefer to be called “Little People”.)
Mark M Jun 2nd 2010 at 07:11 pm 4
This is a pretty weak comparison (I resisted the urge to use “lame” instead of “weak”). Calling someone or something “retarded” in the derogatory sense usually means dumb or abnormal, which is a cruel image people actually suffering from mental retardation have to endure. On the other hand, as paperboy alluded to, use of the word “lame” as Palin used it has no derogatory reference to those who can not walk well.
Rumplestiltskin Jun 2nd 2010 at 07:42 pm 5
Mark M: There’s more substance to the comparison that your post would acknowledge.
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=56067
Rumplestiltskin Jun 2nd 2010 at 07:42 pm 6
make that “than” you post.
More fantasy, less reality, no baby blues Jun 2nd 2010 at 08:00 pm 7
Republicans using lame to mean out of touch would be hilarious, given that they oppose every technology, and social improvement made since the Industrrial Revolution.
Gilgamesh Jun 2nd 2010 at 08:17 pm 8
It is a waste of time to argue consistency or double standards when trying to convince Sarah’s minions of their leaders incompetence. They have solidly plugged the well of reason from which cognitive dissonance once splashed forth.
Paperboy Jun 2nd 2010 at 08:46 pm 9
I’ll bet you’re right, Gilgy; why she’s considered a “leader” is beyond me. If any of her “minions” show up here, you should let ‘em have it!
Have you got any thoughts on the acceptability of “lame”?
Mark M Jun 2nd 2010 at 08:46 pm 10
Rumplestiltskin, ignoring the fact that you are using a message board as an argument, do you honestly consider “retarded” on the same level as “lame”? Some words have a stronger connotation than others. That’s just a fact. The “N” word is an obvious example where we can’t even say the word itself even if not meant as a racial slur.
Izzy Jun 2nd 2010 at 09:15 pm 11
Quite a reach, Bill.
Driven Jun 2nd 2010 at 11:09 pm 12
The title “is it any wonder we call them lame” is just as offensive and derogatory as casually calling someone retarded. It’s also childish to result to name calling. Stereotyping an entire industry because one reporter from one news network refused to take your comment and print it. Do you really think that reporter had any choice over what was cut out of the report they did? It’s decided much higher up the food chain… And if they are all so “lame” then why did she bother with providing a comment in the first place? That seems to be hypocritical.
furrykef Jun 2nd 2010 at 11:30 pm 13
I think “lame” as in dumb/unfashionable/whatever has taken over to the point that many people — especially younger people — are probably unaware of the literal meaning. That’s definitely not the case with “retarded”.
Rich Jun 2nd 2010 at 11:36 pm 14
No fan of of Palin, but agree that the criticism is a stretch. I’m biased though, being father of a 9 year old mentally retarded son. I just can’t see the father of a child who is unable to walk being hurt by the term ‘lame’ the way I flinch at the word retarded being used as an insult.
My favorite essay on the subject is from a special Olympiad during the ‘tropic thunder’ controversy:
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/173614
Jeff S. Jun 2nd 2010 at 11:48 pm 15
PC version of Retarded — Mentally Challenged
PC version of Lame (aka Handicapped) — Physically Challenged
Sure, it’s a stretch since lame doesn’t really convey the same stigma as handicapped or retarded, but it’s not really THAT big of a stretch.
Winter Wallaby Jun 3rd 2010 at 12:56 am 16
I don’t see why this is a stretch. Yeah, an insult of “lame” isn’t actually a reference to people with physical disabilities. However, by the same token, people who say “that haircut is retarded” probably aren’t saying that the haircut is a sign of a developmental disability - it’s a way of saying that their haircut looks really bad.
Izzy Jun 3rd 2010 at 01:13 am 17
Bill on January 21st you claimed that John Edward’s staffer’s attempt to pretend he was in fact the father of Edward’s baby was one of the “lamest” attempts. Surely, you wouldn’t have said this was one of the most “retarded” attempts. There is a difference.
Chuck Jun 3rd 2010 at 01:14 am 18
My name MEANS lame. T-T
And now you guys can figure out what my name is.
Cidu Bill Jun 3rd 2010 at 01:37 am 19
This is true, Izzy. But another difference is that I didn’t get onto a international soapbox denouncing somebody else’s comment and announcing my hypersensitivity to the world. Once you do that, you’re agreeing to be held to a higher standard regarding words that might offend somebody else.
Just for the record, calling something “lame” isn’t something I generally do — though less out of political correctness than because when I was growing up, the word really didn’t have this meaning. But I thought about it and decided that of the adjectives currently available to me, this one best expressed the sense of what I meant.
And for that matter, the primary reason I’d never use “retarded” as an adjective is that I’m not eight years old.
Chuck Jun 3rd 2010 at 01:46 am 20
Of course you’re 8. As I recall you’re 12. XD
Cidu Bill Jun 3rd 2010 at 01:51 am 21
I’m only 12 when it comes to my taste in and appreciation of sexual humor. Verbally, I’ve always been precocious.
Rid Jun 3rd 2010 at 03:27 am 22
The fact that she’s even allowed to speak in public just shows what’s wrong with this country.
The Magic Tortoise Jun 3rd 2010 at 04:30 am 23
No, Rid, the fact that she’s given attention shows what’s wrong with this country.
Igelino Jun 3rd 2010 at 07:19 am 24
I think Bill’s translation “that’s just so gay” says it well. She should be avoiding dialect. Not necessarily because it’s offensive, but because she’s supposed to be a public figure with an education.
Lola Jun 3rd 2010 at 09:00 am 25
Chuck, is it Ilene?
mitch4 Jun 3rd 2010 at 10:17 am 26
I’m always a bit abashed when having to discuss the open-source graphics program called “The GIMP”.
billytheskink Jun 3rd 2010 at 11:18 am 27
Once had a co-worker who regularly called me and my interests “lame”. I had a lot of fun daring her to continue to do so when I was recovering from a broken leg.
Of the many things Sarah Pailn does that folks might find objectionable, using the word “lame” ought to be far, far down the list regardless of her position on the use of “retarded”.
paperboy Jun 3rd 2010 at 12:03 pm 28
The Magic Tortoise#22- Nice rebuttal. The hidden love of totalitarianism reveals itself in the heat of hatred.
Judge Mental Jun 3rd 2010 at 12:24 pm 29
If you actually read the article, you would find that its about fabric with metallic thread.
/didn’t read it
Keera Jun 3rd 2010 at 12:45 pm 30
While we’re at it, “dumb” used to have another meaning we’re not allowed to use any more to describe someone without the ability to speak.
Chuck Jun 3rd 2010 at 01:52 pm 31
Lola, don’t be silly. XD It’s Claudia.
Gilgamesh Jun 3rd 2010 at 01:53 pm 32
Forget ‘Lame’; I am left perplexed by Palin’s convoluted reasoning on when its’ OK to use ‘retarded’.
Using the word as an angry ejaculation during a private meeting is a terrible insult to those below a certain IQ while a radio rabble rouser purposely saying ‘retarded’ multiple times during a scripted diatribe against a specific group of people is approved.
Whats’ lame, is the nominal leader of a group who detests any use of what it terms ‘political correctness’, defending such a position as logical.
Perhaps it is a case of PCness envy.
paperboy Jun 3rd 2010 at 03:39 pm 33
I’m still not convinced “lame” is an offensive term to describe one who has difficulty walking, or that the other usage metaphorically refers to such people. You gotta cut “Beyond the” Palin some slack in this; if it IS offensive, it’s a well-kept secret.
The idea of retiring terms because they’re used as insults to people without the afflictions is a bit silly. When someone says to another who made a mistake: “Are you retarded??”, the implication is that since the person is not, what is his excuse? Obviously, some other failing that CAN be corrected, so do so, dammit.
A person who is mentally retarded has a CONDITION, and “retarded” describes it. It’s not a positive condition, but it doesn’t mean that person should be taunted, shunned or aborted (unless the mother chooses). But no matter what you describe an undesirable condition, it’s going to have a negative usage. The alternative to “retarded”, “special” seems to already become tainted.
Charlene Jun 3rd 2010 at 08:22 pm 34
I’m lame myself, and I’m afraid that the use of “lame” to mean “inferior” does annoy me. But my complaining about it would just make me the problem, not the people using the word in such a derogatory fashion.
Mark in Boston Jun 3rd 2010 at 09:24 pm 35
From now on I’m using “That’s just so straight!”
As in “The Boston Gay Men’s Chorus is doing a concert of Bach cantatas? That’s just so straight!”
June Jun 3rd 2010 at 09:58 pm 36
I don’t think “lame” is as bad as “retarded” still though, once Palin started throwing stones at others she needed to move out of her glass house (or something like that.)
Powers Jun 4th 2010 at 07:11 am 37
paperboy - the problem is not that “lame” is necessarily beyond the pale, it’s that Palin declared “retarded” beyond the pale but uses “lame” herself.
DonBoy Jun 4th 2010 at 10:31 am 38
What’s extra-funny is the history of Palin’s particular use of “lame”. Years ago, the right wing decided to label the non-rightwing media as “the mainstream media”, then shortened to MSM. But this usage started leaking out of the right wing, and then everyone started using “mainstream media”, with different meanings — some meant “not biased to my liking (whichever way that is)”, and some meant “traditional (non-online)” media. So, having lost its ability to mark the speaker as a right-winger, Palin (and maybe others) moved on to “lamestream media”. Which, like much modern political abuse by stupid people, makes her sound like a sixth-grader who thinks he’s clever.
Anyway, that’s where “lame” comes from in this case.
Penny Nickles Jun 4th 2010 at 01:29 pm 39
@Gilgamesh #32 (swoon) Anyone who makes a Freud pun on a comic message board is OK in my book.
paperboy Jun 4th 2010 at 01:45 pm 40
But, Powers#37, “lame” ISN’T a offensive, hurtful slur. THAT’S the problem.
(and DonBoy#38- that’s “…makes her sound like a sixth-grader who thinks HE OR SHE is clever.”)
Chuck Jun 4th 2010 at 07:12 pm 41
Or just she? Because we’re talking about a female?
Detcord Jun 5th 2010 at 07:48 am 42
Because I like words, I’ve been following this conversation with some interest. I know, for example, that words are simply a construct that enables us to convey thought. The symbols, in themselves, are meaningless. It is we humans who give those symbols meaning – and power.
For example, I’ve been lame many times thanks to a broken leg, torn calf muscle, and sprained ankle (twice) to name only the more significant events that reduced my ambulatory capabilities. Thus the word provides a very practical and useful reference for a very real situation.
However, since humans love talking in metaphor, the clear definition of the word “lame” also becomes useful in the abstract, however unfortunate that may be for some. The word provides a clear meaning in conversations that have nothing to do with the efficacy of one’s legs. So it goes with “retarded”, and don’t get me started on “gay”.
I happen to be one of those who like the message Sarah Palin is peddling. Less government and more self reliance is what the US was founded upon and made it great. I also understand the personal implication of Mrs. Palin’s having given birth to a retarded child. It must be very difficult for her.
So, she’s twisting herself about trying to separate her personal issues from the metaphorical. I wish her luck as we humans are rarely so complying.
PS. paperboy. I think you’ve done a pretty good job defending a difficult position. Keep it up!
Detcord Jun 5th 2010 at 08:10 am 43
DonBoy (38)
You make an interesting assertion about the origin of the term “Mainstream Media”. Do you have any reference to back it up? I did some looking myself and found, in that paragon of profundity (Wikipedia – ho ho), something quite different. Wikipedia asserts that the practical definition of “mainstream” is, “the principal current of a river”. So far, not a very pejorative term, eh?
Its first metaphorical usage was, says Wiki, in Thomas Carlyle’s 1831 “Sartor Resartus, where he wrote in Chapter VII of “those main currents of what we call Opinion”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream
Now Wiki dates the origin of the Republican Party as 1854, so your assertion that the “right wing” decided the metaphorical usage of this term is not substantiated by the record.
Tell me you didn’t just, “make it up”!
Danny Boy (London Derriere) Jun 5th 2010 at 11:25 am 44
You might appreciate what Dan Savage (sex- and relationship-advice columnist and podcaster) has done, after some readers/listeners raised objections to his use of “pussy” as a designation for a weak-willed or cowardly or over-sensitive person. After weighing some alternatives, he settled on “scrote” as a substitute.
When similar objections came up for “retarded” there was some back-and-forthing along the lines of our discussion here, but eventually he agreed that there was something wrong with that usage, and now tries to substitute “leotarded”. This has the bonus of giving him “leotard” as the noun, as he was not in the habit of calling someone a “retard” even when he was using “retarded” to describe obnoxious/stupid behavior.
[Or maybe that’s “Lyotard”??]
Powers Jun 5th 2010 at 11:35 am 45
Detcord: As I’m sure you realize “right wing” and “Republican Party” are not synonymous throughout the historical record. But it’s a moot point anyway, because DonBoy did not claim that the Republic Party (or right-wingers, for that matter) invented the word “mainstream”, nor that they invented the metaphorical use of the term.
I believe DonBoy’s point was that some years ago, not all that long ago on an historical scale, certain people from the right wing of the United States political spectrum started using the term “mainstream media” in a derogatory sense, as a way of setting apart their own, preferred media as “non-mainstream”.
Actually, I believe the term “mainstream media” was originally used to refer to all broadcast and print media, to distinguish them from Internet sources like blogs and whatnot. But then Fox News picked it up and used it to refer to everyone except themselves.
Keera Jun 5th 2010 at 11:39 am 46
Danny Boy @44, is Dan Savage a Howard Stern wannabe since he wants to use such words? Why else couldn’t Dan Savage just use the word wimp? Why is a word reminiscent of scrotum now designated to mean cowardly or timid, which is the exact opposite meaning of “ballsy”? Why didn’t his listeners object to that? As for leotard, that’s a thinly veiled reference to retard, so no win there. Why even use that word if what he means is obnoxious or stupid? I guess none of his listeners are dancers. Bring back the word boorish, I say!
Detcord Jun 5th 2010 at 07:08 pm 47
Powers (37)
As with DonBoy, you make some interesting assertions, but offer no evidence to back them up. In the first place, DonBoy used the word “label” which can mean tag, define or describe. I took him at his word and showed him where he was mistaken. A simple lexicographical exercise.
I am interested in your assertion that, “certain people from the right wing of the United States political spectrum started using the term “mainstream media” in a derogatory sense.” Do you have any evidence for that assertion?
Wikipedia own reference for “Mainstream Media” asserts that, “Large news conglomerates, including newspapers and broadcast media, which underwent successive mergers in the U.S. and elsewhere at an increasing rate beginning in the 1990s, are often referenced by the term”. Again, according to Wiki, “This consolidation of ownership has raised concerns of a progressive homogenization of viewpoints presented to news consumers. Consequently, the term mainstream media has been widely used in conversation and the blogosphere, often in oppositional, pejorative, or dismissive senses, in discussion of the mass media and media bias.” Note no mention of any political affiliation starting this trend.
It is MY assertion, as shown by the evidence above, that the term “Mainstream Media” originated from the people of the United States, regardless of political affiliation. It became derogatory when Americans perceived a bias in a news source they once trusted. Of course, I don’t expect Americans who agree with the bias to complain a much as those, such as Republicans and Independents (like myself).
Powers Jun 6th 2010 at 09:16 am 48
If you look at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067 , Detcord, scroll down about halfway. In 1999, Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes was quoted as saying his channel’s mission was, in part, “to go cover some stories that the mainstream media won’t cover.” Even as long as 11 years ago, then, Fox News was already trying to put some separation between themselves and the rest of the media. Ailes was clearly using “mainstream media” here to mean “media with a liberal bias”, not “traditional media like broadcasting and print”.
That right there is enough to completely backup DonBoy’s assertion (which was “Years ago, the right wing decided to label the non-rightwing media as ‘the mainstream media’, then shortened to MSM.”).
Which meaning came first is unclear. I don’t read DonBoy’s post as making a clear assertion about it either way, but it’s hardly important to his point.
Detcord Jun 6th 2010 at 12:52 pm 49
Powers (48)
I had, and am still having, some difficulty discerning just what DonBoy’s “point” was, short of heaping abuse on Mrs. Palin’s attempts to coin the term “lamestream media” and generally asserting that some amorphous “right-wing” types hung the “mainstream media” label on their rivals. I have offered evidence that this could not be so as the term itself goes way back in US history and was specifically in use n the early 1990’s. Even your link does not dispute this, but only notes that Fox News sought, in 1999, to differentiate itself from its MSM competitors by initiating an editorial swing to the right. The subtext then implies that the rest of the MSM crowd were already left-leaning by this time, essentially proving the MSM bias point. Given Fox News’s success, it was apparently a good business move too.
If DonBoy’s point is his penultimate sentence, “Which, like much modern political abuse by stupid people, makes her sound like a sixth-grader who thinks he’s clever.”, then I would suggest the ancient phrase, “Physician, heal thyself” applies to his own case.
Personally, I am in favour of a robust and wide-ranging media establishment that caters to the needs of a broad spectrum of political ideologies. If this comes about by focussed news entities (with their own brand of biases) such as those that appear to be evolving in the blogosphere – where public competition will weed-out the also-rans and encourage competent reporting – then I say “more power to ‘em”. Debate is healthy, and muzzling the opposition is not – IMHO.
Danny Boy (London Derriere) Jun 6th 2010 at 05:36 pm 50
Keera @46, I of course can’t take on being a spokesman for Dan Savage. I’m just a pretty-regular listener to his weekly podcast, and generally I like what he has to say. It’s clear I’d be a pretty lousy spokesman if I’ve left you with the impression Savage is anything like Howard Stern!
Savage and Stern do have one thing in common, and that’s a readiness to use traditionally taboo language in their uncensored media platforms. But their way of doing so and reasons for doing so are different.
Savage is in a way extremely P.C. — witness the fact that he devoted a few weeks to dialogue and in the end responded positively to the suggestion that he should not say “pussy” as a term of derision or dismissal. Listeners told him that usage was antifeminist or misogynist [two different matters of course], and though he was dubious at first he was convinced later by the communications from his listeners.
Powers Jun 7th 2010 at 06:46 am 51
Detcord, I think this discussion has moved beyond usefulness. You said “I have offered evidence that this could not be so as the term itself goes way back in US history and was specifically in use n the early 1990’s.” You found references to the term “mainstream” dating back some ways, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the point; the discussion is about the phrase “mainstream media”. And yes, it’s certainly true that that phrase was widely used to mean “not online media”, but I simply don’t see how that in any way contradicts the fact that right-wingers have used it frequently to refer not to all broadcast and print media, but to only those media that they consider liberal-biased.
Detcord Jun 7th 2010 at 08:27 am 52
Powers (51)
Well, yes, if you’re not going to read the references I link (or site), then no, the discussion becomes merely tit-for-tat, which I agree achieves nothing.
My (line 43) link to the term “Mainstream” was to establish its credentials as a commonly used term that defines, “the common current thought of the majority”. My (line 47) entry then defined “Mainstream Media” as per Wiki. Here I wrote out the definition in that post, but also gave enough information for you to source it yourself – should you wish to confirm – always assuming, of course, that you actually read it. It is this link that asserts that the term “Mainstream Media“ was “used at an increasing rate beginning in the 1990’s…”
The “point” Powers, was that the nefarious “Right Wing” did not coin the term Mainstream Media ala DonBoy’s assertion that “the right wing decided to label the non-rightwing media as “the mainstream media”, then shortened to MSM”. As I have shown, the term already existed before YOUR link showed Fox News differentiating itself from the rest of the herd by shifting its business model to the right in 1999.
I do not dispute that those self-same nefarious right-wingers have successfully (in some quarters at least) made the term pejorative and differentiated themselves from it (again as your link showed). One might also suggest (and I think this more accurate) that they simply pointed out the obvious – which would better explain why it rankles those so labelled – as it apparently resonated with a substantial portion of the American news-consuming public.
As the saying goes, the MSM made a rod for their own back, and those sneaky right-wingers are beating them with it.
Detcord Jun 7th 2010 at 08:28 am 53
Wa-hey Bill! – apparently my office considers your site more acceptable that hotmail (a considerable achievement) as I cannot access hotmail, but as the evidence shows, I can access CIDU. Nice
Powers Jun 8th 2010 at 07:01 am 54
Detcord, I read your links, don’t worry.
But DonBoy never said that the right wing *coined* the term! You’ve been tearing down a straw man this entire time, apparently.
Detcord Jun 8th 2010 at 08:36 am 55
Powers (54)
I wasn’t worried, just frustrated. I don’t mind the rough-and-tumble of a good give-and-take exchange, especially if I learn something new, but your replies have, mainly, been based on “boo hiss” rather than “Ah but…” And I use those terms allegorically, so please don’t come back with “I [or DonBoy] never said…” I’ll grant your one link was interesting and I believe you are capable of more and better replies. Hence the frustration.
Winter Wallaby Jun 9th 2010 at 01:16 am 56
Yeah, except that quote has an entirely different meaning than you’re trying to attribute to it. You’ve quoted DonBoy as saying (correctly) that the right wing decided to label non-rightwing media as MSM, and then attacked him for failing to back up an entirely different claim (that the right wing coined the term MSM). As Powers said, this is a straw man.
Detcord Jun 9th 2010 at 07:07 am 57
Winter Wallaby (56)
Someone (possibly me) is being incredibly obtuse. In my own defence, may I ask you to identify who this all-powerful right-wing entity, cabal or individual is with the capability to “label” entities with a pejorative term – and making it stick? I mean, you and Powers agree with DonBoy’s assertion (without evidence) that, “the right-wing decided…”. Now making decisions is a pretty high-order capability. It requires [at the least] someone with a brain capable of making decisions – however mean they may be. Who is this Dr. [Right-wing] Nasty? The world wonders?
As far as strawman arguments are concerned, you and I have been here before. For example, you should’ve known that Power’s comment in line 54 is clearly a strawman. DonBoy, whom I quoted correctly, used the term “label” in his assertion. It was I that used the term “coined”. So Powers argument is spurious – a strawman.
I was initially interested in DonBoy’s assertion because, as I’ve noted before, I like words (and their history). As I have been out of the country for a long time, I was interested in his assertion regarding how the term Mainstream Media – and thus the term MSM – came about (as I didn’t experience it directly).
As you should know from my entries, I found his assertion faulty as the term Mainstream Media already existed before Powers interesting link indicated one of the MSM members (Fox News) decided to change its business model to take advantage of a gap in the market. Now that gap could not exist if the other MSM members were addressing the news needs of a significant portion of the American population (see my line 47).
But then, you’d know all this if you’d read my entries. Powers claims he did, which may explain why he’s resorting to strawman arguments as the facts (some of which he supplied) are irrefutable. DonBoy’s so called “right-wing” did not label a defined group of “non-right-wing media as Mainstream Media”, [and] then shortened [it] to the MSM”. Full Stop.
Mark M Jun 10th 2010 at 08:25 pm 58
Wally is insensitive. Heh.
http://www.dilbert.com/2010-06-09/