Ann Coulter's F Bomb

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Tramspotter

You agree completely that there should be no legal ban eh? Yet you use the term "hate speach" and I wonder have no problems with existing "hate laws" and creating additional laws which add "extra" penaltys for anyone who it can be proven has a proven previous dislike for a paticular group yes?

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.

Originally Posted by Tramspotter

Regardless of legal, how far would you guys wish push the social backlash against someone like Colter? Publicaly let known your own distaste for her use of that language?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Tramspotter

A lifting of the usual social contract by making ad hominem attacks beyond what you would of other public figures?

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.

Originally Posted by Tramspotter

Write in to demand she be taken off the air depriving her of livelyhood?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Tramspotter

Protests that would make her fear for her safty?

No.

Originally Posted by Tramspotter

Just wondering

It also sounds to me JBW that making your own comments and agreeing with others who denounce her is not enough for you. Do you wish to bring the same social presure to bear on those who aren't as offended as you are by her comments or worse would dismiss them? What is your minumum level of indignation just so I know, not that I would chose to display it for your benifit. You seem awful eger to cast some sort of shadow on me personaly. I find that sort of mindset as distastefull and well poisoning as any particular slur or epithet I ever heard used for real real and not for play play.

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.

[Gemini Cricket]

At least three major companies want their ads pulled from Ann Coulter's Web site, following customer complaints about the right-wing commentator referring to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot." Verizon, Sallie Mae and Georgia-based NetBank each said they didn't know their ads were on AnnCoulter.com until they received the complaints.
A diarist at the liberal blog DailyKos.com posted contact information for dozens of companies with ads on Coulter's site after the commentator made her remarks about Edwards at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington on Friday.

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.

[SacTown Chronic]

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!

[Tramspotter]

Originally Posted by JWBear

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.

I have a problem punishing motives and mindsets of any kind even if fully understood. And find people who would dangerous

Yes.

As seen by the gleeful tirade against Colter if we were to plug in a name of someone you completely disagree with targeting another group I wonder if your reaction would be the same

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

WB attacked her looks is that germane to the issue at hand or acceptable to you during other political discourse?

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

Fair Enough.

Yes.

Doesn't take much more justification to bring governmental power to bear in silencing speech.


No.

well if a mob starts forming or a sufficiency of punishment sub committee is ever put together I hope that they are as generous as you would be

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.

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 If this is not what you meant, I apologize.

[wendybeth]

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.

[Alex]

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.

[Alex]

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).

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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).

Too true, my friend. Too true.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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.

Well put! And an excellent point

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Tramspotter

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 If this is not what you meant, I apologize.

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 have to do with the discussion?)