I believe Ed Morrisey has it wrong.
Ann Coulter made the statement. Ann Counter is the one who needs to get over her issues with homosexuality.
I understand what you are saying about the broadbrush, but I think it is legitimate to at least expect some strong criticism from the right
Coulter said "I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word 'faggot', you have to go to rehab."
How does the first half of that sentence relate to the second?
Specifically, why does the consequence of using the word "faggot" prevent her from saying something about Edwards?
You gotta remember where you are, Pooch.
If a Democratic candidate or pundit said something like that about a Republican candidate, these same folks who are defending Coulter's use of the remark would be howling like banshees, screaming for someone's head on a platter.
It's all relative.
The badge was given to me in the First Amendment. I have every right to criticize ANY candidate, pundit, columnist, or man on the street. This entire website is based on that concept.
If CPAC absorbs blame for Coulters's remarks because they invite her to give remarks, wouldn't the same apply to the MSM and hosts like Chris Matthews who have her come back after making her trademark outlandish statements on their very own shows.
A year or so ago she not only speculated that Bill Clinton was a latent homosexual with bath house tendencies but that Al Gore was a total fag.
A while back Lanya made the charge that Republicans want to give women cancer. A Coulterish statement if there ever was one.
A broadbrush charge based on the opinion of one interest group that a vaccine in development should not be made mandatory. Yet i don't recall a rush to denounce Lanya by the liberals and or democrats in this forum, nor do i recall demands that they denounce being made by conservatives or republicans in this forum.
Why the double standard? Why are liberals subject to a lowered bar?
And who said you didn't have the right to criticize Ann Coulter's remarks, even if you are giving a broad reading to first amendment privileges as it pertains to this forum.
I'm just wondering who gave you the job of demanding that others criticize her along with you, and if they don't, the right to punish them by calling them stupid or liars or both?
I neither .......nor called anyone a name. ...
I called nobody stupid here, nor did I call anyone a liar. ....... I compared you with Bill Clinton, [who was a liar] only in that you were using a similar debate technique. (It depends on what your defnition of "is" is.) My point wasn't that you were lying but that your argument was as weak as Clinton's. ..............
But three weeks ago, Coulter was on Fox and made virtually identical remarks -- not about Edwards specifically, just the hilarious complaint that people who say the word "faggot" have to enter rehab.
My interpretation is the one any rational analysis of the sentence would lead to. This grammatical discussion is silly. It is completely reasonable to say that Coulter implied Edwards was a faggot. I am dismayed that you are using this line of logic to defend your position. You are WAY better than that.
Coulter's comments were garbage and she should be criticized.
If we are not calling Ann on the carpet for these outrageous comments, we are giving tacit approval.
Ann Coulter is a disgrace, a sloppy one at that, who uses any rhetorical device she can conceive (can she conceive?) to outrage, which is her substitute for thought and her stock in trade, aside from peddling her skinny little ass.
She is also a mediocre light from a lesser law school.
This is the crux of the matter. A classic if / then scenario that in my opinion doesn't wash. If this statement is correct then Chris Matthews tacitly approves of Ann Coulter and the liberal/dems in this room tacitly approve of Lanya's hateful remarks. Is that the case?
Got an example of this phenominon?
Liberals do not need to be as carefull with their language as Conseratives do.
QuoteGot an example of this phenominon? Liberals do not need to be as carefull with their language as Conseratives do.
Class A-one unmitigated bullshit, Plane. Kerry makes a stupid joke about going to school or ending up in the military, and you guys are all over it - just take a look back in the archives. Look at how many times a Democrat has, intentionally or not, said something silly, or had something they said taken out of context, and the comments that go up in here, and who posts them.
I used to have some respect for you as someone who took pains to try to see both sides of an issue. More recently, I've come to see you as just as big a hypocrite as the rest of them.
We've had this type of discussion before....does the failure to condemn another's speech mean that you condone their position? My opinion is that it does not. Please feel free to agree or disagree, as may be the case.
Why is it that personal responsibility doesn't seem to apply to Islam, but it applies to political parties, entertainers, authors, political philosophers, teenagers, and others?
QuoteGot an example of this phenominon?
Liberals do not need to be as carefull with their language as Conseratives do.
Class A-one unmitigated bullshit, Plane.
Kerry makes a stupid joke about going to school or ending up in the military, and you guys are all over it - just take a look back in the archives. Look at how many times a Democrat has, intentionally or not, said something silly, or had something they said taken out of context, and the comments that go up in here, and who posts them. And you sit there and pretend Conservatives are some sort of saints that are so much better than the Liberals that they have to watch their every word lest they catch the same hell. Jee-zus H. Christ on a crutch.
I used to have some respect for you as someone who took pains to try to see both sides of an issue. More recently, I've come to see you as just as big a hypocrite as the rest of them.
Plane, you are a class act.
Coulter said "I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word 'faggot', you have to go to rehab."
How does the first half of that sentence relate to the second?
Specifically, why does the consequence of using the word "faggot" prevent her from saying something about Edwards?
WHo says it has to? Does Ann have a record of speaking perfectly sequential English. Who is to say the clauses are related.
"I can't go to the store right now, what the heck is that on your shirt?"
That may be the most ridiculous defense of an Ann Coulter comment I have ever seen. I guess we could call it the bad grammar defense. Or maybe the ADD grammar defense. She was so completely unable to hold onto a single train of thought that the second part of the sentence had nothing to do with the first part. Yeah, now pull the other one.
Coulter said "I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word 'faggot', you have to go to rehab."
How does the first half of that sentence relate to the second?
Specifically, why does the consequence of using the word "faggot" prevent her from saying something about Edwards?
WHo says it has to? Does Ann have a record of speaking perfectly sequential English. Who is to say the clauses are related.
"I can't go to the store right now, what the heck is that on your shirt?"
That may be the most ridiculous defense of an Ann Coulter comment I have ever seen. I guess we could call it the bad grammar defense. Or maybe the ADD grammar defense. She was so completely unable to hold onto a single train of thought that the second part of the sentence had nothing to do with the first part. Yeah, now pull the other one.
Thank you very much Stray Pooch , it warms the cockles of my heart to see you say this , I have a lot of admiration for your talents , tho I am not actually sure what a heart cockle is.
It might be the actual explanation.
If you were making your living by being funny to a particular audience , and it struck you as funny that certain insults sent one to rehab....
How would you set up the joke?
Remember , saying that Mel Gibson is less than perfect won't get a laugh.
Oh but I'm mistaken because that isn't a defense of Coulter's comment of course. It is just saying that she didn't directly call Edwards a faggot. I'm not sure how that isn't a defense of the comment, but I'm told it isn't. Yeah, and maybe if you pull on my leg hard enough I'll fall for that, but I doubt it.
She didn't directly call Edwards a faggot, and until that is proven otherwise, that is not a defense. it is a statement of fact. No leg pulling necessary.
And there is no way i should either take ownership for her remarks or apologize for them under fear of being accused of tacitly approving them. I didn't speak them. I didn't applaud them. I am simply aware of them.
I happen to believe people are responsible for their own actions and what i am reading here is that those who tout the supremacy of individualism are sure tryig to herd the sheep.
And somehow that seems inconsistent.
Then why bring it up? It's a bit of semantics to claim she didn't call him a faggot because she didn't specifically say "Edwards is a faggot." If you're not intending to make that point, why bring it up? If you are intending to make that point, how is that not defending her statement?
I don't recall having said, either directly or indirectly, that you were responsible or should take ownership for what Coulter said. We, as individuals, are, however, responsible for our reactions to her remarks. And maybe you personally did not applaud her remarks (and I am pretty sure I did not claim you personally did so), but other people did. I'm not trying to herd anyone. I've only expressed my disdain for Coulter and my dislike of what I perceive to be the defense of her comments. And I see nothing inconsistent about holding Coulter individually responsible for her own words and holding those individuals who respond responsible for those responses. I am treating the individual as an individual in both cases. In other words, yes, Coulter is responsible for her actions, but you are also responsible for yours. Seeing you both as individually responsible for what you say as individuals seems to me completely consistent with individualism. No herding necessary or attempted.
I'm not saying I've never called people names before, because I have. But I also know that is not really something I should do, and I'm trying to make myself rise above that. Ann Coulter, however, revels in that sort of behavior and gets applauded for it. She makes money because people love her for making deliberately outrageous and insulting comments. I don't want to stifle her speech, but I can't say I like it much that people react as if I'm some sort of snobbish prude for pointing out the juvenile nature of her comments.
Maybe BT is right that Coulter's words only reflect on her and no one else. But I'd say our reactions to her comments reflect on us. And if we respond to her level of discourse with applause or a giggle, what does that say about us? Does Coulter get away with her schtick because she says what other people wish they had the guts to say? I don't know for sure, but I have my guesses. Personally, I don't like Coulter. I think she represents the some of the worst the conservatives have to offer. But hey, if you and others want to excuse her behavior, I won't stop you. It is revealing to see who says what about her kind of rhetoric.
If you can't respect Plane, of all folks, that's a pretty sad commentary on your objective disposition
Thank you very much Stray Pooch , it warms the cockles of my heart to see you say this...
"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions."
"faggot isn't offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays."
Interestingly she has subsequently lost advertisers from her website including Verizon, Sallie Mae, and Netbank. Link
Interestingly she has subsequently lost advertisers from her website including Verizon, Sallie Mae, and Netbank.
So? What's that have to do with demands for denouncing?
QuoteIf you can't respect Plane, of all folks, that's a pretty sad commentary on your objective disposition
Who asked you?...The Republicans are no better than the Democrats, or anyone else. They wallow in just as much mud, and get just as dirty. No better at all - just different. Plane used to be able to see through all the BS and see that. Now he's just as partisan as, well, you are. I guess when you have to spend all your time defending a loser administration, you lose your objectivity.
My reason for posting the story in the first place was to disagree with the demands for denouncing. Please try to follow the thread.
And the reason for the demands was that she directly called Edwards a faggot, which she didn't.
Oh please. Pull the the other finger to use your favorite phrase.
Your previous post laid accusations of defending Coulter upon anyone who dared stray from your disdain for her and then called those same people no longer worthy of being considered reasonable conservatives because they obviously thought exactly like Coulter but didn't have the courage to express those thoughts outright.
or is that not what you meant to say
Interestingly she has subsequently lost advertisers from her website including Verizon, Sallie Mae, and Netbank.
One has to wonder why those on the left that claimed that radio stations not playing the Dixie Chicks' music was an unfair limitation on their freedom of speech, yet do not denounce this action as an unfair limitation on Coulter's freedom of speech.
So you are saying she called him a faggot and anyone who disagrees with you is engaging in semantics.
QuoteIf you can't respect Plane, of all folks, that's a pretty sad commentary on your objective disposition
Who asked you?
You'll no doubt figure it's sad that the reason I've lost respect for Plane is that he keeps trying to set the Republicans up as somehow better than the Democrats, or anyone else. That they get treated more poorly by the press when they screw up than the Democrats - feh! That they police themselves better when one of them gets in trouble - didn't see any evidence of that with DeLay, et al, who tried to hang in their and keep their grip on power until it became almost impossible for them to do so.
The Republicans are no better than the Democrats, or anyone else. They wallow in just as much mud, and get just as dirty. No better at all - just different. Plane used to be able to see through all the BS and see that. Now he's just as partisan as, well, you are. I guess when you have to spend all your time defending a loser administration, you lose your objectivity.
[ That they get treated more poorly by the press when they screw up than the Democrats - feh! That they police themselves better when one of them gets in trouble - didn't see any evidence of that with DeLay, et al, who tried to hang in their and keep their grip on power until it became almost impossible for them to do so.
The Republicans are no better than the Democrats, or anyone else. They wallow in just as much mud, and get just as dirty. No better at all - just different.
One has to wonder why those on the left that claimed that radio stations not playing the Dixie Chicks' music was an unfair limitation on their freedom of speech, yet do not denounce this action as an unfair limitation on Coulter's freedom of speech.
"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions."
Now I'm not saying anyone has to apologise for anything. But isn't it a little disengenuous to claim that she wasn't going to insult Edwards? I suppose you could argue that she wasn't going to call him a "faggot" and claim that she was saying any insult might get her in trouble - but she specifically chose Edwards and the term "faggot." It seems a little blatant to me.
She clearly used the word 'faggot' in reference to Edwards and anyone who claims she did not is making excuses for her.
Good thing we have H here to be able to read my mind vs read my type
QuoteGood thing we have H here to be able to read my mind vs read my type
Maybe you misunderstand me. I never thought you were objective at all to begin with.
When I said 'I guess when you have to spend all your time defending a loser administration, you lose your objectivity...', I was referring to Plane, not you.
QuoteGood thing we have H here to be able to read my mind vs read my type
Maybe you misunderstand me.
I never thought you were objective at all to begin with.
When I said 'I guess when you have to spend all your time defending a loser administration, you lose your objectivity...', I was referring to Plane, not you. I believe he had some to lose; you, never.
Well of course. I'm not H. H is the objective one around here, and unless one believes as he, well, they can't be objective, even when they're criticizing/condemning actions that H says they're really defending. Because if one dares support our effort to take on terrorists, you just can't be objective. Just can't. Yea, real objective there, H
Plane used to be able to see through all the BS and see that. Now he's just as partisan as, well, you are. I guess when you have to spend all your time defending a loser administration, you lose your objectivity.
QuoteWell of course. I'm not H. H is the objective one around here, and unless one believes as he, well, they can't be objective, even when they're criticizing/condemning actions that H says they're really defending. Because if one dares support our effort to take on terrorists, you just can't be objective. Just can't. Yea, real objective there, H
Of course they can. Never said they couldn't. And where have I said you were or were not condemning or criticizing actions, or defending them?
"Plane used to be able to see through all the BS and see that. Now he's just as partisan as, well, you are. I guess when you have to spend all your time defending a loser administration, you lose your objectivity."
You are right about one thing, though. You are not me. Anytime you like, you can quit trying to put words in my mouth or pretend you can read my mind.
QuotePlane used to be able to see through all the BS and see that. Now he's just as partisan as, well, you are. I guess when you have to spend all your time defending a loser administration, you lose your objectivity.[/i]
Who was the subject of that paragraph? Plane. You were merely a footnote.
Pooch btw was the one who inroduced the demands for denouncing. Don't buy that either.
You have stated that anyone who doesn't criticize Ann Coulers remarks is guilty of tacit approval.
Ann Coulter should be generally lambasted by those of us on the right for this ridiculously childish, offensive comment. In the same fashion that we ask (and rightly) where the Moslem outrage is at acts of terror and irresponsible rhetoric from Islamists, we need to make it clear that we object to these kinds of idiotic comments. If we do not do so, the author is completely within reason to blame not just the pundit, but the party.
She used the term faggot in reference to having to go to rehab for not being PC. The whole greys anatomy brouhaha was still fresh in the press and she had referred to it previously.
If i was making excuses for her i would flat out make excuses.
But thanks anyway for analysing my motives, saves me the trouble dontcha know.
If i was making excuses for her i would flat out make excuses.
Aren't you?
And since I did not directly ascribe any particular motive to you, I don't see how you can claim that I'm analyzing your motives.
Quote If i was making excuses for her i would flat out make excuses. No Quote And since I did not directly ascribe any particular motive to you, I don't see how you can claim that I'm analyzing your motives. See above. |
You are saying i am excusing Coulters words.
Why would i do that?
I have no control over what she says. She is not speaking for me by proxy as i have never given her that permission.
An it is very possible that Edwards was the seque to her standard (as in she has used it a couple time previously according to Lanya's sources) riff on rehab for non PC speech.
In your not so subtle ways you have stated that those who do not condemn Coulters speech are guilty of:
1: Secretly being happy with her choice of words because they are too cowardly to speak them themselves
2: Have an obligation to condemn because to not do so shows tacit approval
I don't think she directly called Edwards a faggot. And i doubt seriously if you can quote where she directly did.
Both of those reasons are sufficient motives to engage in semantics of(according to you ) the worst kind.
Pooch calls them Clintonian, i don't recall your characterization.
So yeah, you seem to be implying motive when you assert that i am defending her choice of words.
I am simply stating that there is a plausible alternative reading.
And to be clear, both you and pooch are free to bash her all you want.
No skin off my back.
Here's a word of advice H. Stop digging
Does Coulter get away with her schtick because she says what other people wish they had the guts to say? I don't know for sure, but I have my guesses.
Ooooo, tad testy when provided proof of the mistep. Doncha hate when that happens? Especially when it's coming from someone as so apparently "unobjective" as me. Or is H referring to Plane now? Hmmmmmmm. Might have to retitle the thread, Hnumpah Said Who? ;)
I am very sorry that this has become about me. Or S or H or U or B or ETC... Is it the origional problem that Ann Colter had seemed to have ? Makeing a joke or a political observation or a trite insult , too personal ?
QuoteDoes Coulter get away with her schtick because she says what other people wish they had the guts to say? I don't know for sure, but I have my guesses.
What are your guesses?
Is it the origional problem that Ann Colter had seemed to have ?
Makeing a joke or a political observation or a trite insult , too personal ?
That's OK Prince much of what you say seems ridiculous to me.
BT, yes I said that failure to condemn Coulter's words constituted tacit approval. That is not a demand.
I'm sure it does. Liberty is a concept that seems ridiculous to many people these days. (No, still not being subtle. That was sarcasm.)
QuoteI'm sure it does. Liberty is a concept that seems ridiculous to many people these days. (No, still not being subtle. That was sarcasm.)
Not much liberty being promoted in this thread by you.
No?
When you say expressing an alternate reading to your approved take on Coulter's remarks is somehow akin to defending her, you aren't leaving much room for independent thought, which in my opinion is a cornerstone to the concept of individualism.
Sorry Plane. I simply get a tad irritated when folks like H will refer to someone who has frequently criticised, even condemned aspects of Bush's presidency as "spending all my time in defending this loser administration". Whether it's me or you, it's a bogus accusation to begin with, and needs to be demonstrated as such. My apologoes if it seemed to go too far or get too personal
And I get irritated - more than a tad - when I say something in here that you, for whatever reason, decide must have some hidden meaning or motivation, even after I explain to you, sometimes several times, exactly what I meant. I get tired of having you tell me what you think I really meant, even after I have explained to you that you are incorrect.
2 more newspapers drop Coulter
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003556422
2 more newspapers drop Coulter
Your disagreement with my reading somehow compels you to assign motive to my reading. How else would i come up with such a rediculous interpretation unless i was trying to defend her,
How else would i come up with such a rediculous interpretation unless i was trying to defend her, which you assign negative attributes because that puts me on Coulter's side of the fence.
In other words it is you who accuse. It is you who assign values. It is you who judges motivation. And you couldn't be more wrong. If i am defending anything it is my read of her statement, not her.
But that doesn't matter. You have passed judgment and found me guilty.
Pooh yi, to steal a phrase.
And now, apparently, you expect me to set aside all judgment of the matter. Somehow I'm not supposed to have an opinion on the issue. I am supposed to ignore how people respond to Coulter's comments or somehow find nothing indicative about the individual's response. But you say I'm the one telling people what to think?
You insist i am defending Coulter even though all i'm defending is my read on her statement.
Yes, and your "read" on her statement is, oddly enough, that she didn't mean what she said because she wasn't using "sequential English". How could anyone (this is a sarcastic question by the way) possibly construe that as an excuse for what Coulter said? It's just too bizarre to suggest that she meant what she said. (Oh, and that was sarcasm as well.)
Why does a different read automatically mean i am excusing coulter?
You are claiming that no one can accuse Coulter of calling Edwards a faggot because the phrase "but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'" is somehow not related to anything else in that sentence.
This discussion is so gay.
Oh......
I mean in the "happy" sense , please don't send me to rehab.
Isn't this the "drop the dixie chicks from the playlist" strategy?
I'm guessing it is somehow different. More noble perhaps.
This discussion is so gay.
Oh......
I mean in the "happy" sense , please don't send me to rehab.
"No sense of humor" covers the situation nicely. I, of course, would have been more circumspect: "This discussion is, shall we say, a pain in the ass."
Ditto, kinda like this defending all the time this loser administration, when I've demonstrated my frequent opposition to many a policy and decision making. So I'd appreciate it if you'd stop. I thank you in advance
Did Ann Coulter intend to imply that Edwards was a "faggot?"
Was the phrase "I would say something about John Edwards, but . . ." related to the phrase "you can't say "faggot" without going into rehab."?
Do you approve of Ann Coulter's comments?
Do you approve of the word "faggot?"
But again, no straight answers. And it now occurs to me that THAT was an unintentional pun.
QuoteDitto, kinda like this defending all the time this loser administration, when I've demonstrated my frequent opposition to many a policy and decision making. So I'd appreciate it if you'd stop. I thank you in advance
And I've told you, how many times now, that I was referring to Plane, and not to you?
Riiiiiiiiiight, whatever you say, H
About what I figured.
Bye, Sirs.
But on point three you cop out. I didn't ask if your approval was required. I asked you to state your opinion directly.
In fairness, since I forgot we were in a semantics war, I should have asked if you approved of the word "faggot" when used as an insult meaning "gay" or having non-masculine characteristics.
Why is that a cop out? You seem to think her statement was about Edwrads. I don't.
I think her statement was more about people hiding behind rehab, a point i agree with.
Faggot is a perfectly good word. So are nigger, bitch, spic and kike. I don't use them often. But not because i disapprove of the words, i just don't think the use of those words enhance personal relations. I certainly don't think they should be banned. I don't think they should be on some list that automatically double prison time because you are now guilty of hate.
"N*GGERS ARE THE CAUSE OF THE DOWNFALL OF AMERICA!"
What should our reaction to your use of this phrase be?
What should our reaction to your use of this phrase be?
What do you think your reaction to a quote pulled entirely and deliberately out of context should be?
Yes, Ann might have used the word "faggot" to illustrate a point. But she did so in a manner which accused Edwards of being a "faggot" and which used an obviously offensive word in a context which suggested the word should be considered acceptable. And let's face it, even accepting the fact that such humor has a receptive audience in like-minded people, her use of it was juvenile and silly. She should be slapped around copiously and then forced to have sex with Rosie O'Donnell. (See, that's how Ann would have put it had the shoe been on the other foot.)
Context is mitigateing?
Or is context the heart of the matter?
IN the context of telling me that he would very seldom use the "N" word he uses the n word (sort of) because it sets up his point.
IN the context of ridiculing the rehab stampede ,Ann Colter uses a word that sets up her trip to rehab.
Stray Pooch might be even more talented than Ann Colter but should I cut him more slack?
So you did in fact say those who agreed with Coulter concerning misuse of rehab are bigotted.
I said no such thing. Why did you say I did?
Because you admitted when referring to Coulters like minded listeners that you meant they were bigots. I am of like mind when it comes to misusing rehab as a way to get the spotlight off of you,ergo i am a bigot in your eyes.
IThose who choose to comment on the subject ought to criticize her or defend her based on the merit of that statement, not some Clintonian legalistic parsing of terms. Those who defend her on those terms are - as she is - idiots.
Those who believe such sentiments are wrong, and who fail to state that are cowards - and they give tacit approval to her comments in the same way that Muslim leaders who do not speak out against suicide bombers silently condone those actions. It is fair and proper to question whether those who comment on the controversy yet remain silent concerning the accusation and the term are confederate or cowardly.
I suspect, UP, that BT would say that argument mirrors his about Coulter calling Edwards a faggot. The difference appears lost to this debate.
This is tiresome.
BT, at the risk of falling into an ad hominem argument, I feel that either your bias on this issue or a sense of defensiveness has caused you to develop a case of tunnel vision. You and I disagree on fundamental points, and the argument you are currently making presupposes my agreement with your POV.
Ann Coulter is a bigot. Adolph Hitler could have made wonderful arguments about freedom of speech and he would still be a bigot. Coulter's comments were both homophobic and accusatory. I think that any other analysis of the comments is denial - or defense of her bigotry. In your case, I believe it is denial. You rationalize that the allusion to previous comments explains her recent ones. I think that is very poor analysis. I do not deny that her comments alluded to her previous ones. I simply point out that, irrespective of that fact, her comments were both homophobic and accusatory. I disagree with you on the analysis of her comments and nothing you have said has given me even a satisfactory reason for reconsidering my position.
I also said that people who are as bigotted as Ann Coulter would find her bigotted humor funny. You chose to insist that I really meant that people who agree with her previous point about rehab were bigots. The thoughts are in no way related. The analysis, once again, is poor. In the analytical exercise you just attempted, you substituted YOUR interpretation for Coulter's comments for MY interpretation. That is not a valid analytical method.
I do not concede at all that Ann's latest comments concerned people using rehab to get out of trouble. They merely referred back to previous comments that, apparently, made that point (taking your word for their meaning - and based on this conversation that may not be a safe bet). Their point was that Edwards was a faggot.
Those who believe that Edwards is a faggot - and that stating so in such words is acceptable - agree with Ann Coulter and should be given the same consideration. (That's including the Rosie treatment.) Those who choose to comment on the subject ought to criticize her or defend her based on the merit of that statement, not some Clintonian legalistic parsing of terms. Those who defend her on those terms are - as she is - idiots. Those who believe such sentiments are wrong, and who fail to state that are cowards - and they give tacit approval to her comments in the same way that Muslim leaders who do not speak out against suicide bombers silently condone those actions. It is fair and proper to question whether those who comment on the controversy yet remain silent concerning the accusation and the term are confederate or cowardly.
The object of Coulters derision was not Edwards as the person she was deriding was the actor from Greys Anatomy (Isaiah Washington) who called a fellow cast member a faggot and then decided it would be best if he went to rehab.
I suspect, UP, that BT would say that argument mirrors his about Coulter calling Edwards a faggot. The difference appears lost to this debate.
The object of Coulters derision was not Edwards as the person she was deriding was the actor from Greys Anatomy (Isaiah Washington) who called a fellow cast member a faggot and then decided it would be best if he went to rehab.
Um, no. The object of Coulter's derision was John Edwards. She said, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions." She was talking about Edwards, mentions him by name twice. She did not mention Isaiah Washington. She was not using Edward's non-existant status as a 'faggot' to make fun of Isaiah Washington. She was using the Grey's Anatomy situation to allow her to indirectly refer to Edwards as a 'faggot'. If Edwards was a bundle of sticks, your explanation might be valid. But he isn't and it isn't.
When gay people are ridiculed , you MUST NOT laugh , you shall not laugh, this is IMPERITIVE.
When gay people are ridiculed , you MUST NOT laugh , you shall not laugh, this is IMPERITIVE.
Why?
And what makes you think the jokes you shared ridicule homosexuals?
Quote from: Plane
When gay people are ridiculed , you MUST NOT laugh , you shall not laugh, this is IMPERITIVE.Quote from: Universe Prince
Why?
And what makes you think the jokes you shared ridicule homosexuals?
Does compareing John Ewards to them ridicule homosexu..............
.........well , yea I guess it does.
Quote from: Plane
When gay people are ridiculed , you MUST NOT laugh , you shall not laugh, this is IMPERITIVE.Quote from: Universe Prince
Why?
And what makes you think the jokes you shared ridicule homosexuals?
Does compareing John Ewards to them ridicule homosexu..............
.........well , yea I guess it does.
You've avoided answering my questions. Again.
Apparently you have assumed that my criticism of Coulter's comment has something to do with an objection to making jokes about homosexuals. This is not the case.
You, Plane, seem to be talking about this issue as if it were a disagreement about a whether or not making jokes about homosexuals is okay. This has, for whatever reason, resulted in your recent post containing jokes about homosexuals after the apparently sarcastic admonition "When gay people are ridiculed , you MUST NOT laugh , you shall not laugh, this is IMPERITIVE." In reply to that statement I asked "Why?" I also asked you why you think the jokes you shared ridicule homosexuals. You answered neither question.
I can only guess that your sharing of the jokes was intended to somehow make a point that if a person thought those jokes were funny, then that person would have no reason to object to what Coulter said. That some jokes about homoesexuals can be funny does not mean that using the word 'faggot' as Coulter did is funny. And the fact that Coulter said it as part of a joke does not negate the criticism of the statement. The criticism isn't about whether or not what Coulter said was a joke. No one is denying that it was a joke. The criticism has to do with the intent and the meaning of the joke.
Or is your point in all of this to suggest that there is no such thing as a bigoted joke?
I had a longer post typed out, but I see little point in explaining for the umpteenth time that Coulter's comment was not offensive because it was a joke, but because it carried a pejorative meaning. If you don't get that by now, you're never going to get it. But there is something about which I am curious. Plane, where do you draw the line? If Coulter had said something like "I'd like to talk about Barack Obama, but the NAACP might not like it if I used the word 'nigger'," would you be telling me that was just Coulter saying Obama is black? How far would Coulter have to go before she made a joke that offended you, a joke that you would believe worthy of opprobrium?
I'm going off on a tangent, so be warned.
You know (or maybe you don't) how Newt Gingrich was married 1st to one of his high-school teachers, and told her he wanted a divorce while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. He then married the person he'd been sleeping with, and divorced her when she came down with, I think, multiple sclerosis. Now he's married to the former aide, some 20 years his junior, who he used to bang on his desk when he was in Congress, and he's asked forgiveness and gotten it from Falwell. Plane, remind me again how high and hard is the road Republicans must travel, they're such victims, yadda yadda yadda.
Wimpy boy doesn't like women who get sick, can't deal with it, throws'em out like McDonald's wrappers. So much trash.
What I think is funny is Molly Ivins' words to the newest Mrs. Gingrich: "Don't even cough until you're 40." LOL
(I love Robin Williams' joke. Gay burglers, please come to my house.)
"Faggot" is perjorative by definition - unless you think Ann was calling Edwards a cigarette.
Jokes about death appeal to me , up to point.
I consider myself quite tolerant but my limits can be overtoped , this is important when I am the audience .
When I am the presenter my own tolerance is much less important than the accuracy with which I assess the tolerance of the listener.
It is good to err on the safe side , no joke is so funny that it gets a laugh out of someone who is in pain from it.
Is "faggot" so prejoritive because it suggests homosexuality on the part of John Edwards?
I don't think you have "got" the joke yet.
By the standard of prejoritive that Ann Colter is accustomed to have leveled at her , is it especially bad?
Jokes about death appeal to me , up to point.
I consider myself quite tolerant but my limits can be overtoped , this is important when I am the audience .
When I am the presenter my own tolerance is much less important than the accuracy with which I assess the tolerance of the listener.
It is good to err on the safe side , no joke is so funny that it gets a laugh out of someone who is in pain from it.
That's nice. But you have sidestepped the questions. Again.
Plane, where do you draw the line? If Coulter had said something like "I'd like to talk about Barack Obama, but the NAACP might not like it if I used the word 'nigger'," would you be telling me that was just Coulter saying Obama is black? How far would Coulter have to go before she made a joke that offended you, a joke that you would believe worthy of opprobrium?
By the standard of prejoritive that Ann Colter is accustomed to have leveled at her , is it especially bad?
Why does that matter? Are you suggesting it's okay for Coulter to make bigoted comments because some people say mean things about her?
Is "faggot" so prejoritive because it suggests homosexuality on the part of John Edwards?
No. It was a pejorative long before Ann Coulter heard it for the first time. Are you unaware that 'faggot' is a derogatory term?
I don't think you have "got" the joke yet.
Oh, I got the joke. I don't think you have though.
That is exactly the same joke , but you are pointing out that the N is worse than the F.
I think that if she had told it this way, she would be in rehab by now.
Neither of these comes close to me, so you might should ask about pejoratives that do.
My Southern Appalachian heritage has some negative appellations that can be sent up , I don't encourage their use except while smiling.
The nastiness that is thrown at Ann Coulter - both deserved and undeserved - is not the issue. Coulter's comments were pejorative. If Edwards has called her a Lesbian, Coulter's comments would still be pejorative. They might be a tad more justified, but they would not be right.
Using the term "faggot" - like "nigger" - is a pretty big deal. Calling Latter-Day Saints Mormons is also offensive, but it is a minor offense since we only prefer the proper term. "Mormon" is derogatory, but it lacks the emotional impact that those other words have.
OTOH try calling a Muslim a "Mohammedan" and see how many steps you have left in this life.
Are you suggesting it's okay for Coulter to make bigoted comments because some people say mean things about her?
Why yes , sause or the goose IS sauce for the gander.
Would you single one participant out of a food fight for opprobrium?
Unless she is first or worst what is the complaint?
This situation is not only quite even , it is makeing her and her opposite counterparts wealthy , her more than they because there are more of them to split that pot.
The insult stream that Ann Colter receives is indeed a part of the issue, not because John Edwards never called her a Lesbian but because he never told anyone to back off of her.
That is exactly the same joke , but you are pointing out that the N is worse than the F.
I am pointing out no such thing. I am asking where do you draw the line. A question you have yet to answer.
I think that if she had told it this way, she would be in rehab by now.
But would you be criticizing her or suggesting that her joke was somehow really about the NAACP?
Neither of these comes close to me, so you might should ask about pejoratives that do.
My Southern Appalachian heritage has some negative appellations that can be sent up , I don't encourage their use except while smiling.
So... Coulter would have to be making fun of you and/or your Southern Appalachian heritage directly before you would be offended? You're okay with people being bigoted and hateful, just so long as they're not talking about you? Is that what you're saying? Because that is what you appear to be saying. I hope you're not saying that, but it looks like you are.
The insult stream that Ann Colter receives is indeed a part of the issue, not because John Edwards never called her a Lesbian but because he never told anyone to back off of her.
B'HUH? Coulter gets a pass... because Edwards didn't tell anyone to not insult her? What the f---?
I am trying to avoid dehumanieing the subject of the speech and I am also trying to avoid dehumaniseing the speaker.
Contrary to rumor ,Ann Colter is a human being and is not picking my pocket or breaking your leg.
I am trying to avoid dehumanieing the subject of the speech and I am also trying to avoid dehumaniseing the speaker.
Contrary to rumor ,Ann Colter is a human being and is not picking my pocket or breaking your leg.
What the frak are you talking about? Criticizing Coulter for calling someone a 'faggot' is dehumanizing to Coulter? And who said she was picking anyone's pocket or breaking someone's leg? What are you talking about? Will you please explain your comments?
Lets be clear then ,whether Ann Colter is the subject or the people who ought to be applying opprobrium to her aethe subject.
John Gets a pass on this but Ann Colters fandom does not?
Obviously a rational exchange on this subject is something I'm not going to get from you, Plane.
Wow. I am astounded by the last few posts. Plane, tell me you're kidding here.
Just to be clear, you haven't made your case convincingly enough to me that questioning whether Edwards was the heart of the quote or peripheral to the rehab riff is a defense or an excusing of Coulter's comments.
It is a tangent. Fact is the segue works no matter whose name is there. Would have worked just as well with BT as the subject.
But you are not clear on my thoughts because you are makeing assumptions.
But you are not clear on my thoughts because you are makeing assumptions.
No, that is not at all true. I am not clear on your thoughts because you have not answered my questions. I have been forced to make deductions based on what you have been stating as your positions. If my deductions are incorrect, then you have been lying to me. In any case, your replies have grown increasingly nonsensical and have made apparent that you are not willing to engage in a rational exchange. If you're going to play some sort of guessing game about what you really mean, then we're done. You win. You wore me down with asininity. I'm out of patience. Congratulations.
Wow. I am astounded by the last few posts. Plane, tell me you're kidding here.
First tell me who is he exact opposition counterpart to Ann Colter.
Then I will decide whether I am kidding.
I probably would not have said anything in this thread, except that I was struck by the absurdity of the suggestion that the phrase "but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'" was somehow completely unrelated to the rest of the sentence.
Plane,
I give up. I can't think of anyone who is Ann Coulter's opposite. None who have columns in about 100 newspapers a week (well, she lost 7 at last count), who is asked on to major "news" shows and who is a darling of his/her party's rank and file. None who are as vile, as nasty, as full of lies as she is.
No one has called for people in the audience to come and beat up hecklers. No one who has wished that the 9/11 attacks had also taken out the NYTimes (if I recall rightly). No one who's "joked" that maybe someone should go poison one of the Supremes' creme brulees. None who called the widows of some 9/11 victims horrible names.
Nope, can't match you guys on that kind of stuff.
I still disapprove of the use of such words. I have never said that someone who uses such language should be subjected to legal action. I have said, however, that people who DO use such language ought to be criticized and must deal with the consequence of their offensive behavior. I believe people have been banned from this website for being offensive. I know we have used many "bad" words (like the big, bad F) here but there is a limit - however arbitrary - to how much a poster can get away with. If I started posting topics like "N*GGERS ARE THE CAUSE OF THE DOWNFALL OF AMERICA!" I am sure I would be invited out without much delay. (Though frankly, I never did like NAGGERS.)
..........................................................
Yes I was speaking about naggers.
It was a deliberate and pointed reference to a joke from an episode of South Park where a character was on Wheel of Fortune and had the word N [blank] GGERS with the clue "People who annoy you." He gave the vulgar answer and Vanna - shocked - turned over the letter A.
Further, my use of the "N" word was in no way similar to Coulter's use of the "F" word.
This would all be lot easyer if you had understood the questions you were asking.
This would all be lot easyer if you had understood the questions you were asking.
I understood them just fine. They were my questions, after all. And yes, your answers were actually evasive. I'm not a sage, but I'm not a moron either. I'm sure you thought you were making a point, but you were not answering my questions. And please don't start telling me that I didn't know what I was asking. I'm not stupid. I know exactly what I was asking. I asked straightforward questions. You pissed around, and now you're telling Pooch and me that we didn't know what we were saying. You're either high or more sanctimonious than I ever gave you credit for being. Either way, I'm done. You win. I refuse to keep correcting your asinine, bull---- assumptions about what I mean, and I refuse to continue pointing out to you that the offense in Coulter's comment is not in its parts, but in its mean-spirited sum, its pejorative meaning. You win. I concede that you can keep disgorging more nonsense than I have patience to counter. Your subtle and enlightened wisdom in defending vile and loathsome bigotry as a humanizing force for mankind is beyond my ken. You win. I hope you're duly proud of yourself.
If the offense is in the sum and not the parts , then why the emphasis on the word "faggot"?
With this single word replaced by one you liked better he offense would be entirely gone wouldn't it?
Please be paitent with me , I am not trying to frustrate you , I just think you are not accustomed to being so wrong.
If you ask me what are the limits I set , I have a practctly Zero Zero tolerance , I try not to cause or receive offense I would not use a word like this myself nor take umbrage when someone elese used it. I am still not sure that this answers your question , but in the terms you ask it is very hard to apply it to myself.
No no ... let me tell you what you were talking about.
You were speaking of words , their meaning and their consequences.
The little tale of Naggars was not central to your theme, it was illistrative of the larger idea.
Should Naggars all round the world be offended in me untill I apply opprbrium to you ?
By the way Pooch, ticking off a minority is bad enough , you might be takeing on a majority with this .
Nope, can't match you guys on that kind of stuff.
Scintillating discussion, chaps.
That entirely depends.
I'd argue with you more, but using the phrase "blithering idiot" might offend you.
With this single word replaced by one you liked better he offense would be entirely gone wouldn't it?
It might be lessened, but no, it would not be entirely gone. If you think it would, then I suggest you have not understood both the sentence and my criticism of it.
What misunderstand anything ....Moi?
That seems to be a central difficulty in this discussion , we are discussing some very subjective things , so I accept the likelyhood that I haven't understood you .
Please be paitent with me , I am not trying to frustrate you , I just think you are not accustomed to being so wrong.
You have had plenty of opportunity to explain why I am wrong and to answer my straightforward questions. You have done neither. In lieu of proving me wrong and answering questions, you danced around with comments and examples that had little if anything to do with my complaint about Coulter's comment. You've made entirely wrong statements about my position and suggested I was too ignorant and/or too stupid to understand my own questions. .
I apologise for any inference how ever great or slight on your intellect , such an inference would be an untruth because I have a very high reguard for your ability to analise , understand and describe to make understandable some very complex ideas. I have many times enjoyed your very cogent style and your grasp of grand concepts made clear in eloquent prose.
If you ask me what are the limits I set , I have a practctly Zero Zero tolerance , I try not to cause or receive offense I would not use a word like this myself nor take umbrage when someone elese used it. I am still not sure that this answers your question , but in the terms you ask it is very hard to apply it to myself.
Very hard to apply? Either there is something Coulter would say that would offend you or there is not.
All right, if you insist on such bipolar terms then the answer is no.
"...your pseudo-Socratic ..."
Ahhhhhhhhhhhrrrgh!
He is On to me!