Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Palin/Letterman feud

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

He had every right to be upset and would have been justified as a father to punch that clown Letterman in the face.

By what right or objective standard do you assert that he would be justified in assaulting Letterman as opposed to seeking some legal form of recourse or remedy?

I wonder if Letterman would find that funny.

I'm thinking he would find it financially lucrative in some case that would likely settle out of court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The claim that a nework show doesn't have standards is ridiculously uninformed. Plus, it could easily be backed up with a few examples of sexual jokes about a minor, if there were any. In this setting, I can't prove a negative going back 30 years, you're supposed to come up with evidence of those type of jokes.

Dont look now, but that joke he told the other night about Palins daughter was a sexual joke about a minor. While you are obviously impressed by his supposed 30 year streak of not telling such jokes, well, he just blew it. But look on the bright side, he can always start a new streak. He's already got about a week under his belt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dont look now, but that joke he told the other night about Palins daughter was a sexual joke about a minor. While you are obviously impressed by his supposed 30 year streak of not telling such jokes, well, he just blew it. But look on the bright side, he can always start a new streak. He's already got about a week under his belt.

No, you're claiming that he did it about a minor. The fact is that he never named which daughter he's talking about, but anyone with a sense of humor understands that the joke can only work if it is about the one which has a habit of getting pregnant and then preaching abstinence, to the amusement of the viewing public.

You can't use your baseless claim to prove your baseless claim. That's not how proving things works.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you're claiming that he did it about a minor. The fact is that he never named which daughter he's talking about, but anyone with a sense of humor understands that the joke can only work if it is about the one which has a habit of getting pregnant and then preaching abstinence, to the amusement of the viewing public.

You can't use your baseless claim to prove your baseless claim. That's not how proving things works.

Ok. Lets start form the beginning. Here is the 'joke' that started the whole thing:

“One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game, during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.”

Now, Palin was in New York with her daughter, Willow, the 14 yr old, not Bristol, the 18 yr old. Why would I or anyone else assume that Letterman was talking about the daughter that was not in New York and was probably home in Alaska, and not the one that was actually in New York? No, he didnt name the daughter he was referring to, but perhaps he should have if wanted his meaning to be clear.

For example, lets say you have two brothers, Ed and Joe. Ed is a drunk and Joe is not. You and your brother Joe come to New York and I say something humorous like: One awkward moment for Jake Ellison at the Yankee game, during the seventh inning, his brother passed out drunk and fell out of the bleachers. Would you assume I was talking about the brother, Ed, who was not in New York or the brother, Joe, who was?

Even if I grant that Lettermen intended the joke to be aimed at the older daughter, that doesnt mean that an honest person could not conclude that he was talking about the other daughter. As for your other claim that Bristol has "a habit of getting pregnant," does doing something one time constitute a habit in your mind?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like everyone has already said, including Letterman, the joke was to be seen as a joke at Bristol's expense because she was the whore who got knocked up at 17, not Willow who I am sure will remain virtuous and Christian all of her days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, Palin was in New York with her daughter, Willow, the 14 yr old, not Bristol, the 18 yr old.

Doesn't matter. Jokes are not news, or statements. The joke was meant for the 99,99% of Letterman's audience, who don't follow Ms. Palin's itinerary.

Also, it is ridiculous to assume that Letterman or his writers would have any idea what daughter Palin brought along, or care. They saw the headline : Plain and daughter at the Yankees game. So Letterman repeated the headline, and told the joke. The audience laughed at the joke, never caring about Palin or facts.

Jokes are not based on facts, they are based on whatever setup the joke-teller chooses:

"Two Jews walk into a bar.

They own it!"

Does that imply the factual statement that two specific Jews walked into a specific bar? I submit to you that there's nothing more ridiculous than applying logic to, and making deductions from, a joke.

Even if I grant that Lettermen intended the joke to be aimed at the older daughter, that doesnt mean that an honest person could not conclude that he was talking about the other daughter. As for your other claim that Bristol has "a habit of getting pregnant," does doing something one time constitute a habit in your mind?

My words: the one which has a habit of getting pregnant and then preaching abstinence

Nothing more dishonest or irrational than cutting off a sentence to claim a superficial victory in a disagreement. You are a superficial hothead.

She is in the habit of preaching abstinence, despite learning first hand that it does not work: young girls should be told about condoms and pills instead, if their parents wish to avoid pregnancy.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to point out regarding the statement that Chelsea Clinton was left alone (Jake Ellison's post) that in fact many horrible things were said about her when she was even younger than Palin's daughter.

Including this joke, when Chelsea was 12 by Palin's running mate:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

-- Sen. John McCain, speaking to a Republican dinner, June 1998.

McCain, Limbaugh & others actually made many jokes at Chelsea's expense which make's Palin's anger even less valid.

That said, I think any mean spirited jokes about minors that are in the public eye not by their own choice are tasteless but I do believe Letterman meant to be joking about the 18 year old daughter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

-- Sen. John McCain, speaking to a Republican dinner, June 1998.

I can see why that's funny. Was that in a venue where Chelsea could overhear the Sen.? If no, and if it was left alone by the networks, there was no harm done.

There is nothing inherently bad about that joke, it is only bad if it gets back to the child. If it does because a national news network picks it up after the fact, that's not McCain's problem, it is the responsibility of the network. I was pretty young back then, was this joke all over the news?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, McCain made the joke during a live, nationally televised speech. It was all over the news so presumably it got back to her.

Because he knew it was live and nationally televised I believe he's responsible for it even though he didn't personally own the equipment or the stations.

That said, I was ...I think 23 at the time and found it hilarious albeit in horrible taste and cruel to a minor who didn't choose to be in the public spotlight.

Unacceptable contradiction for an Objectivist, I know, but there it is.

My main point is the hypocracy of both political parties.. each one insulting each other's children and screaming about how wrong it is to drag the kids in to it.

Personally, I dislike children and politicians so am happy to see any & all made fun of :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You started off by arguing that "Letterman doesn't do statutory rape jokes, in fact he makes a point out of not allowing any allusions to sex with a minor, and has been doing so for 30 years." Now you say this:

Also, it is ridiculous to assume that Letterman or his writers would have any idea what daughter Palin brought along, or care. They saw the headline : Plain and daughter at the Yankees game. So Letterman repeated the headline, and told the joke. The audience laughed at the joke, never caring about Palin or facts.

So which is it? Does Letterman have a 30 year history of scupulously avoiding sex jokes that involve a minor? Or does he just run with a joke without research? It cant be both. If you are going to do a joke about a woman and her daughters visit to New York, wouldnt someone with a 30 year history of avoiding sexual jokes involving minors at least do a little reaserch into which daughter it was? A staff with the standards you claim they have would. But in this case they didnt so Letterman owes the woman an apology.

Jokes are not based on facts, they are based on whatever setup the joke-teller chooses:

Total nonsense. You clearly dont know what a joke is or how they are constructed. Virtually any good joke has some basis in fact, reality or the way one views reality. Use your own joke about two Jews as an example. Would it make sense if instead of Jews you used two Christians? Two rednecks? Why do you think that is? Are you also claiming that there were no facts involved in the Palin joke? His whole monologue is basically current events (facts) that are infused with non-factsor other non related facts to make them funny. The Palin joke fused many facts together to create fiction in the form of humor. Trouble was, this one was not all that funny or very well thought out.

My words: the one which has a habit of getting pregnant and then preaching abstinence

Nothing more dishonest or irrational than cutting off a sentence to claim a superficial victory in a disagreement. You are a superficial hothead.

More nonsense. Adding the second half of the sentence doesnt change anything, which is why I left it off.

She is in the habit of preaching abstinence, despite learning first hand that it does not work: young girls should be told about condoms and pills instead, if their parents wish to avoid pregnancy.

Had you written it this way the first time I wouldnt have said anything. But since you took the time to re-write the sentence, you already knew that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So which is it? Does Letterman have a 30 year history of scupulously avoiding sex jokes that involve a minor? Or does he just run with a joke without research? It cant be both.

It's both. The joke was meant to be about the older daughter, and the audience understood it as such. It was a perfectly scrupulous joke, the expectation that Letterman chack his facts is ridiculous: you're now not asking him to don't joke about minors, you're asking him to make sure idiots can't perceive him as making jokes about minors.

Total nonsense. You clearly dont know what a joke is or how they are constructed. Virtually any good joke has some basis in fact, reality or the way one views reality.

Yes, and we've been explaining to you what that basis in reality is. (Palin's daughter's hypocrisy) And still, you insist on taking jokes literally, and demanding that Letterman research his jokes. It's ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Like everyone has already said, including Letterman, the joke was to be seen as a joke at Bristol's expense because she was the whore who got knocked up at 17, not Willow who I am sure will remain virtuous and Christian all of her days.

Are you implying that girls who have sex at the age of 17 are whores, or do you have evidence that Bristol is either promiscuous or being paid for her sexual encounters?

I get what you're saying about Letterman's joke/mistake, but the "whore" part is curious.

Edited by K-Mac
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...