Ann Coulter, right wing goddess

POSTED BY: NewOldBrownCoat
UPDATED: Thursday, October 5, 2023 23:43
VIEWED: 28042
PAGE 12 of 16

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Monday, March 12, 2007 3:36 PM

"Personally attacking Ann Coulter for personally attacking Edwards is apparently okay as long as it is only on this forum." et al

Somehow you all miss the point. So I'll try to draw some examples. If Slick says that night is day, I'd call him a liar, and righfully so. While this is 'negative', it's an individual observation about Slick and something he's done. If Zero snickers over someone's chosen hair color it would be 'negative' but still merely a personal opinion. If BDM crudely speculates about a Tammy's Faye's beauty regime, it might be crude and maybe offensive and certainly 'negative' but still merely personal.

When someone tries to demean another person by invoking a shared bias - nigger, faggot, kike - it goes beyond personal and into prejudice. And when they indeed try to incite violence it goes beyond prejudice and into hate speech. And when that person is paid millions to present that hate speech to large audiences it goes beyond hate speech into a concerted hate campaign.

You little boys got it now?

GEEZER

Monday, March 12, 2007 8:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
When someone tries to demean another person by invoking a shared bias - nigger, faggot, kike - it goes beyond personal and into prejudice. And when they indeed try to incite violence it goes beyond prejudice and into hate speech. And when that person is paid millions to present that hate speech to large audiences it goes beyond hate speech into a concerted hate campaign.

You little boys got it now?

I had this from the getgo. I do have a problem with the concept that it's all right, in a public forum, "to demean another person by invoking a shared bias" (which I agree is prejudice) as long as you don't have a large audience or get paid for it. So what's the cut-off point between right and wrong; 100 people and $10.00? 1000 and $100.00?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SOUPCATCHER

Monday, March 12, 2007 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So why the need for the kinky sex, blood bathing, transvestite, funny hands shtick? Someone put a good bit of effort into the sites that folks here linked to. What's the point? Just to look clever?

I'll try to walk a fine line without going over to concern trolling.

First we have to separate things out. BigDamnNobody's list of what they considered problematic statements is too broad. I'll attempt to summarize:

Ann Coulter is a(n):
Liar
Four hundred year old vampire who must bathe in the blood of virgins
object of fantasy for someone who wishes he could have anal intercourse with her
man
horse
attention-whore
right-wing loony
wingnut
not funny
embarassment to her race
Medusa
closet bull-dyke
weird hands
transexual

I'll regroup:

liar
attention-whore
right-wing loony
wingnut
not funny but thinks she is

four hundred year old vampire who must bathe in the blood of virgins
Medusa
horse

weird hands (although, if you are only making the weird hands observation as support for the transexual argument than this gets moved)

embarassment to her race

object of fantasy for someone who wishes he could have anal intercourse with her

closet bull-dyke

man
transexual

The first three groupings are: claims that can be supported with evidence, claims that are fantastic and not meant to be taken seriously and observations, respectively.

The last four groupings say a lot more about the person making the statement than the person being described. Of these groupings, the last two are troublesome to me. And I think the last grouping gets us into misogyny territory (although, I could see the argument that the last three groupings show this).

* edited to change penultimate to last three

* edited one more time to add: And I forget to tie all this together to attempt to answer the question I quoted

.

Regardless of her message Ann Coulter is intelligent, well-educated, articulate and successful. And a woman. I personally think the transexual claims are evidence of cognitive dissonance on the part of the claimant. In other words, women can't be intelligent, well-educated, articulate and successful so Ann Coulter must be a man. And this explanation might be over simplistic.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

closet bull-dyke

Hey, as I remember, I suggested that I think that might be her problem. A little joke, all right?

I'm not better that her on that score, and I think if she can't stand the heat, she oughtta stay outta the kitchen.

If she can use humor as a weapon of disrespect, so can I. Where is it written that we Lefties can't stoop to the level of the prejudiced and ignorant if we want to?

Kinda like Roger Ailes deliberately confusing Barrack Obama and Osama Ben Laden the other day.

RUE

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 3:52 PM

"to demean another person by invoking a shared bias"

No Slick,

You still don't get it. There's a difference between making a PERSONAL remark about the SPECIFICS of an INDIVIDUAL, versus demeaning a whole group by using words like FAGGOT.

Or perhaps your thoughts are so soaked in prejudice you simply can't see it.

RUE

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 3:57 PM

Soup

I think people are tranfixed by her lack of body fat, her huge hands and her manly Adam's apple. That is a strange combination of characteristics for a woman. Though I've read that chronic vomitters also develop large Adam's apples (as well as ruin their teeth).

SOUPCATCHER

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:56 PM

Rue

Yeah. I can see that. But I'm wondering if there's something going on way way underneath. Something similar to how when many successful women are described pains are taken to include some comment about their attractiveness. It's almost like the describer feels the need to remind people of an outdated notion of femininity. How many times have you heard a superstar (whether academic or athletic or business or media) introduced as, "And the talented and lovely (or handsome) ...?" Of that number, how many times was that superstar male? Not very many, I'm guessing.

I see this when I read supporters of Ann Coulter (and Michelle Malkin for that matter). It's a good bet that there will be some comment in there about her physical characteristics.

* edited to add: I need to remind myself to add the following line to the end of all my posts on this topic.

Ann Coulter is paid by conservatives to preach hate and intolerance. Her message reaches millions.

GEEZER

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You still don't get it. There's a difference between making a PERSONAL remark about the SPECIFICS of an INDIVIDUAL, versus demeaning a whole group by using words like FAGGOT.

You said: "When someone tries to demean another person by invoking a shared bias - nigger, faggot, kike - it goes beyond personal and into prejudice." So apparently you think calling a person a nigger, faggot, or kike to demean them goes beyond personal insult and into prejudice against Blacks, homosexuals and Jews. I agree.

How about demeaning a person by calling them a transsexual, or a bull dyke, or sexually outside the norm? Is it all right to express prejudice against these three groups, but not against the N/F/K-word troika?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:28 PM

Slick,

There ARE transexuals who feel demeaned by being compared to Coulter. Is that what you mean?

RUE

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:32 PM

Soup,

Come to think of it you're right. I've never heard a successful male being described as overfed and balding; or wimpy and effeminate. So, point taken.

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE