Coulter Said What?

[Stray Pooch]

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.

I admitted no such thing.  I said that the term "like-minded" in the context I used it, meant "those who are as bigotted as Ann Coulter."   

My original comment, then, could have been restated as "Those who are as bigotted as Ann Coulter will find that kind of thing funny."

I did not say, nor did I in any way imply, that those who agreed with, or rationalized about, Coulter's opinions on other issues were bigots.

No reasonable restatement of my original comment could have been rendered "Those who believe anything that Ann Coulter says on any subject are as bigotted as she is."

You are confusing your opinion with my opinion.

[Stray Pooch]

In re-reading this post I need to clarify two things:

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.  

The phrase "on those terms" in the second sentence is not meant to refer to the phrase "parsing of terms" in the first.  That poor wording makes it sound like I am saying anyone who defends her using the parsing of terms is an idiot.  That was not my meaning.  I meant to say that anyone who defends her in terms of using the word "faggot" amd accusing Edwards of being a faggot is an idiot.

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 failed to point out (though I had implied) the third option.  Those who sincerely rationalize away the debate are neither confederate nor coward.  They are simply in denial.

[BT]

I dunno pooch seems you are giving me a clintonian explanation for why Coulters use of the term faggot in relation to her riff about rehab, which i agree with, was not included in your broadbrush about those of like mind with coulter on this isssue and this statement that we have been discussing lo these many posts are bigots.

Seems her use of the word was appropriate in the context of her statement the way i read it just as your use of nigg*rs was appropriate in the context of yours.

We have learned over the years that the word or even the context doesn't matter if the listener is offended, as the poor local pol who used the term niggardly learned the hard way.

[BT]

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.

Just read this. Guess there isn't much more to say.

I have a different take on what she said. So be it.

[Universe Prince]

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.

[Universe Prince]

I suspect, UP, that BT would say that argument mirrors his about Coulter calling Edwards a faggot.   The difference appears lost to this debate.

I'm not sure which argument you're referring to there. But this discussion has made me reconsider Coulter's status. Maybe she gets a pass and/or has a following not because of what she says, but because of what people think she means. Apparently the meaning of her statements is completely malleable, able to take on the shape of whatever the reader/listener desires. Context and grammar in Coulter's comments seems entirely tractable as well. This or that phrase is not related to the rest of the sentence, but the rest of the sentence is related to the phrase. It's almost mystical.

(Okay, I guess that was a little sarcastic, but only a little.)

[BT]

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.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. I have a different one. So it goes.

[Plane]

When gay people are ridiculed , you MUST NOT laugh , you shall not laugh, this is IMPERITIVE.



“We had gay burglars the other night. They broke in and rearranged the furniture.”
 Robin Williams
 


No self-respecting gay guy would have ever made some of the hair and clothing choices I am still trying to live down.”
 David Copperfield


“Why can't they have gay people in the army? Personally, I think they are just afraid of a thousand guys with M16s going, "Who'd you call a faggot?"”
 Jon Stewart
 

“The one bonus of not lifting the ban on gays in the military is that the next time the government mandates a draft we can all declare homosexuality instead of running off to Canada.”
 Lorne Bloch
 

“He's gay. Leela: How do you know? Bender: I have this thing called gaydar.”
 santiz Futurama
 
In dinner talk it is perhaps allowable to fling any faggot rather than let the fire go out.”
 James Matthew Barrie
 


 
http://thinkexist.com/search/

[Universe Prince]

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?

[Plane]

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?

Does compareing John Ewards to them ridicule homosexu..............


.........well , yea I guess it does.

[Universe Prince]

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?

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.

[Plane]

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?

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.

That is not clear to me at all , would you elaborate?

[Universe Prince]

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?

[Plane]

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?

http://boortz.com/more/funny/redneck_pics.html


Oh no , I understand very well that a joke can be hurtfull , that its purpose can be malign and that the genteel avoid any such harm to their fellowman.
Except rednecks , we remain fair game.

But this particular Annism is merely at worst a suggestion that John Edwards might be homosexual , which is not so severe that it deserves widespread oprobrim from all of her friends.

I don't agree that the John Edwards part is the main import of the joke anyway , the rehab reference is more funny .

Especially since it seems to be turning out to be literally true.

[Universe Prince]

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?