Photos
So, someone has made a documentary about Sarah Palin. Sure! Sarah Palin is a perfectly reasonable subject for a documentary. (And if she decided to take on Steve Wiebe in a time trial to get to the Donkey Kong Jr. “kill screen” can you even imagine? Oscar bait!) On a recent campaign stop, or whatever she is even doing in that bus all the time, which I guess is not officially campaigning, but she is basically campaigning, right? Anyway, at a campaign stop, she went to a screening of this documentary, and this happened:
Sarah Palin stared a bit uncomfortably at a movie screen Tuesday night watching a montage of Matt Damon, David Letterman, Madonna, Howard Stern, Bill Maher, Louis C.K. and other celebrities malign her, then asked The Hollywood Reporter: “What would make someone be so full of hate?”
Palin was in Pella, Iowa, at the premiere of a documentary about her called The Undefeated, which opens with several minutes of Hollywood entertainers using some of the most vulgar language imaginable to express their displeasure with the former vice presidential candidate. Some appear genuinely angry, and director Steve Bannon cuts to news footage twice in the film of Palin being hung in effigy.
“This is the first that I’ve seen much of that. It kind of takes you back,” she told THR. “It makes you want to reach out to some of these folks and say, What’s your problem? And what was the problem? And what is the problem?
“What would make a celebrity, like you saw on screen, so hate someone that they’d seek their destruction, their death, the death of their children? What would make someone be so full of hate and, I guess, a sense of being threatened that they would want to see that person destroyed?”
Oh brother. You know, I can imagine that watching a bunch of people saying really mean things about you in a movie theater full of people would be a pretty weird and possibly even difficult experience, although let’s also remember that watching a bunch of people saying ANYTHING about you in a movie theater full of people because someone MADE A DOCUMENTARY ABOUT YOU is already pretty weird on the old Weird Scale. It’s kind of what she signed up for, though, and happily I might add. Few people outside of reality TV (although don’t forget that she also had a reality show, so not that far outside of reality TV) have taken to the spotlight as quickly and with as much relish as this lady. But there is something about these quotes that is the most frustrating:
YOU ARE NOT A POOR LITTLE INNOCENT VICTIM, YOU WEIRD MONSTER! The reason that we know who Sarah Palin is is because at one point she was RUNNING TO BE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. And despite being so unqualified for the job that it was almost painfully obvious, she exuded as much arrogance about the whole situation as she did ignorance about every other situation. She is very ignorant about stuff! And now, after abdicating the professional responsibilities that put her in a position for us to know about her in the first place in a truly grandstanding and self-congratulatory way, and a whole procession of other CRIMES, she is driving around the world on a bus with her face on it and glad-handing with the dumb dumbs*. She’s a very famous person with a certain amount of genuine influence in this world, so enough with the Alfred E. Newman routine, ma’am.
But also, for someone who has built a national reputation on a platform of hatred, racism, jingoism, and xenophobia, how on Earth is she going to play the “Anti-Hate Card”? That card should not even be in her deck. People hate you because you’re a creep, Sarah Palin, but it is nothing as compared to the political agenda you are putting forward of dragging the United States backwards through the racist mud into some kind of isolationist, Grover Norquist nightmare. And none of the people cited in this documentary want to DESTROY YOUR CHILDREN. That is like one of those things where you say something about someone else that ends up saying a lot more about you than it does them. If anyone knows about setting out to DESTROY people it is the woman who abused her political office and has engaged time and again in the worst kinds of anti-human politics. Come on now, please. Eat your popcorn. Sip your soda. Turn off your cellphone and your tour bus and shut the hell up! You’re ruining the movie everything!
*At this point it seems really cut and dry that if you like Sarah Palin and believe in her personal political philosophy that you are dumb. I’m sorry, I just don’t see it any other way. She is very loud and brassy and obnoxious with very little intellectual grounding for anything that she says. You’re welcome to believe in and support her, it just means you’re dumb, that’s all. Don’t worry, lots of people are dumb!
 |
 |
You Might Also Like
Leave a Reply
Sign inSign in with FacebookYou must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.
She has to have some idea about the kind of things people say about Obama and his wife and kids, right?
It’s free speech when it’s said about other people! Why do you hate free speech so much, rootmarm? What has free speech ever done to you?
Well, it’s caused him to hear about what Sarah Palin thinks about things, so…
What’s your problem? And what was the problem? And what IS the problem?
I’m going to assume that rootmarm is actually the online moniker that President Obama uses for commenting on pop culture websites.
shhhhh!
PS much respect for the hark a vagrant fat pony avatar
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/unbelievable-things-fox-news-readers-say-about-mic
Gotcha!
i just love how she conveniently forgets how awful she is. she has used crass, nasty language towards people many times. the whole “take aim” at the democrats thing and all of her hunting rhetoric is just as mean spirited.
can we please stop talking about her so she’ll go away?
Yes! And can we please remember Gabrielle Giffords!?!?!? Yes.
Matt Damon has a history of killing children*
*according to his wikipedia page immediately after this article was written, i’m sure
You know, whether or not she deserves it, constantly attacking Sarah Palin for every little thing she does doesn’t really make you any better than her. Saying that it’s okay to hate her because she hates other people is just going to her level. And for as much as she seeks the spotlight, people are spending just as much time and effort thrusting her into it. And I genuinely do not think she is as stupid as she is portrayed in the media. People mostly just glossed over the fact that when all of her emails were leaked, it was mostly very uninteresting. If her public statements are always portrayed as terrible and ignorant, but emails she sent that were not public knowledge at the time do not have the same effect, it frankly sounds like there’s some twisting going on there.
Like I said before, I think it’s time to stop caring about her at all. Just let it go. Let’s all hate Shia Labeouf instead. Lord knows he deserves it.
I kind of agree with this. She’s been around long enough for everyone to decide if they’re on Team Lunatic or not, and those that have made up their mind (like my in-laws) are not going to change. So we’re kind of beating a dead horse (that Matt Damon probably destroyed) at this point.
Nope. Sorry, ft. As long as she continues to seek power and influence (which she is, even if it’s not official), people should call her out on her bullshit. She’s not just another ignorant asshole. She’s an influential asshole, which makes her dangerous.
And I really don’t see how you can say her image is manipulated to make her look stupid. All of those interviews during the campaign where she showcase her ignorance on everything from the Constitution to foreign policy had long unedited stretches where there wasn’t really room for misinterpretation.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see
I am uncomfortable with a lot of the misogynistic, sexualized, violent stuff said about her (often by liberal friends of mine who no doubt consider themselves to be progressive, enlightened people!) But I most definitely do not think she is above criticism as a public figure.
I agree with this completely. And I think it worrisome that she is a lightning rod for what seems like all the criticism when she is hardly alone in her terribleness. But that does not make her less terrible, it just means that other people deserve their fair share of the terrible pie!
I think she represents a really pernicious influence on political and social discourse in America, plain and simple. The things she says need to be challenged, otherwise it’s no better than tacit approval.
Dude – it’s because people believe she’s a genuinely BAD person. She is not a victim here, and to say she is plays into her self-appointed victim status. She sought out fame and power on her own, and tries to influence the public conversation on the most important issues of the day. Bus tour! Reality show! Running for VP! These things didn’t happen TO her, she DID them. If she wanted it to go away, she could crack a book before opening her mouth. She could stop issuing public statements on every time Obama’s shoes come untied. But she won’t, because she is a manipulative fame whore who cannot be allowed to exert influence over our elections or our public policy.
From the Guardian:
Letterman describes Palin as “slutty” in the footage, while Maher calls her a “dumb twat” on his TV show. Madonna screams “Sarah fucking Palin” while performing at a concert and various other entertainers variously label her a “slut”, “bitch” or use the term “hate” to describe their feelings about her.
FT and I aren’t saying Palin is beyond reproach or criticism, heavy and sharp criticism for that matter. But what’s happening in this particular post is, we’re denying her the COMPLETELY HUMAN response to a particularly brutal kind of treatment. Pretending Sarah Palin is the devil incarnate and thus making it perfectly civilized for anyone and everyone to behave like a crucifying mob towards her puts us in a very precarious position.
Those words are indefensible. But I believe this thread left the post behind a long time ago. FT didn’t just say “those words are wrong./mean” he talked a lot more about her, her emails and her broader reception in society.
@gmarley: Yeah, and that’s true, but I think there’s something a little misleading about putting them altogether in a big clump like that. It makes it look like all anyone ever says is horrible things about her. Even Matt Damon can be angry about something, sometimes, it’s not like he’s made a career out of saying horrible shit about Sarah Palin. It just looks extra bad because someone took the interview and threw it in with a bunch of other interviews in the same pile.
Chris:
I’ll absolutely grant that the medium of the message here is dubious. But I don’t know that the volume makes any of the individual attacks look worse: Misogyny stands on its own terrible legs. If Palin was compiling the footage all by herself, honestly, I think she’d be justified in doing so to point out that for *some reason* saying awful shit is fine and acceptable as long as it’s wrapped up in a political package. Doesn’t that bother you? People did it to Hillary Clinton, and the difference is, of course, Clinton handled it with grace and an incredible amount of resolve. I think caving in and addressing it head on is bad politics, but I don’t think it’s unjustified on a human level.
@Gmarley: I don’t know, it’s a tricky spot. I mean, yeah, I think the rhetoric about her has been often worse than about other candidates (with the notable except of the black guy, for obvious reasons), and certainly far more misogynist — though I think it’s imperative to sort out the usages of “hate” from “slut” or even “bitch.” I haven’t seen her movie (and probably will not), so I don’t know who said what, but I think it’s not quite fair to tarnish everyone who “hates” Sarah Palin with Bill Maher’s “fucking twat” brush.
But the problem is that I don’t think that we *are* denying her a completely human response to her haranguing, in the sense that it would be a completely human response to be upset, and to challenge those people individually, or even in public, but it is *not* a completely human response to spend a pile of money in order to have a documentary made about yourself because you don’t like what people are saying about you. That is not a thing that regular people do, that’s a thing that Mr. Burns does.
I guess what I’m saying is that I’m not denying or dismissing her right to basic human dignity; I just can’t really bring myself to feel bad for her.
Chris: I don’t necessarily follow… wouldn’t it be kind of odd to leave out the fact that a huge part of your political story is people really hate you and talk about it on television in some instances that are very inappropriate? I don’t know why that wouldn’t go in the documentary. That’s not speaking to WHY people don’t like you or agree with you, again, I’m not saying Palin is a saint or anything, but I think it’s a notable fact when people are hanging effigies. Is the documentary in good taste? I doubt it, but that content isn’t unreasonable from a personal perspective.
Again, it’s bad politics to do this and not admirable. I just don’t think it’s unjustified or a surprise.
I don’t mean to nitpick or accuse anyone of anything, ultimately my point is, I just think it’s kind of fascinating how we all get pretty comfortable with behavior that we vilify “the other side” for doing when we don’t have pity to bolster our moral fiber.
@Gmarley: Except I think for two things. 1) I don’t think she’s telling her life story because she has had a long and interesting life that is worth having a story told about. I think that she is telling her life story because she is trying to justify herself, to fuel a martyr complex that both sustains her and sustains her popularity. When I say that this isn’t an ordinary human response, what I mean is that she didn’t have a documentary in the works planned, about her working with bears or something, and it just happened to include the fact that she was being hanged in effigy because that was a signifcant part of her life — she purposefully and with intent commissioned a documentary about herself in order to demonstrate both that she was being unfairly persecuted and to use that persecution complex to further her own political agenda. I mean, a lot of people, both liberal and conservatives, have said mean things about her, and it’s absolutely not a coincidence at all the film is going to lean heavily on how much she’s being persecuted by the Left.
The fact of that calculation, that even what would ordinarily be purely sympathetic in any other cirucmstance, is immediately rerouted into an unjustified persecution complex that is inflated for political gain, that makes her unsympathetic to me.
2) I don’t want to just say that it’s okay to villify people if they’re actual villains, but I think there’s some truth to that. I guess, to be more precise: she’s a pretty shitty person, who maybe didn’t deserve those shitty things being said about her, but honestly? They’re just noise. I’m not accountable for Bill Maher, and even if I *was* accountable for Bill Maher, his nasty comments haven’t actually done her any harm. John McCain lost the presidential election for her, she quit the governorship of Alaska, she had her own TV show and her daughter on another TV show. Gathering all stuff like this together and then being so disingenuous as to pretend that Matt Damon had such hate for her that he wanted to destroy her grandchildren is absurd; this was noise. Nasty noise, and noise that looks pretty bad when you put it all together in one place, but she’s hardly the first political figure to be hanged in effigy.
Also, 3) I guess I just resent that Matt Damon has gotten involved in this whole thing? Maybe it’s about my own personal delusions. Maybe I just don’t WANT to believe that Matt Damon is a shithead, but I’m sorry, I JUST CAN’T BELIEVE IT. She should have left Matt Damon out of it.
I hate to disagree, face, but her rhetoric is, or has been, quite violent*. I do not think it is cool to wish her, or her family (or anyone at all, for that matter) harm, I have a hard time seeing her as an innocent manipulated by the powers that be. And she is, without a doubt, seeking power and influence. I am honestly not sure if she will launch a presidential bid, but that does not negate my belief that she undoubtedly wants power and influence.
*She is hardly alone in this – US rhetoric is gross across the spectrum, and always has been it seems, but still, that does not mean one has to approve.
Facetaco I’m just not sure that you’ve given any reason way you think we should lay off her other than the fact that we’ve already gotten our hits in and should now move on. I don’t find that very convincing and I bet you don’t either. She could have very easily left the limelight (no Reality TV show, no dancing with the stars, no bus tour). If she had just gone away, I think you would be right. It would be pointless of us to beat a dead horse. But she hasn’t, has she. It was her choose to go on this national bus tour.
I’d be open to other reasons for why we should lay off her, if you have them.
Okay, but take her political opinions out of this. Plenty of celebrities have gone out and sought fame and attention. And many of them have said some very, very stupid things. I seem to recall about 6 or 7 years ago people were talking about how stupid and uninformed Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson were. But still, don’t you think it would have been a bit far for celebrities to openly proclaim their hatred for them? The only reason it’s considered acceptable now is because of her political stance. Which, while it might be misguided, is not intentionally harmful. It’s just a different opinion. That doesn’t make vicious attacks on her okay.
I wasn’t worried about Paris Hilton running for president. Or affecting congressional elections.
Also do I make vicious attacks at her?
I haven’t seen you make any, but I wasn’t referring to you, but the media’s portrayal of her in general. And are you really worried about Sarah Palin running for President? Because I can tell you that she has absolutely no chance of winning. If it ever looks like she has some chance of running this country, say whatever you want about her. But until then, as long as she’s limiting herself to a reality show and a bus tour, I think we should all try to be more civil.
“…as long as she’s limiting herself to a reality show and a bus tour…”
I’m sorry, FT, this just made me laugh a lot.
She’s seeking power and influence. She chose her bus tour. I certainly didn’t.
Folks, I tend to side with facetaco on this. The issue is muddied because we are using Palin’s name in this, but essentially what FT is saying is though Palin’s stances and platform issues are divisive, true discourse should be geared towards those stances and platform issues and not just blind character assassinations. And while Palin herself does use her position to assassinate the character of other politicians, as her opposition we should not stoop to her level.
i.e- In the hunt to destroy what we hate, are we in turn becoming the thing that we are hunting?
Thank you for being more good with words than me.
To further clarify: Let’s say Matt Damon said that he wanted to kill the Palin kids and that Palin said that she wanted to kill the Obama kids: Both currently hold no public office and both statements are odious, so how can you firmly plant your feet defending one statement over the other?
OK, off my soapbox. Let’s clear the air with a picture of a kangaroo in pajamas.
FLW, i don’t think any of us are advocating such violent language. If Gabe’s post was so vicious I think we’d all step up and call him out. I do not believe that I in an attempt to disagree with Palin that I have lowered myself to her level. Some people may, but you made a blanket statement that i think does not apply to many people who dislike Palin. Just because you are right about some people, doesn’t make my criticism of her any less valid and any less worth expressing. Your over simplification is concise and it certainly resonates upon first reading, but ultimately it does not stand up to deeper consideration.
You raise interesting points. While I think it is important to discuss politicians and their political stances, and sometimes harshly critique them, personal attacks are neither useful nor pertinent in most cases.
Sorry for the confusion, but I was pointing out how when political views get tangled up with character assassinations, passion gets mixed up with reasoning.
So let’s take away the language on the killing of children (and children shouldn’t be killed, despite the fact that I’ve authored two comments in 24 hours about the favorable aspects of smothering children.)
Let’s say Sarah Palin made this statement: “Obama’s shirt is terrible.”
Matt Damon (or whatever celebrity) hears this and says: “No. His shirt is awesome. Your shirt is terrible.”
Now, what I am arguing is that both statements are ridiculous and pedantic, but there are those because either they agree politically with Obama or disagree with Palin’s stance that would argue to the death that Damon is right and Palin’s shirt is terrible and the same goes for Palin’s supporters.
The point is that when it comes to character assassinations, no reasonable person could argue for one side over another because neither statement is or could be considered “right.”
Where I fall on this is, Palin says terrible things and she does this on purpose to rally a base of voters who are generally ignorant about politics for myriad reasons and can easily grok blanket statements about the opposition without the need or desire to dig deeper. (i.e. Obama is a terrorist because his name sounds funny.)
When we turn around and say “Palin said some terrible thing about Obama. Oh and by the way, Palin’s daughter can’t dance and therefore Palin is terrible.” We are perpetrating the same act we just accused Palin of perpetrating.
Where I think facetaco was going with this was let’s not be the same name calling ignoramuses that offend us when the opposing ignoramuses say something completely ignorant.
Pajama Kangaroo / Muniz, 2016!
I can intellectualize that what you say here is true, and we should strive to reach an ideal of political discussion driven by intelligent discourse, and that as intelligent human beings we must maintain the polite and the reasonable in any and all debates or the system falls apart.
But have you fucking HEARD this bitch? As much as I side with you on paper, the part of my brain that churns out reason gets clogged with hate and starts firing off steam to keep from exploding when this lady speaks. And the reason why is because that is what bullshit rhetoric does: it puts a kink in the gears and makes otherwise rational people fucking furious. There are people out there TRYING to set an example for the rest of the country of polite and intelligent discourse but when biased rhetoric that a fucking FIVE YEAR OLD should be able to recognize as such passes as “Just tellin’ it like it is!” to middle-america, the blind fury becomes overwhelming and personal attacks become more and more self-justifiable. Because, after all, it’s not the opposing party’s political stances that are actively seeking to destroy the standard of intelligent discourse; it’s the fucking individuals who spout rehearsed, hateful, anti-intellectual rhetoric that half of the country is actually going to accept as the gospel truth.
I might sound rambling here, but the tl;dr version is this: I don’t hate Sarah Palin’s politics. I hate Sarah Palin herself. I might DISAGREE with her political stances, but I don’t hate them because ultimately members of both sides of the spectrum are working for some version of “the greater good,” and that’s admirable. So when I say “I hate Sarah Palin” I mean that I hate the individual, not her politics, and that I am delivering a PERSONAL VERBAL ATTACK at her because she is a deplorable human being.
While I still think it is important to criticize Sarah Palin, I really agree with what you’re saying here. It’s a bit shocking that people are downvoting your opinion, especially because the main point of that opinion is that attacking people is mean, which is something that every decent person can agree on.
Even if she is a despicable person (which is vastly different from disagreeable viewpoints) that doesn’t make it right to make personal attacks on her. Or anyone else for that matter!
Thanks for standing up for someone you disagree with in the interest of decency. I think that’s very important.
Ahem. Again I say: Gabrielle Giffords.
The Economist ran an interesting article in the spring about the dangers of exiling someone, Palin in particular, from the moral community: Constant, spray-gun attacks on a person make the legit criticisms harder to identify, and galvanize the attacked person’s notion of being embattled and thus increase their paranoia and inability to behave, well, normally. It also creates a much more callous, dehumanizing environment for debate. Why is it ok to be totally vicious and when has that ever proven to be an effective strategy in convincing anyone of anything? Sarah Palin is ultimately responsible for herself and clearly should vanish from the political landscape, but I don’t know why she shouldn’t be upset by a montage of rich, reality-distortion-field celebrities who have dubious qualifications where political discourse is concerned (Madonna?) verbally attacking her and her family. In fact, I don’t know why WE shouldn’t be more upset about that. Gabe can reduce it to “kind of weird” and “possibly difficult” but I think anyone with sense knows that’s an understatement and it shouldn’t be excused.
Agreed. Saying that it’s okay to hate and attack her because she herself is hateful only exacerbates the situation.
Are you advocating kindness? or are you advocating that the hate gets spread around a bit. I’m not sure if its the latter that you have any moral highground.
I am advocating being the bigger person and not making your hatred a matter of public interest.
I haven’t seen this documentary because I don’t want to have a million panic attacks and gouge out my eyes, so I don’t know what the celebrities said, but to say that Matt Damon’s statements are “truly vicious” rings false to me. I just don’t see that. His qualifications where political discourse is concerned–and those of Louis CK, Madonna, or any of the other celebrities named here– may be “dubious,” but they are definitely no more dubious than her qualifications where political discourse is concerned, and for them to talk about how dumb Sarah Palin is is, in my opinion, no more hurtful than her policies about rape victims who wanted abortions, and certainly not more dangerous than Sarah Palin putting targets on maps of congressional districts.She ran for an office for which she was the least qualified candidate of all time, she took a job as a correspondent for the most right-leaning cable news network in the country, she stars in a reality TV show about herself, and she went on a nonsense bus tour and spouted historical inaccuracies to anyone who’d listen. I’m sorry, but you just don’t get to invite all that scrutiny, and then whine about being the victim of scrutiny. I’m not saying it’s ok to be hurtful, but I’m saying that I don’t really think Matt Damon is being hurtful. He’s just being right.
I’m not necessarily talking about Matt Damon or any actual scrutiny: At one time she did actually have some political talent on an administrative level, but I think we can all agree that she’s annihilated that and replaced whatever was there with an utterly useless cult of personality politic and a massively damaged concept of pragmatism, that isn’t even pragmatic.
As I posted above:
Letterman describes Palin as “slutty” in the footage, while Maher calls her a “dumb twat” on his TV show. Madonna screams “Sarah fucking Palin” while performing at a concert and various other entertainers variously label her a “slut”, “bitch” or use the term “hate” to describe their feelings about her.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jun/29/sarah-palin-critics-the-undefeated)
If she isn’t allowed to be offended by THAT, then we’re going too far.
So who is it in the documentary that says they want to destroy her children? Because if someone did say that they wanted to destroy her children, then of course that is unacceptable. But if she’s just making that up, if no one actually said that and she’s just lying about that to play the victim, then that’s also unacceptable.
Let’s not forget though that this is a documentary that Palin had made for herself, with her approval, with the explicit purpose of making her look good, trumping up her legacy and setting her up for an inevitable presidential run.
The clips of people saying mean things about her were specifically chosen to make us have sympathy for her and to play into her narrative of victimhood and outsiderness. They are there for a reason, and for her to play all “oh Im so shocked that people would be so meanypants to little old me” is completely disingenuous.
That’s not to say that we shouldnt elevate our political discourse etc etc, but you could compile a bunch of clips of people being vile about virtually any major political figure. It doesnt mean that Palin gets it any worse than anyone else. She chose this for herself, and is using it to her political advantage.
waitingforguffman:
I ran out of reply-space.
I mean, I only know what I read and quoted above: I don’t have a direct quote about anyone saying anything specifically about her children. I vaguely remember Kathy Griffin saying something about “taking down” one of the Palin daughters, but who knows.
I guess I’m having trouble responding. I don’t think Sarah Palin is awesome or an innocent victim in a lot of cases. I just think in 2011, a woman has every right to take offense to being called a “dumb twat” or bitch by a man, in a public forum, because that’s obviously taking a step backwards in gender relations, and I don’t know why that’s any better than calling someone a racial or sexual epithet. Sarah Palin has a persecution complex and may be using personal attacks to rally her supporters, but frankly, that’s not really our place to make that call in this particular instance. For the sake of civility and thoughtfulness, I think we need to at least allow the possibility that she was justly offended by some of this crap, and to just say “Shut up and take it because you’ve been mean in the past.” is excusing equally horrible behavior just because it happens to suit us at the time.
Their qualifications are the absolute highest: they are citizens.
Ok, touche, but I’m talking about a matter of expertise in relationship to platform, and the abuse of that platform to act horribly.
Yes, but to argue that she’s not ignorant, or question whether she’s ‘seeking power and influence’ (spoiler alert: she has and is), is just plain incorrect. She may be acting the fool with the folksy ‘charm’ she lays on so thick, but she wasn’t playing pretend in that Katie Couric interview (to pick the most basic, obvious example). And if she was, then it’s how she chooses to present herself and it’s fair game.
So I agree that ad hominem attacks lower the standard of discourse. And of course those of us who disagree with her would be better to take the high road (because we’re less likely to run into her there).
But most public attacks on her are about how she’s unqualified, or uninformed, or insulting, or would be dangerous in any position of real power. Those are justified, I think.
I agree with R2D2, Esq. So long as she seeks out ways to make statements on public policy and have a role in political discourse, she should be discussed. I, for one (SCHMARTMANN V. ALL, BASICALLY), vehemently oppose the very foundation of her political views, and feel that everything she represents so well needs to be challenged as often and thoroughly as possible.
i think everyone in this thread makes very excellent points. well said, all.
Word. Is this the discourse people were longing for a few weeks back?
FIRST!!!
Nah, fuck that.
“I will defend my children from Matt Damon just as Aaron Burr defended his children from Woodrow Wilson.”
I know that Matt Damon doesn’t want to destroy her children. I know that. But I would like to at least acknowledge that his work is the Bourne movies has definitely given him enough training to pull it off.
Is she so dumb she doesn’t know how cutting together interviews with contextually unrelated b-roll can create a new meaning to the interviews? Shit… They’ve done that to her a million times.
man do i feel sorry for women everywhere. we finally reach a point in our country where they have a significant chance of being elected president, not only that, but it will be a common occurrance that at least 1 woman will run probably for every election from here to forever [yay!] and which paranoid psychotic is beating all the more qualified and less ignorant ones out of the gate?
it’s like if Mac & Me came out before E.T. it still be an incredibly better movie in every facet, but it’s accomplishments and stature would be diminished and people would be fairly skeptical when its first release. “Uh, I dunno….this looks a lot like that other thing that was terrible, I doubt it’d be very good at all. i don’t think I’ll bother.”
i’m willing to bet that a crazy psycho republican woman is the first female elected president. it won’t necessarily be palin or bachmann, but i (sadly) feel like strongly conservative women have a better ability to play off of weird oedipal fantasies while downplaying castration fears. it’s basically combining the worst aspects of how america views women as a whole- the vast majority will only vote for women who somehow hold dear the old anachronistic ideas of what a woman’s role should be, while simultaneously reaping the benefits of feminisim. basically, we’ll support women who somehow oppress and liberate women at the same time, while playing a weird sexualized idea of reinforcing the male position of power. it’s the madonna whore complex in real life, wearing pearls and dragging 5 or 28 children behind it.
^ a masterpiece of political/cultural analysis
^ This is brilliant and terrifying at the same time.
This is a both very insightful and also somewhat refreshing? (at least it’s different than “she’s a monster, kill her with fire”). Political discourse tends to gloss over the fact that the American male psyche is wrought with a fear of feeling publicly emasculated, most notably in the political arena. This breeds something of an alpha-male personality, over which the only woman who has ever exerted any dominance is his mother. Hence why the matriarchal figure can win over that part of the population. While at the same time, the prospect of advancing women’s influence in society will attract the progressive left. Interesting point, southernbitch! (haha +5 points, great name for the scenario)
Hellooooo Margaret Thatcher, Tansu Ciller and Golda Meir.
I get it… I know Sarah Palin is xenophobic and prays on the fears of middle america, but can we stop calling peoplle racist that aren’t? I think sarah palin is as ridiculous, dangerous, and stupid as the next person with a brain, but I don’t think she is racist. I feel that there has to be intent, motivation, and a state of mind driving your behavior to be racist. Sure Palin has intent, motivation, and a state of mind driving her behvaior, but is it the idea that there are inherent differences in people’s traits and capacities that are entirely due to their race? I don’t think so, or at least she is not aware of it. Is she playing on other people’s racism? Probably. Is she racist? Maybe, but calling her racist deligitimizes the rest of the incredible arguments people make about how horrible she is.
i feel like she reinforces institutionalized racism via her support for certain policies and her wish to defund and eliminate other programs. i also feel like race has become so coded and shrouded within the public sphere and within our governing system that it’s easy for people not affected by the overwhelming issues created by structural problems to not recognize when something is race based. not saying that you can’t, of course. i just think that racism extends beyond and below obvious statements anymore.
Yes, yes, yes. The policies that she has endorsed and the statements that she has made most assuredly serve to support the systemic oppression of minorities, and indeed, the entire middle class of America. Whether she is smart enough to realize that is uncertain. But it doesn’t make it less true.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see
well, the problem is that racism is rooted in ideas of perception and undeniable reality at the same time. people (especially white people, of which i am one, just to be clear) like to talk a lot these days about how race is a construct, and that since it is socially imposed there are no real distinct lines when it comes to what is or is not racist. but i find that argument really troubling, since, as a white person, i reap the benefits of being the socially dominant group who has, to a large extent, defined and controlled the race conversation within this country. i am not comfortable with excusing myself and my actions with the idea that since race never entered into my mind when i said or did something inherently means that it is race neutral, because i shouldn’t be the arbiter of what is offensive or hurtful to a group that i am not part of. unconscious statements or belief that i might think is neutral might be deeply charged in other contexts. for instance, (time to get veer-y!), when sarah palin made those statements way back on the campaign trail about being in “real america”, i felt terribly uncomfortable because it seemed to me deeply charged along racial lines, specifically because she made those statements to a mainly white audience in northern virginia, aka the original political power seat of the confederacy. it might mainly be conjecture on my part, but history and identity should never be taken lightly in our country and especially within our political sphere. people hear and experience rhetoric and narratives very differently, and i think that should always be respected and everyone should be comfortable engaging in dialogue around the subject. otherwise we will just continue to have veiled discourse that reinforces rather than negates the casual acceptance of inequality that define our governing system. whew!
in short, everyone should read “the abolition of white democracy” by joel olsen and write a 5 page essay on privilege in discourse.
This is so well put. It’s very easy to intellectualize and cry “over-sensitive” when you are not on the receiving end of the potentially insulting, racist, or misogynistic comment. Just because one person doesn’t find something offensive doesn’t mean its not offensive.
yes! also, and this will be my final ridiculous post, but i admit that i love talking about this kind of stuff because i am basically a huge nerd for culture, rhetoric, and history, but it’s also weird how conversations in this country about racism tend to follow the line of “one time i did X thing and got called a racist and it was ridiculous, therefore every time someone is called a racist it’s probably ridiculous”. and i’m not saying that specifically to call out jwormyk’s story, because its an insanely common trope when we discuss race, gender, or class because all of those issues are deeply related to everyone’s sense of self. so when we start having to talk about how we view ourselves, how we views others, how others view us, and how we perceive others to be viewing us, things get really complicated! everyone tends to resort to personal stories as a lens through which to view very dense and messy political and identity issues when the issues are much, much more vast than one or two interpersonal situations, obviously. this shit is deep! it’s america’s original sin! race relations, to me, needs to always be pretty central in any discussion regarding policies and governments, because i feel it’s always been the secret driving force behind, well, everything. (insert x-files music here.)
oh, whoops, i said jwormyk and i meant facetaco. apologies everyone! and hugs! i’m not trying to be a hectoring ass, i’m just excitable when politicsgum happens!
southernbitch, I’d like to buy you a drink. You are awesome.
southernbitch, you and your Francis Bacon avatar are on fire right now!
The problem is we have this hidden institutional racism in this country which is a different form of racism. Yet we continue to call people racists based on the segregation/ slavery/ 1950′s definition. I understand race relations have become coded and shrouded and there is “slight of hand” involved making it not as obvious to people like me, but when the term racist is used, people don’t think about it in that way. They think of a white hood, burning cross, and noose. My point is that race relations in this country needs to be more honestly discussed and by labeling people racists, who clearly are not, under the generally mainstream/ non-graduate school definiton of racist, does nothing to foster or help that discussion.
sure, i will agree with that. but i also will say that white people tend to view the term “racist” as a white hooded KKK figure, that that’s normative to how that section of the population views who a racist is and what a racist does. i think a lot of communities of color see a much greater nuance to what racism can be represented by, and it’s the dominant culture’s inability to shift away from a much more overt idea of what racism is that is the hang up.
grad schoolers are the worst, i admit, i’m guilty of being in their ranks. but i also think that it’s the pervasive dumbing down of discourse in our society as a whole that is at fault as well. it’s offensive to me to always say that there is no space for serious cultural critique in the media or news because most people don’t get it/don’t care. i think that’s false and lazy.
I want to stand up and cheer for this post, because “mainstream/non-grad school” definitions of racism need to be examined and challenged. Just because you aren’t burning a cross on someone’s lawn doesn’t mean you aren’t racist. I’m a “southern grad school bitch” as well, and I definitely have friends who claim to be “race neutral,” and then say the n-word under their breath. That is fact.
I am also a southern grad school bitch! And these are both very good posts. Palin’s views on minorities, and more specifically on impoverished minorities, all reek of complete and total racism. She not talking about “taking our country back” from old white rich guys.
Yeah, but I think Gabe was clearly using the term above to describe Palin as a racist in the hateful active sense of the term. I agree that the proper way of looking at racism is through a more nuanced lense, but usually there is no distinction made, and the truth is it is more lucrative for the media to use the term in a way that causes argument and conflict rather than thoughtful discussion.
Also, I would disagree that communitites of color see a much greater nuance to racism. Maybe they can uderstand the distinction better, but for the most part, when someone of color calls someone a racist they are insinuating that the person thinks people of color should actively (not passively) be treated differently because of there inherent physical differences. Not everyone one, but I would argue even in the minority community the term racist still carries the same conotation as in the cultural hegemony.
+10 points for cultural hegemony! let the nerdery continue! i agree with a lot of what you said, but i also think that actively supporting differential treatment and passively accepting it are very related and feed into one another. like, the passive acceptance of the systemic problems translate into active inequality, so in a lot of ways, it’s the same thing.
Maybe if we all called out the racist statements and perceptions that fall under the more nuanced “grad school” category of racism, people might start to become more aware of their privileges and stop acting like such assholes. Saving the term racist for KKK members and the like doesn’t help anybody or anything.
You CANNNOT compare KKK burning cross racists with white people who feel uncomfortable going into a black neighborhood. IT IS NOT THE SAME, yet we use the term “racist” all the time to describe both people. My point is we can’t use the same term to describe two completely different ways of looking at race. It only incites argument rather than foster discussion.
I would just like to step in here and say I am proud (!) to be even tangentially part of a community where this conversation can take place as calmly and respectfully as it has. Go monsters!
They are not the same, that is true. However, the guy afraid of the black neighborhood doesn’t exactly deserve praise, either. In our society, even the some of the most liberal people would rather continue to ignore some the most insidious and damaging, albeit subtle, racism than hurt a white person’s feelings for calling them out on that racism. THAT, I feel, is major problem.
Ugh, and major apologies for the sudden loss of all grammar and language skills in that comment! #Editbutton
When I was in the 5th Grade, there was a bully who took great pride in making fun of everyone, until the day one of my classmates pointed out how fat he was and he cried and, ultimately asked to be transferred to another school.
This story about Sarah Palin reminds me of this bully. 20 plus years later, I’ll bet he’s way fat enough to smother Sarah Palin’s kids to death.
Quit hatin’, I’m reloadin’
And here I thought we were in for an entire day of penguin and fart videos (maybe penguin fart videos as well).
Palin is a nightmarish clown, but the media is far more interested in her than the public is at this point. Even most of the people who view her favorably as a person don’t want to have anything to do with her as a potential presidential candidate and have moved onto other nightmarish clowns like Bachmann.
Getting angry at her like this at this point is just playing into her schtick of doing things to gain attention and then play the victim whenever someone criticizes her. Granted, not writing about her on a pop-culture comedy blog isn’t going to change anything, but it’s still occupying space and mental energy that could be put towards much worthier things (ie penguin fart videos).
More like someone made a Sarah Palin docu-what-I-meant-ary, amirite? (because of how she always has to hop on FOX News for damage control after she makes all those gaffs she always makes)
I love when Gabe gets all smart on us. **Googles Grover Norquist**
I only know who Grover Norquist is because of those Something Awful articles written in from the POV of Levi Johnston!
Had no idea who he was and assumed, given his name, that he’d have a handlebar mustache and wear a top hat and would have died at least 75 years ago! Imagine my shock in discovering that not one of those things is true!
“What would make someone be so full of hate?” ~Rape victims in Alaska who had to pay for their own rape kits.
I wish I could upvote this more
LOL, thanks
Michele Bachmann is this generation’s Sarah Palin. Bachmann is like the T1000 whereas Palin is the T800 (the facial CGI one, not the one that can speak Spanish.) Sarah Palin is obviously captivating enough to have documentaries made about her. Bachmann is merely interesting enough to actually hold an elected office and she might just win a primary or two.
Sarah Palin is dumb fun like Schwarzenegger. Bachmann is actually out to ruin my way of life. Sort of like Robert Patrick with the X-Files.
!!! did you also read matt taibbi’s rolling stone article about bachmann? if not, you should!
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622
I did. I already knew she was some kind of psycho before I read it, so that wasn’t news. I thought it was interesting though when Taibbi more or less warns that Bachmann might actually have some electoral success. I didn’t believe that at first. Now I am wondering what they put in the drinking water in Iowa.
lots and lots of chemical runoff from industrial farms.
I would love it if some of the gradschool-level rhetoric would do its darndest to extend itself to making fun of people in the Midwest — I know people like Bachmann make it seem easy to see the “flyover” states as teeming with hateful idiots who love voting, but that’s as much a generalization as anything else that’s been discussed. I’m one of those Midwest transplants to NYC that everyone loves to complain about, and I’ve found that idiocy/bigotry/racism/sexism isn’t afraid to cross state lines. UGH I get defensive.
hey, as a super lefty southerner, i completely get where you’re coming from. it’s all the electoral college’s fault! but as a new orleanian, i will say, stop pumping all those farm chemicals into the river system and water table! the mississippi dead zone is so big this year! and the ogallala aquifer is like totes screwed! stop fucking up everything, the midwest! cackle! i love conflating geography and politics and culpability. fun games! identity politics for everyone!
“Some appear genuinely angry, and director Steve Bannon cuts to news footage twice in the film of Palin being hung in effigy.
“This is the first that I’ve seen much of that. It kind of takes you back,””
I’m assuming she meant she was taken aback, not nostalgic, which is what I think when someone uses the phrase “takes me back”
@Gmarley–(it won’t let me reply to your reply , so I’m sorry that I don’t know how to work the internet!) I just wanted to say that, yes, I definitely agree that calling someone a “dumb twat” (or any of those other horrible things, slutty, etc. etc.) is very offensive and if you were the person who was called that, then of course you should be offended. I really don’t disagree with you there, and also do not want Sarah Palin to just “Shut up and take it” because she’s been mean in the past. Maybe I do wish she could engage in a little self-reflection and perhaps see that some of her own policies are doing more to harm gender equality than Bill Maher calling her a stupid name, because I don’t really think she cares very much about gender equality at all? I don’t even know if she knows what it is? But of course, that’s kind of a side-note, and it doesn’t make it ok to call her mean names. It does make it ok to say subversive things about her views though, and about her lack of qualifications for public office, and that’s all I was really trying to say.
I see what you’re both saying but I think people are dismissive of her feelings because she’s basically the boy who cried wolf. Every little criticism becomes a gender attack or now even a death threat to her kids. Take the “retard” incident. Obama says it and he’s despicable. Rush says it and he’s friggin Richard Pryor. Couple this with her hateful rhetoric and incoherent policies and it’s hard to treat her seriously.
P.s.
Bill Maher is a bigoted nightmare too.
You should see me try to post an image to this thing, it’s totally sad.
Sure! Talk about her views! Be subversive! There’s a boatload of two-way-street irony going on and she’s a huge part of it! I just didn’t like the way Gabe was downplaying the actual trauma of seeing famous strangers say disgusting things about you, and non-famous strangers HANG YOU IN EFFIGY! I think that’s a lot more than a “kind of strange” experience.
Got it! Point taken! In the words of Johnny Carson, “You are correct, sir!”
Gov. Palin: Would you say I am undefeated?
First Dude: What?
Gov. Palin: *Undefeated*.
First Dude: Oh yes, you are undefeated.
Gov. Palin: Todd, what does undefeated mean?
First Dude: Why, Sarah?
Gov. Palin: Well, you told me I am undefeated. And I just would like to know if you know what undefeated means. I would not like to think that a person would tell someone she is undefeated, and then find out that that person has *no idea* what it means to be undefeated.
First Dude: Forgive me, Sarah. I know that I, the First Dude, do not have your superior intellect and education. But could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?
this post made me want to kiss gabe on the mouth.
This is only very tangentally related to a throwaway made by Gabe…but I wanted to update everyone on the King Kong drama. Billy Mitchel is again the King of Hong (and always hot sauce)…and he beat the record in person.
Check out this sweet geocities page that tracks the records:
http://www.twingalaxies.com/
This is only very tangentially related to a throwaway made by Gabe…but I wanted to update everyone on the King Kong drama. Billy Mitchel is again the King of Kong (and always hot sauce)…and he beat the record in person.
Check out this sweet geocities page that tracks the records:
http://www.twingalaxies.com/
Also…I would almost never call someone dumb for the sole reason of supporting a particular candidate. But I said almost, and Palin is one of those times.
What is truly refreshing, considering the content of the debate that has raged here, is the tiny number of comments that have been downvoted below 0 on this page. We disagree while we still get along. I love all you monsters for that.
i only want to say that i love these threads because of facetaco. it’s really rare to find someone who consistently flies in the face of the sites popular opinion so consistently with obviously trolling. almost every time and article rolls out saying “we all get this and have this opion right? right. (i mean obvs) i know i can count on facetaco to smash through the wall and yells “I DISAGREE! NO DEHR!”
Again, my apologies for not being able to reply directly to someone on here; my ineptitude seriously astounds me today. I just wanted to say something in response to jwormyk’s post about comparing “extreme” racists (skinheads/KKK members/cross burners) with more “moderate” forms of racism (people who roll up their windows at stoplights in St. Louis)….I definitely see the point you are trying to make, but I just don’t agree that either form of racism is ok. It’s kinda like trying to make the distinction between rape and rape rape…just as rape is always vile and inhumane, so is racism. In some ways, I believe the more subtle and unnoticed forms of racism are even MORE dangerous, because they seep in under the radar and continually perpetrate our collective subconscious, thus making us accept it as the “norm” that it has become.
Ummm….perpetrate? I meant penetrate. So sorry.
I think you meant “rape rape our collective subconscious.”
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see
These comments are pretty incredible, considering how well thought-out and well-researched they are. Yours is less so, considering you state your opinion but go into no detail whatsoever. Yes, your comment is downright unremarkable if I may say so.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see
I’m glad my point about how you’ve offered no proof for your statement somehow (what?) proves your statement, because now that I’ve done your work FOR YOU and I DEMAND COMPENSATION in the form of… Actually, at this point I’d just like to hear you go into ANY amount of detail at all about your views because you still have yet to do that. That will be my compensation and I won’t have to send my loanshark after you.
oh man, what’s fun is that i could eaaaaasily argue about how the democrats fucked over “the black community” by purposefully excluding them from the vast majority of the new deal programs (fdr caved to the southern dems to essentially reinforce sharecropping and economic/social dominance of whites over blacks! also this is totes where the seeds to the housing bubble/collapse truly lie!) BUT i’m pretty sure that this trollyperson isn’t referencing how the exclusion of african americans from the beginnings of the social safety net is how the dems fucked them over, since i’m willing to say that they probably believe that federal/state social programs are, like, totes bad and destroying our freedom and how the market needs to regulate everything, because it is so totally good at efficiently fucking over 99.9% of the people! once we are all reduced to impoverished, functionally retarded assholes who work 70 hour weeks in unregulated factories that gives us the cancers, we will all truly be on a level playing field. FREEEEEEDOM!!!
pssst! You spelled Obama wrong! You’re welcome!
Democrates is my favorite Greek philosopher. Given your rhetorical style, I wouldn’t have expected you to be familiar with obscure Pythagoreans, but life is full of surprises! I’m not sure what he did to the black community, but I’ll give you that the collection of moral maxims contained in his Golden Sentences are not universally appreciated.
Needs more upvotes.
I love Cool-Aid! Remember the Cool-Aid Dude’s catch phrase? “OH SURE!” That’s what he said.
the thing i dont understand is this notion of “real america”, what is it and why does everyone want to go there?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see
I think a gentle, more loving society sounds great. One of the steps to getting there will you not calling other people freaks and hate filled morons [sic]. So close!
Would you like to debate, sir? I’m giving you a once in a lifetime oppurtunity to argue with a libtard.
I hate to break it to you, but I don’t think Madonna is actually reading comments on a pop culture blog. I know, I know. It was a blow to me as well. But we will soldier on, somehow. Buck up, little buddy! Tomorrow is another day!
Oh those Hollweirds. They’re almost as bad as the Hollyweirds but ONLY ALMOST. #ByANose