Joe Hildebrand on Twitter the other day:
It’s funny because these people already suffer prejudice and disadvantage and adding to it and making light of it makes me feel edgy.
Stella Young at the ABC responds:
Hildebrand’s tweet is offensive because it uses disability as a shortcut to mean “crap”. And in doing so, he reveals a subtle and no doubt unconscious contempt for disabled people that is still rife in our culture. At best, it displays a blatant ignorance of the very real barriers faced by people with disability, some of which, ironically, are employment and air travel. At its worst, it assumes that jokes like these are okay – because they’re not about anyone important. Perhaps it’s assumed that people with intellectual disabilities won’t ‘get it’ anyway. That they can’t be hurt by a joke they don’t understand.
Let me assure you, intellectual disability does not preclude you from being aware that you’re being made fun of. It doesn’t stop that kind of bullying from being hurtful. And sadly, this kind of ridicule is all too familiar for people with intellectual disabilities. It doesn’t stop when they leave the schoolyard because, unfortunately, they continue to cop it from their adult peers for the rest of their lives.
Joe sees how he’s unnecessarily hurt vulnerable people and apologises defiantly fights back for the right of the privileged to crush the spirits of the disadvantaged:
“Just want to say how sorry I am for using the words “mentally handicapped” in a tweet. That was really retarded of me.”
“Just want to say I’m sorry for offending so many people by using the word “retarded” in a tweet. That was really Irish of me.”
“Sorry I just offended so many people by using the term “Irish”. Just having a blonde moment.”
He’s a comedy god, isn’t he?
66 Comments
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
And then there is this.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/film-crew-denies-provoking-aborigines-in-alice/story-e6frg6nf-1226268233959
Once upon a time, a job at a prestigious journalistic establishment indicated a grasp on something resembling a vocabulary.
I see that standards have slipped.
When in doubt, joe, I like to go with understatement. I like words like “bozo”, “goose”, “nong”, “turkey”, “clown”. It’s safe, funny (because in an age of bigging-up, using old-fashioned words can actually be surprising to the listener), everyone knows what you’re getting at and doesn’t let slip that you desperately wish that your Very Important Opinions could have more power than somebody like you or I can possibly give them. And once you’ve learned to USE that sort of vocab, you can really go to town and remain basically untouchable (“Officer – he called me a BOZO and a TURKEY!”)
Now, in some circumstances, it can also be funny (particularly if you’ve developed a reputation for understatement) to go the other way, and use some thoroughly modern crass terminology, like “fuckwit”, “dipshit”, “fucknuckle”, “numb-nuts” and “arsehat”. They very clearly communicate a mind-set of exasperation, but don’t denigrate anybody but the subject itself. In this case, this subject would (obviously) be you, joe.
Have a lovely day. Any time you’d like some advice on writing for effect, do feel free to drop us a line and we can add some suitable spice to your, no doubt, terribly important communiques.
Damn. Now that I’ve read that, I’ve got the scene from Rocky running through my head where a bespangled Apollo Creed is geeing up the crowd and pointing at Joe Frazier and shouting “you’re next, joe – I want YOU joe, I want YOU!”
The mind is a magpie
Hildebrand is very thin gruel indeed. I urge him to reconsider sharing his every thought with us.
Heck – even “zombies” would have been funnier than “metally-retarded”
Actually, zombies are always funny. When in doubt, go with “zombies”.
Wouldn’t be surprised that Joe is destined for twitter ‘glory’, he does tend to let his lip get the better of him. On Q&A last Monday, for instance, he referred to women on paid maternity leave as getting “knocked up” and “riding off into the sunset.”
And I do hope for his own sake David Beckham steers clear of the twitterverse. On The Jonathan Ross Show screened last night on ABC1, he told of how his wife Victoria is an exemplary mother, but since she started her own fashion business “now she’s got a proper job.”
Well, I think it’s great that News Ltd. is providing so many jobs for mouthy, uncharismatic, disheveled ignorant arsehats.
Joe Hildebrand had the last comment on last Monday’s Q&A – “I just want to meet mothers” – casting a pall over the show. I don’t think there is any other way to describe his comment other than lascivious.
You know, it’s okay to make fun of the disabled, gays, women, black people, so long as you don’t make fun of the most maligned groups: white straight men and billionaires. We should all learn to take a joke, apparently, because it’s hilarious whether we think so or not.
A tongue-in-cheek “Agreed. This is pretty gay”, is not PC enough I see, given the post appears flushed.
I tend to spend a great deal of time in China, a country refreshingly untouched by the scourge of the stifling, hyper-sensitive political correctness of the West. If you had an airport run by the mentally handicapped, odds are things would not run smoothly. Hilderbrand’s comments are a slight at the performance of people who assumedly, according to Joe, should be able to make said airport run smoothly.
I sometimes find myself wishing (however unlikely it is) China would hurry up and take-over the world in the hope the first vestige of Western civilization to perish would be the preening posse of PC possers perpetually prowling for pretexts on which to predicate pique.
Yeah fair enough Howard, but the one thing you forgot to mention is that Hildebrand is indeed a smartarse arseclown, not for that tweet but for any number of other smartarse arseclown comments. His smartarse arseclownery has nothing to do with “political incorrectness” and everything to do with being way, way too impressed with his image of himself as a witty, provocative gadfly. Thin gruel is a good description, like that other fleaweight Tim Blair.
For Howard B
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915
Elsewhere, why do the Murdoch rags claim that Swan has control over the PRIVATE BANKS?
Elsewhere, why do the Murdoch rags blame refugees for the cost of their illegal incarceration and keep prattling about the non-existent and dead as a dodo “Malaysia deal”.
“A tongue-in-cheek “Agreed. This is pretty gay”, is not PC enough I see, given the post appears flushed.”
At least it flushed. It’d be a bugger if jeremy had to fish it out and stick it in the trash.
A friend once shared a house with a guy in london … one day she had to explain why we didn’t flush left-over chicken carcasses down the toot. They don’t fit, it turns out. I’m pretty conservative in these things, but I wouldn’t have needed the empirical data to guess that.
Conservatives would call you a treasonist.
“Conservatives would call you a treasonist.”
Not to mention, an idiot.
Reminds me of Andrew’s hey at least if we build over the reef it’ll piss off the Greens attitude. I’m happy for a hideous oblivion – as long as it hits my enemies first! At least the brutal Chinese dictatorship would murder those horrible horrible people who don’t take pleasure in insulting the disadvantaged. It’d almost be worth it! Just to see the looks on their stupid, compassionate faces!
Talking of “pique”.
Insane.
Now, now no need for hysterics, Jeremy. Who said anything about a hideous oblivion? Perhaps just a gradual readjustment of cultural and political mores affected through greater world influence and population diffusion. Besides, you aren’t casting an adverse judgement on the attitudes of another culture are you?
Now, you’re just hyperventilating. Joe wasn’t insulting the mentally handicapped, he was insulting the airport staff who, possessed of a greater general capacity then the handicapped, were, according to Joe, underperforming to that capacity. If a bunch of blokes couldn’t lift a fridge up the stairs and we’re called ‘girls’, is that a slight against girls in general? I would say not, as girls are not, generally speaking, expected to be able to lift a fridge up the stairs and the mentally handicapped are not expected to be able to run an airport.
This is what I like about China. Such a statement would not have been controversial as the comparison is generally true.
Besides, contrasting the amount of public and vocal concern for David Hicks and Jules Assange on the grounds of ‘fair trials’,'procedural fairness’ and the such, to that expressed for Stern Hu and the other two dozen or so Australian citizens jailed by the opaque extension of the Chinese Communist Party that is the Chinese legal system; it seems some are already pretty comfortable with the CCP having its way with Australian citizens as it is.
Was there a GetUp! campaign for Stern Hu?
Nick
LOL! Fair enough, I’ll pay that. Although, it does take more than one participant for there to be an argument.
Now, five minutes or the full half hour?
Elsewhere, why are Newspoll asking questions about the carbon tax that does not yet exist and which the people they poll won’t be paying.
Uh, a violent oppressive dictatorship isn’t a “cultural” value. It’s not like the Chinese people get to vote for it.
The left did object to the treatment of those citizens, and the left regularly campaigns against the oppressive Chinese police state – even when it’s not being applied against wealthy Australian businessmen. No inconsistency there.
The difference with the Hicks and Assange issues is that they were taking place in countries that are supposedly our allies, and with which we have some say. Howard REFUSED to take Hicks back. And Gillard actually portrayed Assange as a criminal. These are actual actions by our politicians that well and truly deserve a response from Australians.
The sad truth is that with China, we have very little influence whatsoever.
That said, at least the Greens are willing to call the Chinese government on its oppression when its leaders visit – the Liberal and Labor politicians have no spines whatsoever. You do what you like, nice CCP, as long as you keep buying our resources.
He was using the handicapped as a byword for “inadequate” or “useless”.
Do you seriously not get how that is offensive TO THE HANDICAPPED?
Yes, because it’s using “girls” as a synonym for “weak”.
Hot Air Howie™ our resident contrarian wind bag.
Always to the rescue with his utility belt of pompous obfuscation and New Dictionary of The Right Wing Apologist.
At night he changes back into a plain old redneck.
Howard evidently misses the Best of the Benny Hill Show.
Perhaps just a gradual readjustment of cultural and political mores
Talk us through the optimum way to transition gradually from democracy to the dictatorship that you claim to prefer.
@ Jeremy
The thing with Howard is that sometimes when Howard says something is like something else it is not really something else but is just a bit like it. At other times Howard insists that when something is like something else it it is the same thing as that something else.
In the first case the likeness of Hildebrand’s comments to offensive, derogatory statements is merely superficial. In the second case, the fact that the carbon pricing scheme is like a tax means it is a tax.
You will need a pair of HowardVision (TM) goggles to see this…
Howard, perhaps you want Australia to be more like China. I do not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QoA44c23A
Jeremy
Where has it been suggested otherwise? That Chinese culture is refreshingly unsentimental and unPC was all that was said. The expansion of said cultural aspect into the West as one of the upshots of China’s rise would, in my opinion, be a good thing.
Fair enough, Jeremy, point taken. No point in GetUp! et al having a public campaign to pressure our government to seek the release of Stern et al if we have no influence with China. But then you go on to call the major parties ‘spineless’ for not trying to influence that which you admit we have no influence over.
Yes, I note Sen. Bob Brown is quite keen on lending moral support to medieval theocrat, the Dalai Lama, in his quest to reimpose the retrograde racket of the Tibetan priest-class. The embrace of ‘His Holiness’ as some kindly old man representing anything other than a hierarchical religious feudalism is an on going joke that continues to amuse.
Generally speaking, in this regard, The Greens, being minor players, a free to indulge in flights of moral fancy regardless of the realpolitik. Parties who are likely to shoulder the responsiblility of government are more likely to be circumspect and mindful of potential consequences.
But enough our Sino-digression.
The slight as whole is a synonym for “weaker than you should be, given the general adult male capacity for the physical, compared to girls”. And so it is with Joe’s quip: the airport staff are said to be “less competent than they should be, given the general able adult’s capacity for such a task, compared to the mentally handicapped”. Is it nice? Perhaps not. Is it intellectually defensible? Certainly, given that the mentally handicapped are not expected to be able to run an airport competently whilst the able are.
Perhaps you need to remove the term ‘intellectual’ from this blog’s about-spiel and replace it with ‘niceness’ or some other reference to morality.
If Joe has used the term ‘Irish’, ‘gay’ or ‘blonde’ in his tweet, I would agree it would be outright indefensible as such attributes are not known to inhibit one’s competent functioning as an airport employee.
Perhaps a neologism is in order much like the Santorum.
Hildebrand /hil-duh-brand/ n. an unfortunate genetic disorder resulting in the subject being born with one eye, no ears, two mouths and half a brain.
Holy … uh … where on earth to start with Howard’s latest … whatever you call it …?
Actually, I don’t think I want to start at all.
Amazing how people can write certain stuff without a trace of irony.
Is this the same author that a few years ago said Pumpkin was the most retarded name he had ever her and is Matthew from canberra the same person that acouple of months ago said ayn rand was the most mentally retarded person ever, and are the crikey editors/moderators running this story condeming hilderbrandt the same people who let Matthews comment pass. Maybe you should all forget about the retard word and go look up the meaning of hypocrite.
I can’t believe I used to find Joe amusing.
I can’t believe I just admitted that.
Andrew36 @ 32
Well, Jesus H. Christ. I think this needs a linkin’ to.
Here’s Matthew “Standards” of Canberra:
And here’s Jeremy “It’s offensive!” Sear:
‘…the authorities come up with pretty much the most retarded “nickname” imaginable,…’
‘Retarded’ and the such has been used in a derogatory sense in comments published under the current gatekeepers’ watch. Given that the comments policy of this blog states…
…suggests that what the Pure Poison team deems ‘unacceptable’ in terms of insults refering to the mental handicapped published on their own blog is not the same standard to be applied to others.
Wow, a post from my former blog five years ago, and something we missed in the middle of a long comment, as contradicted by a post elsewhere that we linked to for discussion.
You’re right. I am THE INTERNET’S GREATEST. HYPOCRITE.
Great research there, guys!
I don’t suppose, Jeremy, it’s possible to go from being unaware that there is a problem with some manner of engagement with others to being aware. The problem with Joe Hildebrand was that when this was drawn to his attention, he became aggressively defensive rather than saying “oops!” and apologising.
Terms such as ‘retarded’ or similar are deeply embedded in our language — which doesn’t make them right, but does mean that at moments of passion, many will reach for them without thinking through their use. We don’t make much of being born outside a legal marriage these days, but ‘bastard’ is still in wide use. We don’t make fun of the mute, but ‘dumb’ is still often heard. A moment later, those who think it through will regret it, and doubly so if somenone else points it out.
It’s how one responds at that moment that is most salient.
That would be the same “Chinese” (more accurately, Confucian) culture that is predicated on filial piety and a lack of critical thinking in education?
Not surprised you’d be espousing that last part Howie. If people start questioning what their teachers are telling them, they might start looking at those horrible “facts and evidence” things!
If I worked at an airport and had an opportunity to inconvenience joe hilderbrand without jeopardising my job I would. I would then take any insult from him as a compliment.
I am certain that joe’s actions here will endear him to all airport workers and he will in future enjoy special treatment from them.
Joe must be a pretty clever individual to engineer such special treatment.
An insult is an insult whether it is calling someone retarded or an arseclown and I do think that the outrage expressed at the insult is confected. It pains me to say that howies examples of moc and jeremy’s use of the same word as an insult does rather reduce the imp[act of their own arguments that this is a slight on the truly retarded, even though in factual terms it is.
I don’t find Hildebrand’s quip offensive, just cheap and lazy and not very funny.
Jeremy
Were you not an adult five years ago? Or had you not taken the vow of hyper-sensitive PC piety at that stage? Even if you had not, I would assume your new-found sensitivity to the mentally handicapped would at least now compel you to acknowledge what you now deem to be the ‘offensive’ nature of your remarks.
Instead, you’ve opted for glib, face-saving sarcasm. Such a man of sincere standards, Jeremy.
Well, a quick search reveals such terms used in quite a few comments published during your watch, Jeremy.
I wouldn’t go that far. I’d describe this as misdemeanor hypocrisy, easily dealt with if you’d care to acknowledge how, according to your own words in this post, offensive your remarks were to the mentally handicapped. Repent, Jeremy!
Fran
Indeed. If only Jeremy had held his remark up to the standard he currently holds Hiderbrandt to, and responded with a heart-felt acknowledgement of hurt caused instead of a sarcastic dismissal predicated on the solid defense of ‘oh, I said that some time ago’.
Assumedly, Hilderbrandt can look forward to his comments no longer being deemed ‘offensive’ by Jeremy once the prescribed period of time has passed.
Coldsnacks
It appears your own commitment to ‘critical thinking’, ‘facts’ and ‘evidence’ is what is questionable here, Coldsnacks (perhaps even Confucian?).
If you chose to use the whole paragraph that formed the context of your divorced quote, you’d see that it was merely one aspect of contemporary Chinese culture that was being ‘espoused’ as opposed to your tangential verballing suggesting all aspects of traditional Chinese culture where being ‘espoused’.
Critical thinking, Indeed.
Anyway, should you actually have an issue to take up with me that does involve ‘facts’, ‘evidence’ and ‘critical thinking’ (actual, as opposed to your just demonstrated tenuous understanding thereof), please feel free to do so.
I’m open to being persuaded on this, but I don’t agree that the word “retarded” necessarily smears the intellectually handicapped. It means slow of thought, equivalent to “stupid”. “Retarded” is not the term intellectually handicapped people – or their doctors – use about them.
I wouldn’t ever call a handicapped person “retarded”. But I might use that term for somebody being stupid. I think the word “retarded” is already pejorative, rather than clinical, so its use does not involve turning a descriptive word about a group of people into an insult.
Jeremy
You’re doing yourself no favours here. This minor embarrassment would be instantly diffused if you just held Jeremy-of-internet-posts-past to the standards of Jerermy-of-internet-post-present. Just say, “Yep, fair cop, that, according to me now, was offensive” and you would be the bigger man.
However, if you wish to continue avoiding such an acknowledgement, I would have to ask why you’re raising the semantic defense now instead of instantly after your prior statement was pointed out, when you raise the ‘that was a long time ago’ defense.
Anyway the semantic defense is null and void, as, if you Google “mentally retarded clinical diagnosis” or the similar such, you’ll come across a range of recent material in the media generally, and a lot of specifically scientific material on Google Scholar, with some papers as recent as 2006. Whilst I’m loath to cite it, Wikipedia has an entry for ‘Mental Retardation’.
Oh, and furthermore, FTR, Jeremy, you’ve also taken issue with Hilderbrandt’s use of the word ‘retarded’ in his subsequent tweets/posts, suggesting this line of defense is entirely disingenuous.
Because the funniest thing about the effort of the “B team” was their going digging back through old blog comments for a “gotcha” that didn’t even match the criticism that I was simply pointing readers to. See the word “elsewhere” at the start of the heading? This isn’t a proper post, it’s a link to someone else’s discussion.
I am greatly amused by the pathetic desperation of these people and the lameness of their “gotcha”s.
If you read the quote, too, you might have grasped what it is that’s problematic about Hildebrand’s use of “mentally handicapped” as an insult. And why that’s different from the word you think is so much the same that to link to criticism of one whilst having used the other is “hypocrisy”.
Nobody identifies as “retarded”.
It’s not disparaging such a community because it doesn’t exist.
No, I didn’t. I quoted his responses. I made no comment on the fact that he used the word “retarded” in one of them.
Can I suggest there be a special Howard B free thread. Imagine the joy of a thread staying on topic. No pedantic crap going on for pages. No delibrately provocative comments aimed starting an argument. Please.
Oh, Jeremy. Mate, why are you doing this to yourself? The window for a graceful concession is ever diminishing and with it your credibility.
You admonished Hilderbrandt on the grounds that his comments were “offensive TO THE HANDICAPPED” (your caps). Are you suggesting that your use of the word ‘retarded’ as a disparagement would not be seen as offensive by the mentally handicapped? Would you readily use the word in a similarly disparaging manner in a room full of mentally retarded folk safe in the knowledge that it would not be “offensive TO THE HANDICAPPED”?
Jesus Christ, Jeremy, when you find yourself in hole, quit digging.
As usual there are several thing to unpick here
1. I disagree with Jeremy on the current status of ‘retarded’. It’s an insult that trades on mocking those with a attributes that are bad because they suggest one is like those with a clinical disability. I actually worked for a time, in the Rydalmere Psychiatric Hospital (sometimes doing shifts across the road in the Retardation Hospital). The term is no longer used in relation to humans precisely because of its adoption as an all-purpose term of abuse. On blogsites in the US one often hears terms like “Libtards” or “leftards” for example and there is of course Hildebrand’s effort. One now speaks of developmental delay, which, while having a similar semantic content, severs the ties between with pejorative usage.
2. The problem with Hildebrand to which Jeremy referred was that he went on with it. He didn’t actually begin with “retarded”. He began with the much more direct “mentally handicapped” making it explicit that those with a disability can be verbally abused with impunity when one is felling irritated. When challenged, he upped the ante rather than apologise and in that context used the term “retarded”. In context then, he was underlining his right to abuse people on the basis of intellectual disability, and then for good measure, pairing it with abuse on the basis or ethncity, and then sex and hair colour (since “blonde moments” are always about recklessly promiscuous and unwise women). In short, his “joke” was that he recklessly discriminates — he wanted to offend.
A person who says something to which people take offence might consider apologising or perhaps trying a respectful defence, but to aggravate the offence for its own sake takes it into a new realm of abuse.
As far as I can tell, that was what Jeremy was criticising. Jeremy did nothing comparable five years ago. That’s why Hildebrand’s words were fair game and why Jeremy may not have thought to repudiate his earlier usage. That said, I think he should.
I don’t believe I’ve used the expression Hildebrand was being criticized for using as an insult.
Interestingly, the buffoons pretending to object to the word “retarded” used by me have used and published it themselves many times.
Is that a self-beclowning?
And if anyone does identify as “retarded” then I’ll agree that I shouldn’t use the word as an insult. But I don’t think anyone does, any more than anyone identifies as an “idiot” or a “moron”.
Hilderbrandt used ‘metally disabled’ as a derogation, you used ‘retarded’ as a derogation. Now unless you are seriously suggesting that a room full of the mentally retarded, and their carers, would only be offended by the use of the former as a disparagement and not the latter, that you didn’t use the former is not the point.
They are not objecting to your use of the word ‘retarded’ in itself. They are objecting to you attempting to occupy the moral high ground on the issue of sensitivity to the mentally retarded when you yourself have been shown to be less than sensitive in this regard.
“Retarded” is a clinical and technical term that has long been in circulation. If there is an unwillingness to identify as such perhaps it has something to do with people co-opting it as a disparagement. Either way, we know who we are talking about when we talk of the retarded.
I would also point out that no one readily identifies as ‘towel-head’, ‘curry-muncher’ or ‘fag’, so assumedly these, along with a great deal of other derogations, are not ‘insulting’.
Whilst the “B-Team” may indeed be ‘pathetic’ and ‘desperate’, it’s no reason to be the same.
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All