Ann Coulter's F Bomb

[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

[Morrigoon]

The right to free speech relates to the right to say something (such as "George Bush is a worthless piece of sh*t") without getting arrested. Doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Coulter responds:
Coulter Doesn't Get It, Pt 1 (Hannity & Colmes via YouTube)
Coulter Doesn't Get It, Pt 2 (Hannity & Colmes via YouTube)

I respond:
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. And yes, it is very offensive to gays. What makes you think you're even remotely qualified to determine what gays find offensive? "Faggot" is equivalent to a racial slur. Gays most definitely have been and continue to be legally discriminated against.

When you say "we're against gay marriage" and they in the very next sentence say, "I don't want gays to be discriminated against" you are contradicting yourself.

You also said, "I think we [Republicans] have the pro-gay position..." Are you kidding me? Did you really just say that? Did you even think about those words? Really??? The GOP does not need any help from the Liberally-biased media in describing Republicans--you folks do a fine job of that all by yourselves.

[Alex]

While I can't remember ever using the word (other than in a self referential way), it is a bit of a fuzzy line since "fag" seems to have taken up a cozy place in mostly non-offensive slang vocabulary. I don't know that adding "got" makes it a whole lot more offensive.

But as with so many things, offense is in the eye of the beholder.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by SzczerbiakManiac

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.

It's even more insidious than that. Because she's right, she didn't mean to imply that he was homosexual. She meant to imply that he's "bad". So by using "faggot" what she's really saying is, "Hey, we all agree that faggots are bad, right? Well, then I'm going to call this guy a faggot and, since we're all in agreement that faggots are bad, then you'll all understand that I'm saying he's bad."

Lovely.