I don't want to see her get in any legal trouble for misusing her freedom of speech. I also don't see the use in me "piling on" in this argument, especially when I don't exactly understand what the thesis of the pro-Coulter argument exactly is. I just know that Ann Coulter's an irresponsible ****ing ****, whose points are rendered moot because of the fact that she presents herself as a pompous ****.

I have no problems (and fully support) hate speech laws. They are intended to increase to punishment for violent crimes that are the result of prejudice, bigotry, and hate. These laws do not apply in Ms Coulters case – she did not commit an act of physical violence.

Yes.

Ad hominem? Hardly. To reply to a nasty and inappropriate remark by condemning said remark is not an ad hominem attack.

And yes, I would react the same way if any other public figure made a remark of that type.

Yes.

No.

I’m not trying to cast a shadow on you – just trying to interpret your post as best I can. You seem to be (to me, at least) defending her actions; as if you agreed with her and believe there was nothing wrong with what she said. If this is not what you meant, I apologize.

Source
I've always loved DailyKos. :)

I'd like to see this as a positive thing, but I'm sure companies who don't really care will take their place. Oh well.

I love Andrew Sullivan's (America's favorite faggot conservative blogger) response to Coulter:

"I am not a faggot. I am a man."




You go, girl!

:cakes: :cakes: You use the phrase "her actions" and tone of the thought police. I am defending her right to "her free speech" and others their right to make their own conclusions :cakes: :cakes: If this is not what you meant, I apologize.

I posted a picture which completely backs up my comment. I accept full responsibility for what I said, and I don't intend to spin it any other way. She looks like Richard O'Brien's twin.




I think that she is like the picture of Dorian Grey, only she's the attic version. Her exterior is beginning to reflect her interior.

IMO, she can say what she wants, but also needs to be prepared for people hating what she says.

Everyone needs to take responsibility for themselves, Ann Coulter included. For example, if I want to sit in West Hollywood and make a comment about anything while including the word faggot - there had better be either context or at least humor (she had neither as far as I could tell) or I should be prepared for whatever backlash I get. I'm sure she had to realize that she was being taped. Common sense should dictate what was expected to happen, so that anyone in her camp might be shocked is surprising. Just gotta see AC for who she is.

Ann Coulter, like her or hate her, is not dumb. She may have some polarizing beliefs, but she's not dumb. She wants attention, she's getting attention - she certainly is doing the majority of conservatives no favor. I see little need to defend her or attack her. I just see her for who she is and who she has always been, a media-hungry attention-craving borderline-lunatic. I mean really, few things she's ever said really make that much sense. I think most of what comes through her lips is just to push the envelope.

At best, she's a satirist - at worst she's a bitch. Whatever. :rolleyes:

She looks fine to me in that picture. She's not within my preferred range of physical characteristics but I don't see anything freaky in it.

I'm all in favor of thought police. I'm just not in favor of government sponsored thought police. Judicious use of social pressure is the best defense we have against the nanny state. It is only by abdicating our own judgment on what we'll accept as appropriate behavior in others that we
begin to welcome the government into that role.

Of course, defining "judicious" is the real sticking point.

Over the weekend NPR's On the Media had a segment on Louis Farrakhan and how he manipulates the media and how the media is more than happy to have him fill a caricature for him. The key point according to one of the people is that Farrakhan realized that at a subconscious level there existed within the American black community a feeling that if the white man likes you, there is something suspicious about you and if the white man hates you, you must be doing something right. And it doesn't really matter whether the white man is right to revile you.

And the press is always happy to focus on people who speak in declarative sentences lacking any gray, especially if they'll take edge positions.

Ann Coulter, it seems to me, does the same thing. For some population of conservatives out there, if the liberals (including the media) hate you, you must be doing something right. And it is irrelevant how justified that hatred is. And Coulter is more than willing to manipulate this and the media is just happy to have someone who will say outrageous things. (I have no doubt that this same population of consumers exists on the left, I just don't think there is anybody currently extant so skilled at manipulating it as Coulter is on the right).

I never said that she (or anybody, for that matter) doesn't have the right to speak her mind. She can say whatever she wants to. Just as we are free to speak out against what she says. Freedom of speech is a two way street; and freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

(And what the hell do :cakes: have to do with the discussion?)