Originally Posted by sew12

Defending Ann Coulter, really?

People who spread bullshit shouldn't be embraced just for being a person of note.

I'm not sure what you mean by your first replay to my point, care to elaborate. I don't think anyone has said its perfectly acceptable to bash groups we don't like.

There are plenty of slurs i hear people use about groups of Americans and Canadians, about whom we think its fine to bash. Redneck and white trash are some of the milder ones.

Originally Posted by arathbon

There are plenty of slurs i hear people use about groups of Americans and Canadians, about whom we think its fine to bash. Redneck and white trash are some of the milder ones.

What does that have to do with anything I said though?

Originally Posted by sew12

What does that have to do with anything I said though?

I was expanding of your statement about the hate going the other way. You had stated you hoped there would be backlash, I was stating that there likely won't be. My point is, like any other society, we've arbitrarily defined groups who can be bashed and those that can't, and if you're making fun of "white trash" people are more likely to join in than condemn you, while making fun of a muslim will get you dragged before an HRC.

Originally Posted by arathbon

I was expanding of your statement about the hate going the other way. You had stated you hoped there would be backlash, I was stating that there likely won't be. My point is, like any other society, we've arbitrarily defined groups who can be bashed and those that can't, and if you're making fun of "white trash" people are more likely to join in than condemn you, while making fun of a muslim will get you dragged before an HRC.

The girl in question isn't making fun of "white trash" though which is why your commentary is confusing.

Her hatred and the hatred spewed by the Facebook group in question is towards Israel and Jewish people.

The post about her being a hater didn't make this clear.

She's just as disgusting as Ann.

I don't necessarily disagree with your point about it being more societally acceptable to bash certain groups but I don't see how it applies here.

Can I Godwin now?

I have absolutely no respect for Ann Coulter, and why should I? She has proven to everyone time and time again that she is a malicious and discriminatory demagogue.

The very fact that she stated that an entire cultural group should not be allowed to use planes for travel shows how incredibly racist her personal agenda must be. I wonder what else she thinks people should do or be....or be converted to....


.....oh, and defending Ann Coulter with the "free speech" argument is the kind of logic which allows one to defend Neo-Nazis; when you spread ignorance and hate, you lose your ability to speak freely. Sorry, no malevolent ignorami allowed.

Originally Posted by sew12

The girl in question isn't making fun of "white trash" though which is why your commentary is confusing.

Her hatred and the hatred spewed by the Facebook group in question is towards Israel and Jewish people.

The post about her being a hater didn't make this clear.

She's just as disgusting as Ann.

I don't necessarily disagree with your point about it being more societally acceptable to bash certain groups but I don't see how it applies here.

Sorry about that, from the context I thought that she was indeed going along that vein.

Nether the less. There have been many people (not in this thread) who have used that sort of talk in reference to Coulter, Palin and others, and as much as I dislike them, it smells.

Once again, sorry for misunderstanding what you had said.

Coulter says what she does for the cameras...

To her, ratings are a girl's best friend. No one is that asinine, that aggressive and that distant from reality without having an ulterior motive. I would hope that her utter lack of regard for other people's cultures, feelings and beliefs is simply a Colberian act.

To add to that, there is an interesting article on the CBC that basically reiterates what I've been saying for a long time...

Coulter has no arguments...she engages in the ever popular conservative sport of "left-bating". These 'pundits' drag leftists into arguments and consistently put them on the defensive, riling them up, making them angry and ensuring their arguments are discredited because of the level of emotionality that ensues.

A rightist who is constantly putting a leftist on the defensive doesn't need to make points that validate their arguments, just ensure the other side looks foolish.

I think what most people don't realize is that half of what she says is tongue in cheek. I remember after George Tiller was murdered, she wrote in an article something along the lines of "If you don't agree with killing abortion providers, then don't kill one". Now, obviously she doesn't seriously think that it would be acceptable to let people murder doctors. But she was pointing out a very valid flaw in the "If you don't agree with it, don't do it" logic that often comes up in regards to abortion. That logic can only be valid if you're the only party affected, and for people who consider a fetus to be life there is another party affected. Taking the statement at face value would make her seem like a lunatic.

Personally, I like Ann Coulter. I disagree with most, if not all, of what she says, but she is generally witty, and is a great speaker. And if I was a U of O student who wanted to go see her, but couldn't because a group of protesters wasn't interested in letting people speak, I would be pissed.

Tongue in cheek or not, the tone of Coulter's remarks creates all sorts of problems, and the end result is what Chris mentioned above:

Originally Posted by c.erl

Coulter has no arguments...she engages in the ever popular conservative sport of "left-bating". These 'pundits' drag leftists into arguments and consistently put them on the defensive, riling them up, making them angry and ensuring their arguments are discredited because of the level of emotionality that ensues.

Basically, it's not helping anything. Instead of discussing real issues such as national security or the merits and costs of universal health care, everybody winds up talking about camels and flying carpets based on her stupid remarks. We get NOWHERE.

Originally Posted by arathbon

There are plenty of slurs i hear people use about groups of Americans and Canadians, about whom we think its fine to bash. Redneck and white trash are some of the milder ones.

The difference being there are some groups of people society sees as unfit to be apart of.

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

I think what most people don't realize is that half of what she says is tongue in cheek. I remember after George Tiller was murdered, she wrote in an article something along the lines of "If you don't agree with killing abortion providers, then don't kill one". Now, obviously she doesn't seriously think that it would be acceptable to let people murder doctors. But she was pointing out a very valid flaw in the "If you don't agree with it, don't do it" logic that often comes up in regards to abortion. That logic can only be valid if you're the only party affected, and for people who consider a fetus to be life there is another party affected. Taking the statement at face value would make her seem like a lunatic.

Personally, I like Ann Coulter. I disagree with most, if not all, of what she says, but she is generally witty, and is a great speaker. And if I was a U of O student who wanted to go see her, but couldn't because a group of protesters wasn't interested in letting people speak, I would be pissed.

1) Even if she intended another statement, she still did not show respect for the murder victim, nor did she realize the wrongness of that act - I don't care what political argument you're trying to put forward, but making statements like that is just down-right stupid and spiteful. There are many more legitimate and logical ways to make points without slandering the murder of an individual.

2) Witty? Hm.....I think responding to the question "I don't have a magic carpet" with "Then ride a camel." is not evidence of wit. Being witty involves intelligence - being racist, however, involves ignorance. If this is (and it isn't) an isolated event, it simply cannot be swept aside as only one of the things she has said; the fact of the matter is that she still made her racist views abundantly apparent (yet again) to everyone. Remember Michael Richards?

3) Being a great public speaker does not necessarily mean that you are an intelligent individual deserving of praise. For example, Adolf Hitler was a great public speaker, and yet no one would use that as evidence for the righteousness of his character.


Side note: this is the same woman who suggested that the Americans should nuke Afghanistan. Dare I say more?

Two things:

1) Canada doesn't have "freedom of speech". That is the USA. Canadians have freedom of expression, which is different, and it is laid out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Also, check section 319 of the criminal code. If she said that in a public place, then it fits the 4 requirements to be prosecuted. She CAN be arrested for what she said. Imagine how conservatives would react if she was arrested; it would give them so much ammunition.

2) Second, Coulter decided on her own not to speak. She wasn't stopped. People are allowed to protest, that is their right. Ann has the right to see the protest, and continue on her talks.

Originally Posted by cowpuppy

The difference being there are some groups of people society sees as unfit to be apart of.

That's my point. Who decides that muslims are fit to be a part of society but white trash aren't?

Originally Posted by Shmowen

1) Even if she intended another statement, she still did not show respect for the murder victim, nor did she realize the wrongness of that act - I don't care what political argument you're trying to put forward, but making statements like that is just down-right stupid and spiteful. There are many more legitimate and logical ways to make points without slandering the murder of an individual.

Oh, it was completely disrespectful, no argument there. However, it was the most attention grabbing way she could have put it. As many people have pointed out, its all about the ratings.

Originally Posted by Shmowen

2) Witty? Hm.....I think responding to the question "I don't have a magic carpet" with "Then ride a camel." is not evidence of wit. Being witty involves intelligence - being racist, however, involves ignorance. If this is (and it isn't) an isolated event, it simply cannot be swept aside as only one of the things she has said; the fact of the matter is that she still made her racist views abundantly apparent (yet again) to everyone. Remember Michael Richards?

You're right again, that remark was not witty. Far from it. However, a few off remarks don't make the bulk of what she says any less entertaining. HL Mencken was also apparently pretty racist- he's still regarded as one of the wittiest individuals to ever live. We shouldn't sweep that type of behaviour under the rug, but we also only let it tarnish the reputation of the person, not their other thoughts.

Originally Posted by Shmowen

3) Being a great public speaker does not necessarily mean that you are an intelligent individual deserving of praise. For example, Adolf Hitler was a great public speaker, and yet no one would use that as evidence for the righteousness of his character.

Side note: this is the same woman who suggested that the Americans should nuke Afghanistan. Dare I say more?

Righteousness of character is unfortunately not synonymous with intelligence. Someone could be extremely intelligent and still be a horrible person; in fact serial killers tend to have above average IQs. I'm not arguing that Ann Coulter is a good person, or that any of her ideas are right. I'm only arguing that she's entertaining, intelligent, and should be allowed to speak.

Barry Goldwater also suggested nuking Vietnam back in the day, under an Ender's Game style argument. We should do whatever we can to avoid violence and war, but if it comes to the point where it actually is necessary then you have to use full force to end it as quickly as possible. He was staunchly against going to Vietnam, which I assume is a huge difference between him and Coulter, but unless you know the arguments, you can't always reject the conclusion.