I haven’t taken the time to read every comment in Jeff’s last post on the subject, so if I’m going over old territory, I apologize, but I haven’t seen my take anywhere up to now. I have two problems with Coulter’s comment that sort of tie in together. While I agree in principle with Jeff’s comments about intentionalism, I just can’t buy the “faggot doesn’t mean faggot” argument. It’s like saying it depends on what the meaning of “is” is. Maybe I’m out of touch with evolving meanings, but I don’t think so. And even if there’s some meaning that has evolved within a certain segment of the population, it’s still a loaded term, and one that I would never under any circumstances use. I know a lot of people hate the race comparison, but I don’t see it as being any different from using the “n” word, and then saying, well, I just meant people who act a certain way, I didn’t mean it literally. The fact that she said something about being pro-gay earlier in the speech doesn’t make any difference to my argument, as far as I’m concerned.
When taken with the fact that it was a really weird, odd non-sequitur, it looks deliberately provocative and completely gratuitous. If she wants to make a point about the fascist PC thought police, I have no problem with that at all. It just made NO sense whatsoever in the context in which she used it. Which, as I said, makes it look deliberately vicious and bigoted.
I’d be interested in any comments on this.
A commenter observed that it seemed to have been an attempt to make a complex point in a glib way, that just didn’t work.
Most of the jokes I don’t post fall under that definition (and far too many of those I do), so I can relate.
Then again, I’ve never been asked to speak before a major political gathering.
Damn, was a new Victoria’s Secret catalog issued? I gotta do a better job of getting to the mail before my wife throws these things out.
I agree with Jeff on this. The discussion on these matters seems to occur on two entirely seperate planes, the “political” and the “real”. There are indeed those who believe Coulter is a raging fagist, and for them this changes nothing but for the political points they can score by scything those “conservatives” who reflexively find it their obligation to denounce anything liberals declare to be a common conservative trait. Its kind of like reacting to being outed when you were never in. Then there is the discussion on the “real” plane, which seems entirely composed of those who know what she said, know her intent and care only that Coulter stepped into a steaming pile over there on the “political” plane.
Jeff simply cares not to act as a conduit between the two planes. The effect of which, he rightfully believes (not to put words in Jeffs mouth) is to convince people that rather than dealing with real issues, we need only deal with the score tally generated from the “political” plane, thus igorning any real discussion about the fucking issues. Because, you kow, we’re at war and all.
Faggot! Faggot! Faggot!
Nigger! Nigger! Nigger!
Words are such scary things.
I hope I didn’t make anybody cry.
She didn’t say he was a fag, she was simply using a really lame illustration in her hamfisted simpleton way to point out that our PC culture punishes you for some words while leaving others without comment. She used Senator Edwards as an example because of the lunatic Christophobic man hater blogger he had on his team.
Given that gays use the term constantly to refer to each other, I have a hard time seeing why they are so upset about it in any case. I think she was a pointless childish distraction in an attempt to get noticed. She’s a poor representative of the movement and a lousy persuader. We need winsome, intelligent, and articulate people to make the case for conservatism, not mean spirited and bitter women.
Stupid Micks.
Christopher…agree. But I think AC would be so much more articulate with implants.
So let’s see: that skinny dyke, Coulter, called that too slick pansy, Edwards, a faggot. Is that it? If you look up faggot(s) in the dictionary you will find that they are defined as a bundle of sticks usually intended for starting fires. So she thinks what’s his name is a stick? So what? Like sticks and stones etc. Get a life, people. Now had she called him a liberal, that would be insulting.
All these whiny bitches are just a bunch of PUSSIES. And I have no intention whatsoever of apologizing to your feline oriented friends. Nor do I approve of their lifestyle.
Just more media whoring from Annie and gotcha crap from a buncha faggots.
I agree with Craig. I lost respect for Coulter. Anyone who does such a lousy job of managing her public persona and reputation does not deserve my support. Her comment was only meant to be inflammatory and not to make any specific point. It was gratuitous, without any purpose.
Coulter blew it big time.
Our social mores are just kinda multi-facted that way, nowadays. Comedy is about the only place you can tread safely, anymore. Except when it isn’t.
Har! Pot, kettle on line two!
This is just too rich. Ann has managed to expose both the PC and the clueless. She did not call Edwards a faggot, she implied if she were to comment on Edwards she would have to use the word faggot. And Gotcha! the self-righteous complainers are the ones shown to link Edwards and “faggot”. Since she did not in fact comment on Edwards, we have no way to know what that comment might have been. All these panties in a twist over something that was not said! Priceless.
Our local idiot editorial cartoonist <a href=”http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/” target=”_blank”> (middle right under battle of the bigots) has a cartoon showing AC on the same corner with Fred Phelps demonizing gays. No matter how much you disagree with her stupid comment, depicting it as equal to the Phelps completely mis-interprets what she said. The 90% of the people who don’t read blogs will assume she is on the same level as the Phelps and will extend that to the Republican party and THAT is why she needs to keep those stupid jokes to herself. People like this cartoonist will leap at the chance to portray this in the worst possible light, and they will never do a cartoon about Bill Maher or Edwards bloggers or anything that doesnt have a (R) after his/her name.
hmmm. that link thingy doesnt seem to be working for me.
I am glad Ann said what she said. Why? She spoke her mind. I would not have said it but so what? Coulter is part of a large and very mentally diverse group of people. She has the guts to speak her mind and it is this that gives her strength. Many people will not like it. Many others will even misunderstand or lie about what she has to say. So is the fate of controversial figures like her. Or Goldstein here.
What she said was not pretty and was not meant to be. As Jeff said in another post here, ”and as I don’t think there is a homogeneity to “conservative†speech (or to “conservatives†as a group, today so broadly defined as to be politically meaningless),” you cannot have a true representation of those that identify with this “conservatism” without leaving time at the podium for those like Coulter to speak their mind. The fact is there are those who think like her and identify with her. Their voices, last time I checked, were still allowed in this country.
The left wing of the world hold the rights to all of the morons, dopes, jerks, fools, etc… Knowing that, these smarmy individuals that live among us should be encouraged them to speak their minds and explain themselves. Leave the left to have the rehearsed and choreographed events where everyone chants the same thing and hides behind the veil of hypocrisy.
If you have your family over for Christmas dinner do you invite Uncle Clevus the raging liberal snob? Of course you do. He is family even if you think he is a jerk. When you have the get together is everyone honest and up front with each other or is there a constrained battle to always say and do the right thing and not offend anyone? I am sure most of us will know which get-together will be more exciting and, ultimately, real.
The fact is I’d rather be in a room full of dirty dogs than a room full of vipers dressed as lambs. Or, worse yet, a room full of lambs with vipers in disguise.
Would Coulter have had less press if she said “pansy” as opposed to “faggot”?
Since her point was about PC culture, faggot was all she had to work with. the case she was playing off of the man is in rehab for using the word faggot. Its pretty simple really.
That said, her timing was off for the whole event and she was working off notes. I was surprised at that.
She could have made the joke work if she threw in a set up line on PC culture like;
I know you have to mention all the candidates, we want no one left behind but if you call Edwards a faggot you have to go to rehab.
Craig, I’m a big Ann Coulter fan, but I don’t disagree with a word you said.
I think there’s weight to the argument that all conservatives will be painted with that brush.
I’d like to bring a different perspective to this discussion.
There are many levels at which reside different understandings of both the phraseology and the word itself. How each of us reacts is based both on our perception of political and societal “mores” as well as our own experiences and bias.
My initial reaction was based solely on the use of the word. That reflected less any overarching understanding of PC and more a personal, visceral reaction to the word itself. As I posted before, as an evangelical I’m (over) sensitive to Phelps and the opportunity his hate and vitriol gives others to broad brush Christians as intolerant haters at odds with the teachings of their proclaimed faith. The sensitivity is reflected in the Kansas cartoon described above. This made it easy for me to jump on the Coulter bashing wagon
I’ve had the opportunity to leaf through the extensive discussions and posts. The chance to read and reflect as altered my thinking. I’ve not changed my position that it was a dated DOA joke that is not at all reflective of Coulter’s usual sharp wit. However, I’ve also come to the realization that, echoing Jeff’s comments, I (or the collective “conservative we”) have no need to condemn or distance ourselves from the comment, as it was far more a commentary on the culture of rehab and the fluid nature of word meaning than a personal, sexual slur.
Every circumstance of provocative language in the political field presents opportunities for a variety of reactions. When Al Gore said at a political rally that George Bush had “betrayed his country” because of the Iraq War or when Howard Dean compared Katherine Harris to Stalin, the commentary follows a myriad of preconceived notions of the commentator. I see the value in recognizing that when we condemn an opinion as a “group,” political or societal, we attempt to draft members of that group who have no connection to the sentiments professed and, as a result, broad brush ourselves to our own detriment.
Jeff and others have educated me on the concept of intention and the various ways that that concept is ignored in public discourse. Look at the heat that Joe Biden took over remarks about Barack Obama. Was it his intention to make blatantly racist comments by portraying Obama as “clean” and “articulate?” I think not. The power of public outrage and our insatiable desire to find “gotcha” moments and use them to excoriate others has unnecessarily complicated free speech.
On the other hand, those who make provocative comments need to understand that free speech extends to those who would disagree with them and their use of the opportunity to react to said provocation at multiple levels. I am equally troubled by those who would use the Dixie Chicks as a poster child for free expression while criticizing those who would react, both verbally and economically. One of our great frustrations is the inordinate amount of attention the musings of celebrities receive far beyond their knowledge or expertise. Those who would agree with their declarations would also have us simply accept them as freedom of speech and not react in any way that might “punish” the speaker. If one is willing to step front and center with a controversial view one must be prepared for the blowback which, for politicians and celebrities alike, may involve both a PR hit and an economic disincentive. Thus free speech is free in the length and breadth of its reach.
Beyond the obvious legal issues (death threats are illegal, after all) we can achieve a higher level of discourse by being less interested in puerile name calling (as fun as that is) and more concerned with intelligently stating our counter opinion. My decision not to buy or countenance the Chicks has the same right under free speech that they have. It is ultimately my own choice based upon my own opinions and understandings. Thus, I can maintain that while I thought Coulter’s joke was lame and wish that she hadn’t used the word, I don’t feel any obligation to rise up and smite her to satisfy the PC whinings of those who refuse to examine the intention of the comment.
Perhaps we all need to be more concerned with quantifying our own positions, whether in action or reaction, than in trying to tell others how they should react, none of which prevents us from shining the spotlight on any public utterances (whether in speech, MSM or blogs AND comments) that we believe are both in correct and distasteful. It doesn’t hurt to self examine our own preconceived notions when reacting to those “provocations.â€Â
I wasn’t addressing the question of whether anyone has the obligation to denounce it (I don’t think they do).
This was simply my reaction to her comment. Bottom line: I didn’t like it.
Granted. I kind of highjacked your thread to spew some thoughts that hadn’t coalesced until early this morning.
I think that I was clear in saying that I didn’t like it either. Sorry for the kidnapping.
Fuggit.
1. John Edwards makes his big bucks off of class action lawsuits (see Ayn Rand)
2. John Edwards invests his bucks in tobacco companies (see hypocricy)
3. “…I gotta quit <cough> the faggots <cough>, but d’yer gotta light?” typical line from 1930s/1940s British movie (see history of cinema)
4. “Faggot: a burning stick” (see dictionary)
5. Some actor **Washington insults gay co-workers by calling them “faggots”, and to keep his job he says he’s going into rehab (see newspapers, recent)
6. A recognition of the general rise of PC as a dominant socio-cultural artifact in contemporay discourse (see Orwell, George 1984 “newspeak”)
7. The truth about jokes: ALL FRICKIN’ JOKES ARE BASED ON THE DISCOMFORT OF FRICKIN’ SOMEBODY.
It was a frickin’ joke. A pun. A play on words. But puns, in particular, require intelligence. This was a deep pun, requiring an extraordinary amount of said intelligence.
Obviously, some people – lacking in the requisite – didn’t “get it”. The truly unfortunate bit is that many of these are people I usually have a great deal of respect for the intelligence thereof. That respect has appreciably lessened in recent hours (save in one case: Jeff’s).
It. Was. Funny.
Deal with it.
And. Lest you be misled that I haven’t poured over The CPAC Letter and hundreds of stinkin’ comments: wrong. I just disagree with almost all of ‘em.
Because …I got the joke. It was to laugh.