Originally Posted by Alex Stroup (Post 124198)

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).

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup (Post 124196)

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.

Originally Posted by SzczerbiakManiac (Post 124213)

No Ms. Coulter, the word "faggot" is not just a schoolyard taunt. It does imply the person to whom it's being directed is not only gay, but sub-human.