The Bitch is Back

Sklar

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Posts
1,640
Media
25
Likes
3,494
Points
368
Location
Everett, Washington, US
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
This should really be a God send to the Democratic party.

What they need to do is start airing commercials of her speaking and then getting the applause and then have someone compterize her image and everyone elses into wearing white sheets with pointed hats.

Then have the caption, aimed at Republicans, that says something along the lines of:

"A lot of Americans already think of the Republican Party as Nazi's and Klans Men. Anne Coulter helps to reinforce that image."

This is an unparalled opprotunity for the Democratic Party.

If they have the backbone to actually CONFRONT the Republican Party in this way, they will win.

If it's one thing the Republicans HATE (moreso than Homosexuals and Liberals) it's a bad PR Image that will last.
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
30
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Um...faggot? We weren't talking about calling someone an "idiot." This was meant as a derogatory remark. Once again, had she called someone a derogatory racial remark, the reaction would have been much more extreme. But like I said before, it's still ok to call people "faggot."

I'll introduce this post with the reassurance to both Bliss and Giozam that my intent in joining this discussion was neither to defend Coulter nor to pick an argument with either of you. It's good to know that I'm not the only one wondering why this pugnacious woman garners national attention.

That said, I'd like to address the part of your reply above, giozam. You draw two parallels to her use of the term "faggot", each presumably toward either end of the acceptability spectrum. As devil's advocate here, I contend that it matters not at all which of these three ("idiot", "faggot", or racial epithet of your choice) a person uses...they are all employed with a pejorative connotation. It's not OK to call people "faggot" any more than "idiot" or "cracker," and I don't want to give the impression that I believe otherwise.

Context is everything in language, though. The media has been quick to jump to label any use of "faggot" as a slur against gay people. I find it difficult to do so in this case. She didn't even directly call Edwards a faggot. She made a double-edged backhanded remark referencing both the pervasive speculation regarding Edwards' sexual orientation and all the hullaballoo surrounding Tim Hardaway's recent display of stupidity. It was actually clever in its own sophomoric vein. It was derisive of both Edwards and the public flap concerning the use of the word, but it certainly wasn't a slur against gay folks as a whole.

The issue that disturbs me the most is the mob mentality that tends to manifest around these events. Political correctness has always rubbed me the wrong way, as I feel that intelligent adults should possess (at a bare minimum) the capacity to interpret things in context and react (or disregard) as appropriate. My experience with people, however, is doing little to reinforce my naively idealistic assumptions concerning the intelligence of average citizens. I'm really bothered by the ease with which large groups of people can be whipped into a frenzy without the majority of them ever bothering to stop and question the rationale behind it.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Then have the caption, aimed at Republicans, that says something along the lines of:

"A lot of Americans already think of the Republican Party as Nazi's and Klans Men. Anne Coulter helps to reinforce that image."

This is an unparalled opprotunity for the Democratic Party.

It'd be a disaster. Fortunately not all Dem strategists are totally ignorant of history, and they're not likely to touch a compaign like that. They know that the Klan was formed to resist the Abolitionists and carpetbaggers. In other words, to fight Republicans. Reinforced by the fact that Byrd is still in the Senate, no competent Dem campaigner is going to try smearing anyone with the Klan brush.

Best to just stick with the old "BUSH=HITLER" signs. Except that, of course, those didn't work too well.
 

Ethyl

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,194
Media
19
Likes
1,707
Points
333
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
Reinforced by the fact that Byrd is still in the Senate, no competent Dem campaigner is going to try smearing anyone with the Klan brush.
Byrd admitted this early on in his career and that it was a mistake of his youth. It's irrelevant to the discussion.
 

quercusone

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Posts
1,135
Media
234
Likes
16,654
Points
618
Location
Dallas (Texas, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
According to this article, Ann Coulter referred to John Edwards as a "faggot". She now says it was a joke but I wonder if she really believes all this drivel she spouts or if she's the biggest attention whore in politics. No reason she can't be both, I suppose. Either way, she is a vile creature.

Controversial columnist draws fire for gay slur.

Who cares? Talking about her only feeds the machine......rather than doing that, you and I should be laying in a wet, sticky bed somewhere deciding if we are going to order chinese or pizza....I vote for pizza.
 

invisibleman

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Posts
9,816
Media
0
Likes
491
Points
303
Location
North Carolina
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Let's see. John Edwards is happily married. Ann Coulter is old tired and single. Looking like Carly Simon's gramma with a store bought perm and peroxide number. Hmmmm.

Sounds like she is jealous of Edwards. If only she had the knack for shutting the "eff" (everlasting fucking flapper) mouth shut--she may get some fucking dick in that trap. All she is doing is getting tumbleweeds.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
My experience with people, however, is doing little to reinforce my naively idealistic assumptions concerning the intelligence of average citizens. I'm really bothered by the ease with which large groups of people can be whipped into a frenzy without the majority of them ever bothering to stop and question the rationale behind it.

I think this is an error. The problem isn't intelligence. The problem is the way humans, intelligent or otherwise, organize information. Blaming poor grasp of the questions of the day and the inability to process new information on lack of intelligence just misleads those who, based on formal tests, would be considered intelligent, into thinking that they are immune to these faults. And they clearly are not. Smart people can, and do, have ideas as whacky as anyone else. And they are every bit as reluctant to abandon them, even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. They may even excel at rationalizations as to why they're still right, long after a less intelligent person would have given up the fight.

After watching some particurly obvious examples - people who are intelligent but consistent and, in some ways, predictable - I'm coming around to the conclusion that everyone thinks in much the same way, though to slightly different degrees.

1. When considering a problem for the first time, a person tries to fit it into a mental template already formed from experience with another problem, even if the fit isn't particularly good. This is why one person can be talking about, say, universal health care, and another can be talking about universal health insurance, and at least one of them may have no idea that they're not talking about the same thing.

2. If no semi-similar template is available, a person will listen to an exposition of the problem up to some point, then leap to a conclusion. From that point on, the only additional information admitted is information which reinforces that conclusion. The conclusion has actually become a prejudice, and since no contrary information is ever even considered, the prejudice solidifies.

For these reasons, the notion of "public debate" is a failure right from the start. Nobody "debates" anything, they just shout about their prejudices. Anyone with different prejudices is obviously stupid, or idiotic, or being paid off by (fill in bugaboo here - Big Oil, pharmaceutical companies, John Birch, whatever), or, if all else fails, is perhaps the Spawn of the Devil. Neither leftoids nor rightoids ever change sides, no matter how expert they may become in the technical and factual aspects of any of the questions of the day, because their prejudices are not determined by a grasp of facts, and so cannot be changed by facts.

A dismal state of affairs, to be sure. And an inescapable one.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Byrd admitted this early on in his career and that it was a mistake of his youth. It's irrelevant to the discussion.
Nonsense. He can't escape from a thing like that. Want forgiveness, talk to a priest. Even if he could, Repub strategists won't let it rest, and there's no real reason they should. "Dems=Klan" is just too good to let slide once it's out of the bag. Which of course the Dems know.
 

D_Dick_Dock_Doe

Account Disabled
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Posts
506
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
I'll introduce this post with the reassurance to both Bliss and Giozam that my intent in joining this discussion was neither to defend Coulter nor to pick an argument with either of you. It's good to know that I'm not the only one wondering why this pugnacious woman garners national attention.

That said, I'd like to address the part of your reply above, giozam. You draw two parallels to her use of the term "faggot", each presumably toward either end of the acceptability spectrum. As devil's advocate here, I contend that it matters not at all which of these three ("idiot", "faggot", or racial epithet of your choice) a person uses...they are all employed with a pejorative connotation. It's not OK to call people "faggot" any more than "idiot" or "cracker," and I don't want to give the impression that I believe otherwise.

Context is everything in language, though. The media has been quick to jump to label any use of "faggot" as a slur against gay people. I find it difficult to do so in this case. She didn't even directly call Edwards a faggot. She made a double-edged backhanded remark referencing both the pervasive speculation regarding Edwards' sexual orientation and all the hullaballoo surrounding Tim Hardaway's recent display of stupidity. It was actually clever in its own sophomoric vein. It was derisive of both Edwards and the public flap concerning the use of the word, but it certainly wasn't a slur against gay folks as a whole.

The issue that disturbs me the most is the mob mentality that tends to manifest around these events. Political correctness has always rubbed me the wrong way, as I feel that intelligent adults should possess (at a bare minimum) the capacity to interpret things in context and react (or disregard) as appropriate. My experience with people, however, is doing little to reinforce my naively idealistic assumptions concerning the intelligence of average citizens. I'm really bothered by the ease with which large groups of people can be whipped into a frenzy without the majority of them ever bothering to stop and question the rationale behind it.

As much as I would love to continue this discussion, the fact of the matter is that regardless of how much I try to explain that this has nothing to do with being "PC" and everything to do with blatant disrespect and bigotry, you cannot and will not convince me that Ann's remark was "clever" or "pithy." You are giving her WAY too much credit.

The sad truth is that you know as well as I do that if she had use a perjorative racial slur, you and everyone else would have been offended, and rightfully so. Unfortunately, you don't get off that easily when it is clear from your argument that it is somehow OK to use the word "faggot" in this context. Why? Because you know as well as I do that it is still permissable in our culture to degrade gay people publicly and get away with it - pure and simple.

Might I also add that although I agree with what you are saying in your last paragraph concerning the ability of most Americans to understand language in its context, it still does not and cannot absolve a person from the responsibility he or she has when using said language. I know EXACTLY what Ann Coulter thinks about gay people, and in what context she is using the term "faggot." To deny that it was not perjorative in any way is morally reprehensible.
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
30
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
A dismal state of affairs, to be sure. And an inescapable one.

Dismal, to be sure...but inescapable? I think not.

You're talking about paradigms (your point #1), and it's within our learned behavior to assimilate experiences in this manner...to attempt to categorize information in terms of specific instances of a more generic class definition, if you'll pardon the CompSci analogy. It's the first part of a normal learning process. Unfortunately, the process ends there for far too many people.

Which brings me around to intelligence. I was speaking more in the vulgar rather than the academic or formal sense. Critical analysis is probably a more accurate term for the idea I had in mind. All it takes is for people to examine multiple aspects of a situation rather than going off half-cocked based on some media report. For me personally, this exemplifies intelligent behavior, hence my use of that term.

As for this incident itself, I'm headed over to quercusone's place for some of that pizza.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
I've waited to weigh in on this, because I didn't want to appear to be what BD would expect.:tongue:

BD, I agree with your assessment about how people think- all of us, even me. All we have to base our opinions on is the information presented, along with our previous experience, and the knowledge of what we'd concluded in the most similar situations with which we can compare it. With any luck at all, those paradigms are fluid enough to be capable of expanding as we grow, and ideally we'd then be able to consider things from a broader and broader perspective as we continue to learn more about life and how things work.

There is no way I can deny being an idealist, so there is no reasonable expectation that I could view anyone as predictable as Coulter as being anything other than entirely dismissable. WHAT she said, along with who she is, paints a pretty clear picture. I am against censorship, so yes- I am glad she is free to state her opinions, and I'm also glad she has a platform from which to spread her bile. I am glad people identify with her, and vocally, so I know who to avoid at dinner parties.

Other than for comic relief, I can't imagine anyone taking her opinions as anything other than self-promotion, and I'm sorry, but Marilyn Manson is just better at it.

Freedom of speech does not offer anyone protection from contradiction. Her speech is free, and so is anyone else's who wishes to comment on it. She ain't special, even if her mommy thinks she is. There are enough faggots, bitches, niggers, spics, samis, chinks and various other "undesireables" to outvote this culture of repression, if we'd just stop being stupid enough to allow antics like this to draw divisions between us, which is of course their desired goal.

Now pardon me while I go hug a fag. I might just kiss a tree on the way.
 

Sergeant_Torpedo

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Posts
1,348
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
183
Location
UK
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The cult of individualism has many flaws. Occasionaly even good people become so exasperated and overwhelmd by a situation that they can act or speak out of character. If we do not have the humanity to acknowledge this then there are many totalitarian cultures we could emigrate to. Holding to one's principles is different from being vindictive.
 

D_Sheffield Thongbynder

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Posts
2,020
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
In my opinion the really ugly thing about Ann Coulter is not as much that she says vile things. Lots of people do that. The ugly thing is that she has as big an approving audience as she does and they applaud her.


You've identified the bigger problem, SpeedoGuy. I find it puzzling that anyone takes her seriously, and appalling that some very intelligent people I know give credence to her tactics. Namecalling is the refuge of the ignorant.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I heard all about it on the radio, she was speaking at a republican rally if I recall correctly, do I agree with what the woMan called him? no I don't, but the way I see it, she has that free speech right to do so, now if Madonna was to say the exact same thing towards any of the republicans, than it would be considered ok to do so because of free speech, so it works both ways.
I don't think that is quite correct, jfrsndvs. I'm not an apologist for the democratic party, but I don't recall any of the dem mouthpieces calling various republican politicians "faggot." Trust me, if they did, there would actually be more backlash from it, because it would not be as "expected."
I never cared for her at all. I never cared for John Edwards at all either. Still if she said that she is even more of a skank than before. I no longer have any use for the left or the right. They are all bullshitters:cool:
I've been saying the same thing, for a long time, and I usually get 99 kinds of grief for it, and usually get labelled by the republican apologists as being a "liberal democrat." I voted for the first time back in 1978, and I have NEVER supported a political party.
Yes Hillary and John Kerry have said worse than that. Still i cant stand this woman. She makes my skin crawl............
Really? Please send me a PM with a reference to Clinton and Kerry doing worse than calling persons in the "opposing party" something worse than "faggot," publicly.
When I peer inside her eyes...I see nothing but a soulless void...

Do you think she's related in some way to the Phelps Family?

*recoils*
Funny you use the term "soulless," considering the title of one of her books... And yes, she is related to Phred Felps - she is his butt-baby by Rick Santorum.
The missus and I were talking about this earlier today, and the one question we both are unable to answer is: Who is this woman?

Seriously. Who is she that anyone bothers to pay the least bit of attention to anything she says or does?

As for the remark she made, I thought it was rather good humor. In bad taste, perhaps, but then again, so is a lot of humorous dialogue. It took a well-placed shot at this culture's rabid, often mindless reaction to any "incident" where anyone might possibly have voiced a remark that runs counter to the current panacea of PC tolerance.

Mind you, I know nothing of this woman, other than that she seems to be a neocon mouthpiece and tends to run off at the mouth. To me, her remark sounds more like the work of a stand-up comic than a political commentator/pundit/analyst/talking head/whatever the fuck she really is professionally (see question at the beginning of post). There's social merit to her remark, tastelessness aside. This is the part of free speech that people don't like to deal with: the expression of opinions that they find offensive. Tough shit. The price you pay to live in a nation that sanctifies this freedom is the responsibility to be adult enough to deal with the inevitable nastiness you'll encounter from others.

Is it nice to call people faggots, especially those whom you don't personally know?
No.

Do people do this anyhow for any variety of reasons?
Sure.

Do you enjoy living in a society where you don't have to fear arrest and prosecution for voicing your own opinions, however ignorant or unpleasant to others they may be?
I do.

Is it really worth getting everyone's panties in bunches over an unkind and inappropriate remark made by one insignificant moron?
You do the math.
Who is this woman? A severely emotionally imbalanced individual who has a massive following among the "conservative, fundamentalist sheep" crowd. The dangerous thing about her is that her supporters actually believe everything she says, verbatim, without question, without any evidence or research. Even if she intended it as a joke, (which I seriously doubt) her sheep will believe it. Period. Funny thing, does no one else remember that it has been less than a year since she used the same "joke" regarding Bill Clinton, and explained that it was the reason he was a womanizer? He fucks lots of women because he's a faggot.
agree with above...I never understood how she ever got invited to a platform to speak in the first place
She gets invited because there is a frighteningly large segment of the population who take her seriously.
You've identified the bigger problem, SpeedoGuy. I find it puzzling that anyone takes her seriously, and appalling that some very intelligent people I know give credence to her tactics. Namecalling is the refuge of the ignorant.
Again, the people who take her seriously are accustomed to having someone else tell them how to think, and then think that way without question.

To all: regardless of how insane you may think she is, regardless of how ineffectual you may think she is, please think again. For every person who sees her for what she really is, there are probably 10 people who see her for what she wants them to see.
 

Ethyl

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,194
Media
19
Likes
1,707
Points
333
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
I think this is an error. The problem isn't intelligence. The problem is the way humans, intelligent or otherwise, organize information. Blaming poor grasp of the questions of the day and the inability to process new information on lack of intelligence just misleads those who, based on formal tests, would be considered intelligent, into thinking that they are immune to these faults. And they clearly are not. Smart people can, and do, have ideas as whacky as anyone else. And they are every bit as reluctant to abandon them, even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. They may even excel at rationalizations as to why they're still right, long after a less intelligent person would have given up the fight.
.

This has less to do with intelligence and more with how it's being used. She's clearly an intelligent person who saw an oppurtunity to broadcast herself and the neocons had an opening she filled quite nicely and she'll continue to be famous for her vitriol. "All publicity is good publicity" and all that. As far as I can tell, she's not nearly as interested in being right as she is gaining more attention.

Nonsense. He can't escape from a thing like that. Want forgiveness, talk to a priest. Even if he could, Repub strategists won't let it rest, and there's no real reason they should. "Dems=Klan" is just too good to let slide once it's out of the bag. Which of course the Dems know.
There's a diifference between Byrd wading in KKK waters and apologizing for his mistake and Bush=Hitler, neither of whom are/were apologetic in the least about their incompetencies or atrocities.
Who cares? Talking about her only feeds the machine......rather than doing that, you and I should be laying in a wet, sticky bed somewhere deciding if we are going to order chinese or pizza....I vote for pizza.
Do you mind mushrooms on your pizza? I'll eat anything but that pineapple and ham combination.

Other than for comic relief, I can't imagine anyone taking her opinions as anything other than self-promotion, and I'm sorry, but Marilyn Manson is just better at it.
Well, he's certainly more entertaining. Give her a few more years and she might be too. Funny, John McCain was seen as the maverick of the Republican Party, and is mostly viewd as a positive force despite some controversy. She wants this title and doesn't care how she gets it. She uses her looks (although she needs to eat a few more meals, IMO), her writing and speech skills, and most importantly current events to keep her momentum. So far it's working. I'm curious to see how far she'll go before she's no longer a benefit at all to the conservatives.

She gets invited because there is a frighteningly large segment of the population who take her seriously.Again, the people who take her seriously are accustomed to having someone else tell them how to think, and then think that way without question.
To all: regardless of how insane you may think she is, regardless of how ineffectual you may think she is, please think again. For every person who sees her for what she really is, there are probably 10 people who see her for what she wants them to see.
Bingo. She's a savior to those who have no real opinions. Interesting how the sheep always find someone as vociferous and who is staunchly devoted to a party as she is. Plus,the Republican party also has Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. At this point, i'm not sure they have anything to lose with Ann Coulter. If this is as bad as it gets, public opinion can only become more favorable. The Dems have much more to lose as they struggle to hold on to a more positive image.

This was in an earlier thread about Henry Rollins but I had to add this for fun and remind myself how much I love him...

A letter to Ann Coulter
 

witchway

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Posts
166
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
163
Location
Germany
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
I don't think that is quite correct, jfrsndvs. I'm not an apologist for the democratic party, but I don't recall any of the dem mouthpieces calling various republican politicians "faggot." Trust me, if they did, there would actually be more backlash from it, because it would not be as "expected."
I've been saying the same thing, for a long time, and I usually get 99 kinds of grief for it, and usually get labelled by the republican apologists as being a "liberal democrat." I voted for the first time back in 1978, and I have NEVER supported a political party.
Really? Please send me a PM with a reference to Clinton and Kerry doing worse than calling persons in the "opposing party" something worse than "faggot," publicly.
Funny you use the term "soulless," considering the title of one of her books... And yes, she is related to Phred Felps - she is his butt-baby by Rick Santorum.Who is this woman? A severely emotionally imbalanced individual who has a massive following among the "conservative, fundamentalist sheep" crowd. The dangerous thing about her is that her supporters actually believe everything she says, verbatim, without question, without any evidence or research. Even if she intended it as a joke, (which I seriously doubt) her sheep will believe it. Period. Funny thing, does no one else remember that it has been less than a year since she used the same "joke" regarding Bill Clinton, and explained that it was the reason he was a womanizer? He fucks lots of women because he's a faggot.
She gets invited because there is a frighteningly large segment of the population who take her seriously.Again, the people who take her seriously are accustomed to having someone else tell them how to think, and then think that way without question.

To all: regardless of how insane you may think she is, regardless of how ineffectual you may think she is, please think again. For every person who sees her for what she really is, there are probably 10 people who see her for what she wants them to see.

DC you said everything I wanted to say! You just can´t sit still and let this incredibaly hateful woman go unchecked!! I don´t know if she really believes the awful things that come out her mouth but the "sheep" certainly do and that without question. If Mann Coulter spouted out all faggots must be eliminated immediately for the sake of the country I´m sure there would be people attempting to do just that. Never underestimate the power of hate! We´ve learned that lesson here! Stay strong and always give contra to such outbursts of hate and intolerance!