> Furthermore, was Silverman really making a statement about political correctness and free speech–or was she just going after Palin?

Both. So, here's the events in not-quite-chronological order:

1. Rahm Emanuel calls recalcitrant liberal democrats "retarded."

1.5. Palin is outraged.

2. Rush Limbaugh mentions the "retard conference."

2.5. Palin is not outraged, because "satire" is okay.

3. Sarah Silverman accepts this bet and makes a comedy routine that is incredibly outrageous, but obviously satirical.

Is it okay? Of course it's not okay, because Palin is a hypocrite and only cares about the issue as far as it is political leverage; she's been accused of using "the r-word" on multiple occasions from multiple sources.

So then Silverman's satire is a political joke of high caliber and razor wit. But, it's also highlighting a larger issue that people have with doing generous things for selfish and calculated reasons. The actual substance of her talk is basically that she wants a special needs kid because this makes her an awesome person.

I just don't see how this kind of passing, topical crap that goes on at the shallowest level of politics is worth discussing somewhere like TED. This is the kind of crap that blows over in a couple weeks--and if you want to make a statement about how useless this surface level political dialogue is, there are better ways of doing it.

This "shallowest level of politics" is the shape of our entire cultural landscape being formed, man. Comics just tell it like it is.

Is it worth talking about at TED? I dunno. What really is? Some dude leaping around going "BAAAM" while the crowd figures out how to sing along? Leaders of influential companies talking about products? Why don't we discuss how very much against slavery we really are?

Sarah's commentary on politics and how people with unfortunate genetics people are unwitting pawns in a disingenuous political dialog that has the potential to deadlock our government? Seems fine to me.

What do you mean by "accepts the bet"? I still think you might be giving her too much credit. I agree certain issues were raised (at least among those who actually consider said issues) but I'm not convinced she did it on purpose.

I'd guess her thinking was "Palin says it's okay as satire so I'll trap her with the most outrageous, offensive satire possible." Then again, I'm not in her head.

Thanks for the rundown of events btw. It was helpful.

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

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

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

Although, like the article mentioned, there are plenty of words that we use without serious regard that are just as bad, we just have become numb to what they actually mean. For example:

moron - having a mental age between 8 and 12

dumb - slow to learn or understand; lacking intellectual acuity; lacking the power of human speech;

idiot - a person of subnormal intelligence

imbecile - retardation more severe than a moron but not as severe as an idiot

maniac, lunatic - an insane person

We throw these words around (as a society) all the time without regard to their original intent. Is this simply a case of forgiving the past and trying not to repeat those mistakes going forward? Where do we draw the line with allowing words to be used outside of their initial purpose?

I believe every one of those words was at one time used in a professional medical context (your "original intent"), to mean a specific thing. Over time they were all co-opted by laymen (us) as insults. Anal-retentive is another such term that's been co-opted, although I think it's still in current medical use.

Words are subject to fashion, just like clothes. 100 years ago Hillary was a male name, now it's more commonly a female name (in the US anyway).

"Where do we draw the line with allowing words to be used outside of their initial purpose?"

You can't. People are going to do whatever they want.

"Anal-retentive is another such term that's been co-opted, although I think it's still in current medical use."

It's a Freudian term, so to whatever extent it's still in clinical use, it's barely even in use. There are few Freudians left.

Exactly, it's not whether or not a word is universally hurtful, it's just that some words are only acceptable when you are talking to an audience you're comfortable with. I have close friends to whom I can say pretty much anything - that doesn't make everything I say to them ok to say at christmas dinner.

I can call my friend a 'retard' (I don't, as a result of habit/upbringing) but I had a professor once who had a daughter with CP. I would never DARE say that word in his classroom (or any other, really) not just because of the offense it would cause, but because it has no place in a scholarly discussion.

Know your audience - trying to make a splash by saying something crass or unnerving just to watch people squirm is a fun game and it has it's place - but that's not really what the TED stage is for. Granted, I'm not qualified to make that distinction, but I think Chris Anderson (if anyone) probably is. The tone at TED is generally challenging, but tempered with a good dose of respect, which Sarah notoriously lacks.

Sounds to me like your just redefining what you think is hurtful as it applies to a particular context. If Silverman said something that we don't like, that's our problem, not hers, unless she depends on public appearance speaking fees.

I never like this kind of talk regarding what's acceptable and what's not, no matter what words you wrap it up in, because when it happens in the US it denies us the greatest freedom of all, not freedom of speech or expression, but freedom to be responsible for what you say and do. Silverman should be able to comment in her own words on anything she damn well pleases, and under any context. It's her responsibility to deal with the consequences of that action. More power to her, btw, even if her schtick is for just a bunch of shock value.

I upvoted you because I think you made a great point—even though I don't completely agree. I feel that there is a point where speech, despite being allowed constitutionally, can be unacceptable. Not because it offends someone but because it is threatening, abusive, or demeaning. After all, verbally threatening someone is a crime (in most places) even though you're haven't actually harmed someone.