Dear, Dear Ann Coulter...

[wendybeth]

Ann Coulter is a narcissistic nutjob who thrives on controversy, because she hasn't anything reasonable or enlightening to offer up to the table. She is the political world's Paris Hilton, nothing more.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

If he turns what should be a non-political event (the Oscars) into an opportunity to spout political rhetoric, then boo him.

However, the rules for the Oscars states that winners of the award can make political statements during their acceptance speech. The presenters are not allowed to do that. So, it is commonplace for political sentiment to be expressed on the Oscars.

So what does one do with the Univ of Conn crowd? Come out beforehand and say, 'No booing or else?' You can't do that...

Furthermore, I was thinking just now (as I was walking Frodo in the snow) why can't Coulter take the high road when she speaks? Why is her rhetoric all about accusations and hateful name calling? Maybe that's her thing but if that's all it is, then it's very easy to tune out.

Example, I watched the Daily Show the other day and the guest was President Jimmy Carter. He spoke very eloquently and pleasantly and yet had a lot of points to present about problems he perceives in the Bush II Administration. He did it in a way that was not demeaning or mean. Yes, he was there to push his new book, but the way a message is conveyed is just as important as the message itself.

Another example, I can listen to John McCain without tuning him out because the guy knows how to speak. He knows how to be civil about things.

Another example, although I think the man makes a lot of good points, sometimes I cringe when I hear Michael Moore speak or read the things he writes. It's too extreme at times and downright hateful at other times. AND he lost a farting match to Peter Griffin.

I guess my point is is that all of this yelling, name-calling, smug Crossfire type of communication that has sprung up post-9/11 has to stop. That goes for both sides.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

However, the rules for the Oscars states that winners of the award can make political statements during their acceptance speech.

(snip)

I guess my point is is that all of this yelling, name-calling, smug Crossfire type of communication that has sprung up post-9/11 has to stop. That goes for both sides.

Well, not knowing the rules of the Oscars obviously affected my post. If those are the rules, then booing is certainly out of line. Let the man have his say in the forum that has allowed for it.

A while ago I was watching Leno - he made a political joke and a large portion of the audience did not like it and booed. I think that's fine - stand up is designed to be somewhat interactive and expecting a response to your jokes should be expected, whatever it may be. The Oscars is not the same situation, of course.

I agree with you on ad hominem stuff. The sad part is that one man's ad hominem is another man's truth. Like I posted earlier, many who would get mad at Clinton (GASP! I mentioned his name. Surely I shall be chatized.) being called something deragotary have no problem with Bush being called something derogatory.

[Alex]

If you'd like some insight into how tolerant university campuses are of ideas they (and generally "they" is some small minority of students) don't like I strongly suggest reading Free Speech For Me--But Not For Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other by Nat Hentoff*.

It is almost 15 years old now, but things haven't really changed and the practice of showing up and shouting down speakers has gotten worse in that time. Another tactic is to suggest that the ideas of the speaker are so evil that it will be hard to resist incitement to violence and getting the school administrators to simply cancel the entire event.



*If you're not familiar with Hentoff, he is no rightie, though he is an absolutist on free speech.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Well, they certainly didn't come to listen to her.

I just find it so amazing that Universities, which all claim to be about diversity and thought and whatever, have so many students who wish to disrupt a speaker. Protest? Sure. Go for it. No problem with that. But if someone has been invited to speak, then let the person speak, regardless of who it is. The University should provide for that or not allow the person to come at all - again, whomever it is.

"Universities" claim "Diversity". Students on the other hand...

Can't you remember what it was like when you were collage age? That incredible certainty that your views are unequivocally superior to anyone else’s combined with the youthful vigor and the certainty that you can change the world to meet your views if you can just get your message out there? That age does not lend itself well to tolerance of opposing viewpoints. Wrong MUST be righted, truth MUST win out over lies, ahhh I'm not sure if I miss those days or not....

[wendybeth]

There are plenty of other venues where these speakers get shouted down, not just Unies. We so-called adults spend a lot of time arguing about these people, why should college students be any different? As a college student, I would feel invested in that my tuition is helping to pay the speaker's fees for these people. Still, I always just stayed away when a speaker I disagreed with came to our school.

[€uroMeinke]

I'm a free speech absolutist - if someone's ideas are so reprehensible, then you should easily be able to combat that through excercising your own free speech, but expounding contrary arguments.

Shouting down someone is an attempt at cencorship, which to me leaves the message that the ideas are too good or sound too to engage in discussion about.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

There are plenty of other venues where these speakers get shouted down, not just Unies. We so-called adults spend a lot of time arguing about these people, why should college students be any different?

And there is a time and a place. Coulter didn't storm off. She went straight to Q&A. Why? So she could just debate the people who weren't going to let her speak.

The issue is one of respect. Moonliner, I have always thought I was right on pretty much everything (as everyone who been reading my posts over the last few years in whatever forum will testify to). However, I would never even consider being so rude as to shout down anyone who was invited to speak. As a student, are you not to learn? How can one learn without listening? If one does not wish to learn, don't inhibit others from doing so.

It's an issue of respect. Of decorum. Of common decency.

[Name]

who's ann coulter?

I feel fortunate, I haven't seen or heard anything she says in a very very very very long time.....

(I bet I just jinxed myself, and now every channel I turn to will have coulter news.... :shudder

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

And there is a time and a place. Coulter didn't storm off. She went straight to Q&A. Why? So she could just debate the people who weren't going to let her speak.

The issue is one of respect. Moonliner, I have always thought I was right on pretty much everything (as everyone who been reading my posts over the last few years in whatever forum will testify to). However, I would never even consider being so rude as to shout down anyone who was invited to speak. As a student, are you not to learn? How can one learn without listening? If one does not wish to learn, don't inhibit others from doing so.

It's an issue of respect. Of decorum. Of common decency.

Ann Coulter is hardly a model of either decorum or decency. She also referred to her audience as 'stupid', which is incitive and immature. If she genuinely has a message she wants to get out there, why is she so damned insulting all the time? She wants to provoke people, and she isn't remotely interested in dialogue.