Understandably awful, since it’s on Bill O’Reilly’s site. He asks, What do you think of Ann Coulter?. The choices are:
I love Ann Coulter
I like her, but often she’s too harsh
I can’t stand her
You can guess which one is winning. I doubt that we can make much headway against the mindless hordes of Orlyites, but go ahead, take a stab at it.
As I said on a previous post
If hypocrisy has a face, truly it be that of a horse
They won’t know what hit them!
:)
What? No, “I Despise Ann Coulter and everything for which she stands”?
Oh, wait, the Oily Factor. That and the proper english grammar.
That’s idiotic. I voted “I can’t stand her,” but in fact I occasionally watch for the entertainment value–which is partly her goal.
And this “poll” plays exactly into her hands, because she wants to be loved by “the right people,” and “hated” by “the right people.” So no “she’s an ignorant dolt who I watch for comic relief,” no, it has to be that I like her or hate her.
I actually just see her as a rabble-rouser who knows what she’s doing. Slightly entertaining, never provoking thought.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Ann Coulter…I’d call her a “cunt” but, that would imply she is female.
I keep wondering who buys her books. My guess is that most are bought by pimply-faced 17 year old males who can’t get a date, but maybe I’m wrong. I also wonder if she has a closet full of the same black dress she always wears? I’m just wondering, though, as I am not sure I really want to know the answers.
“Some people should be struck regularly, like gongs” -Noel Coward
Poll stabbed, o tentacled master.
A few years ago a particularly obnoxious co-worker went to pick up her latest waste of trees, sorry, book on lunch. When he go back he whined for ten minutes about how the checkout girl gave him the evil eye for buying it. We had no sympathy. Really, this is Seattle. You’re lucky they sold it to you at all.
I’m still convinced that she’s really a DCL. Not even Colbert has the ability vocalize absurdities at her level of crazy.
“I’d call her a “cunt” but, that would imply she is female.”
misogyny – check
homphobia/transphobia – check
You know, if you toss in an insult of those damn [insert random racial group here], you could for for trifeca bigotry!
I voted “can’t stand her” because “What a waste of groceries” was not an option.
Whacker her once from work and will vote again when I get home. Blech. Waste of groceries sounds right.
No option for “She’s a horse wearing lipstick”.
That would be unfair to the majesty of horses.
I hope none of us here assumes that the results of this “poll” will honestly reflect the tallied votes of responders.
I’m with Glen D on this one. There’s really no way much good can come from this. If it’s a blowout in favor of her then they can say it’s only the looney left fringe that hates her. If we’re able to crash the poll, they’ll track down what happened and Bill will get to rant about those damn evil liberal atheists or whatever for a few days. It seems that they just want attention of any kind. Let them have their stupid ego-stroking poll and just ignore them this time.
I think the poll is either rigged or frozen. When I voted, it said there were 468 votes for “I can’t stand her.” When I voted again on a different browser, it gave the same number. The number hasn’t changed in several minutes, a suspicious observation given what normally happens during Pharyngulatory poll crashing.
Endor
I think the bigotry lies in the reader, not necessarily the writer. Where is the misogyny, the use of the word “cunt”? Consider that in some countries it is not as offensive as it might be where you live. And saying you believe someone is transgendered is not “transphobia”, it may be a fact. That you think it is automatically intended as an insult says more about you than it does about anyone else.
It may have been intended as an insult, or it may have been a statement of opinion. It’s certainly a possibility, but whether she is or is not has nothing to do with the fact that she is a vile person.
Ann Coulter is a contemptible piece of slime. Do you really have to use her genitalia to insult her, though? And what is with the whole “Ann Coulter is really a man” meme? It’s always used as if that were the last word you have to say about the asshole. Do you have any idea how offensive that is to transexuals?
I work at a bookstore, we carry her “product” because we don’t believe in foisting our own (however reasonable) views on the community. (Besides if someone wants to waste their money on this crap then I will oblige them.)And though I try not to give anyone the “evil eye” I am surprised that the people purchasing this “book” don’t comment on the Quasimodo like figure that I become as I take their money.
I keep erasing what I want to say about the Coulter/Hannity/Limbaugh/O’Reilly gang because it rivals their hateful black-hearted nastiness.
*deep breath*
I won’t let rage turn me into them. I hope they have very long lives.
… or to men?
Oh, I hope the crash works and Billo gets his panties in a bunch over us damn evil liberal athiests.
Sorry for the bad blockquoting, should be this:
Endor
Hmmm
468 votes here for sanity and I just voted.
I think they are doing something fishy…….
The only poll I see on that site is “Which Democratic Senate seat situation is the biggest fiasco?” which is a bit less exciting….
iiiinteresting. the poll i get is:
did they change the poll, or am I special?
Same as Jadehawk here…
Fishier still, it looks like the poll was taken down. Also, the new poll is not showing hard numbers. “No Spin” poll? O’Reilley and Coulter are both opportunistic hacks.
Hmmm… there were 468 when I voted too…Fairly unbalanced?
They have changed the poll, I guess, because I get the senate seat poll too.
Tell me if you’ve heard this one: Ann Coulter walks into a bar and the bartender says…
Hmm…. When I go there all I see is a poll about which senate seat issue is the biggest fiasco. Am I looking in the wrong place or is it already gone?!
ok, so the moment the poll showed up on Pharyngula, it got frozen, then removed and replaced by a non-pharyngulable poll
am I paranoid, or are we being watched by the “Orlyites”?
http://www.hulu.com/watch/53464/saturday-night-live-update-ann-coulter#s-p1-st-i3
Yeah, the poll’s disappeared and been replaced with an idiotic leading question. That was quick! PZ, they’re on to you.
Nentuaby
It is offensive to transsexuals because they don’t want her in their group? I wouldn’t either.
Seriously, do some of you not understand how insults work? It has to be perceived as an insult by the person it is directed to, otherwise it is ineffective. Calling O’Reilly an atheist would be highly offensive to him, but I call myself that. Calling a right-wing homophobic conservative nutbag like Coulter a transsexual is insulting to them, but is generally inoffensive to say that to a transsexual.
If someone is homophobic, calling them gay is an huge insult and might start a fight, but it does not automatically mean the caller is homophobic. It means they are trying to insult the person. Get over it.
I try not to think of Ann Coulter. One must have mercy on one’s own brain.
So…
Shortly after people begin voting for “Can’t stand her”, the votes stop registering.
Less than an hour after the opposition voting begins, the poll is taken down and replaced with another one.
Apparently, the Republicans don’t limit their voter suppression to votes that have meaning.
P.S. Everyone vote for New York in the new poll.
If Ann Coulter is female, she’s a damned poor representative of her gender. If s/he is male … well, damn.
As a human being, aside from gender, she’s a disgusting little person who delights in arousing anger and misery. Worse, she profits from it, and laughs about the fact.
If someone calls Coulter, specifically, a gender-related swear word, I’m pretty much okay with that. The fact is, there is no epithet in any of our vocabularies to equal the vileness of the person.
If all someone can come up with is a vile sexual insult, well, hell, this IS a special case. I’m willing to make allowances.
In the future, maybe “coulter” will be the worst insult we have.
Ooh, they’re wily as the proverbial fox over there, switching polls like that, and so quickly too! The crafty rascals.
Still, I call this a win for pharyngula, if even one reference to Ann-frackin’-Coulter is removed from teh interwebz then they can swap polls all they damn choose.
BilllO is probably upset that PZ draws a far larger online audience.
I don’t know why you guys think that misogynistic/gay-bashing insults make you so cool. Cripes, cut it out (unless you’re still in 8th grade, in which case, grow up).
Oh yes, Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter. Fortunately for them they were able to sign big contracts before the MSM realized that trolls are a dime a dozen. Unfortunately for us, we have to know of their existence and can’t just filter them out.
Am I missing something or has the poll changed to:
“Which Democratic Senate seat situation is the biggest fiasco?”
Contemptrix – a concept similar to schadenfraude:
A person who feels joy at the contempt they inspire, said joy compounded by the knowledge that the contemptor feels debased by the contempt, knowing that the contemptrix is immune to the contempt and actually feeds on it.
Coulter, contemptrix
You and me, contemptors
Hey – truthiness, tragicle (courtesy of Ed Current), contemptrix!
I love Ann Coulter, Limbaugh, and the rest, awful people though they are. The yin to my yang, defining me in negative space. Who would I not be like without them?
Doo Shabag:
Uhm? Let me tell you something. I don’t care if you are doing it to insult that person solely because they will find it insulting. If you use a label which factually applies to me as an insult, it is an insult to me.
I’m bisexual, which means when it comes from people outside the LGBT community I take “gay” as applying to me. And when people use “gay” as a general synonym for “bad,” it boils my fucking blood. I don’t care if you’re doing it “in vain.” I don’t understand how anyone can think it wouldn’t be insulting to me.
Consider why calling some gay is really such an insult, then go fuck yourself.
DaveG:
The concept needs a word coined, but that’s a bad choice. -Trix is simply the (mostly archaic) feminine counterpart to -tor; a “contemptrix” would be a female “contemptor.”
Perhaps contemptophile?
gb: you’re right, the poll changed. why? don’t know.
Here goes…I’m going to tread carefully and hopefully steer far from any perception of misogny.
Doesn’t it seem like anyone who lauds Coulter as a great beauty is a right-winger? Strange that physical beauty would be linked to ideology….just sayin’.
Funny how they seems to think that Minnesota is the biggest Democratic fiasco, senatewise. Could it be because their guy lost without malfeasance?
Looking the pictures over there, though, I only just now realised that Obamas is a leftie. Has there been lefties in the White House before, or is this another momentous occasion?
— InfoPlease.com
ORLY has such a crappy web site! He is whining about how evil someone was to use a three year old in a video that criticizes Bush and has anyone seen a more poorly written crossword puzzle program? Ouch, but it’s easy to see what he thinks about first and foremost when you click on the first clue at the top:
http://www.billoreilly.com/crossword
What a piece of work Fox, the programmers of billoreilly.com, and Bill-O himself are. People actually take him/them seriously? Really? LOL!
Calling Coulter a cunt isn’t using her genitalia to insult her. It’s just like when you call someone a dick. It has nothing to do with the body part, and everything to do with that person being a jerk.
I don’t feel insulted when someone being petty is described as small. It’s not the same meaning. Realise this and your spirit will be a lot gayer (see here how it doesn’t mean homosexual?).
I saw this a few years ago.. funny, but still disturbing. *Foul Language Warning*
Oh, pleeeaaase let’s not have the whole “is it sexist to use female-specific insults?” debate again. It wasn’t productive the first fifteen times.
Joel
It was stated in the quoted text – because the person being insulted perceives it as such. Consider working on your reading comprehension.
Nentuaby
Using gay as a synonym for bad is insulting for obvious reasons, but this is different. This is more akin to a guy flirting with a homophobe in hopes of pissing him off – it works remarkably well if the person is really homophobic.
If someone called me gay I would just shrug, because I don’t find it insulting although it is inaccurate. If someone called you gay you would be offended simply because they meant it as an insult? I find that interesting.
There are two ways someone would uses a word as an insult: 1. because they think it is a bad thing to be. 2. because they believe the person getting the insult thinks it’s a bad thing to be.
You might know in context which of the two ways the person is using it, but you might just be making an assumption about the person.
And you should note – I never said anything about Coulter except that she is a vile person and I wouldn’t want her included in any group that includes me. I just think you’re overreacting.
And what do I think of Ann Coulter? Well, she talks nonsense about 95% of the time – sprinkled generously with unnecessary partisan vitriol and jibes, of course. And she’ll say anything if it will sell another book.
Of course, she does have one advantage over Rush Limbaugh and the like: she’s not bad to look at…
(Why do I feel slightly guilty about even entertaining that thought?)
Marc Abian:
Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break.
If you believe for one godamn moment that some jackass denigrating small cars is calling them “gay” because he read ”The Great Gatsby” too many times as a kid, I have some bottomland to sell you. Just don’t ask what it’s on the bottom of.
“The deeper you go into Coulter, the less sense she makes.” – An Editor of the National Review
So what? I’ve had women speaking in tongues the deeper I… huh?
What?
Oh. Never mind.
As of this moment, the poll has been changed to one about “which Democratic senatorial seat screwup is the biggest.”
Did O’Reilly get wind that Pharyngula was on the case, and did O’Reilly soil his pants and change the poll out?
That’s some blog/poll fu you got going there, P.Z.!
Off topic, but PZ, did you know that Ray Comfort is reading your blog?
Well, they are admitting Minnesota is a Democratic Senate seat, so I guess Coleman should stop fucking with everyone already.
Now Minnesota is leading in the “ridiculous Senate seat blog”, 67% to Illinois’s 17 and New York’s 16. I know O’Reilly fans are insane and assholes to boot, but seriously, people?!? Seriously!?
Via #63 Post of RC
Wow PZ, looks like Ray’s got ya figured out. You’re not even an atheist, you’re agnostic!
See he knows what you know! If the universe didn’t come from “nothing” then it must of came from someone…
Therefore, thing = one! Everything is everyone!
Excuse me, Qwerty (#6), I was at one time a pimply-faced 17yo who couldn’t get a date — or perhaps was too scared. If she existed back then, I could never have stood her.
Ha! I’d never seen O’Reilly’s imitation of Colbert’s The Word. It’s hilarious. I wonder where Colbert got his idea in the first place though. Must be from one of those liberal-media bastards.
cunt /kʌnt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhnt] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Slang: Vulgar. 1. the vulva or vagina.
2. Disparaging and Offensive.
a. a woman.
b. a contemptible person.
3. sexual intercourse with a woman.
Ann Coulter is a contemptible person…so cunt it fitting. It has nothing to do with her vagina!
Cunt “IS” fitting….damn fingers.
Walton @57, when you start posting such as those, you’ve passed a Pharynguloid rite of passage. Congratulations!
Doo Shabag
I don’t care what your reasoning is, it’s still bullshit.
Start tossing racial epithets around here and see how quickly you get added to the killfile. Insult people by calling them gay, no problem. Good For You.
Off-topic: good news from Texas, we win!
http://scienceavenger.blogspot.com/2009/01/victorious-in-texas.html
I don’t. He’s calling them gay because it’s a synonym for “bad” in this case, not gaiety. It is a certain type of bad usually, something vaguely encompassing ideas like brightness and effeminacy etc. Yes these are stereotypical gay traits, but this needn’t be homophobic on his part
1. You don’t have to believe a stereotype is true to invoke the stereotype
2. You can believe this stereotype is to some degree applicable to gays, but realise that it’s a rather trivial thing, certainly not something to hate a group over.
(Of course, he is a jackass apparently, so he may also be a homophobe.)
Ann Coulter is a total cock. There. Misandry achieved and balance restored.
Wow. I had to add that word to the spellchecker. Consider yourself educated, Browser Dictionary!
JohnM@67 – Thanks for the info. Maybe it’s just young Republicans (who can still be young up to about the age of 50) who have the hots for Ms. C?
So, please forgive the error of my ways.
Interestingly (perhaps not for people living longer here in liberal L.A.) Just some weeks ago, some girl asked me “are you gay”? I just said “no, are you?” Though not offended, I was concerned, because the one thing you don’t want girls to think if you’re not gay, is that you are!
I can see Doo Shabag’s point, for some “liberal” is an insult, for others, it’s a proud way of life. On the other hand, gays could probably get a pass on being offended by the indiscriminate use of the word.
By the way, I support both dick and cunt. But maybe there’s something I don’t know about “cunt” that seems offending to women than “dick” is to men (which is not at all)? I never use cunt anyway. It’s not as funny as dick.
Apparently, misogyny is A-OK as long as the target is someone you’re sure nobody will like, or if you try to “balance” it with “misandry”.
This is why people don’t like us.
It’s almost a haiku of ignorance to knowledge:
I love Ann Coulter
I like her, but she’s too harsh
Now I can’t stand her
Because gay is now a commonly accepted synonym for bad, and nigger/jew/sand-nigger (sand-nigger? good originality there guys…) isn’t. I guess it’s because calling someone a nigger would sound completely ridiculous if they were not black while you can’t tell if someone is gay.
And I realise that the origin of this bad/gay confusion is probably borne out of homophobia, I’m saying it’s not necessarily homophobic to call something bad “gay”.
Of course Minnesota is leading as OReilly fans are afraid that Bill will choke if he has to say Senator Al Franken. And, as a Minnesotan, we wonder if we’ll ever have a second senator.
She’s the Antichrist
Marc Abian:
When you find yourself in a hole too deep to get out of, stop digging.
Meh. I just don’t consider a words that refer to genitalia to be oppressive — they’re offensive because, culturally, they’re our ‘naughty bits’ and when you use one word or another, it’s necessarily going to be a part of the body that either males or females possess. The horror!
Misplaced righteous indignation is misplaced.
On the plus side, ORLY has apparently conceded the Minnesota seat to Franken (in exchange for a cheap shot.)
The new poll is the latest revelation that ORLY is all spin. None of the seats are fiascos, other than Coleman refuses to give up when he knows he is beaten.
As for Ann Coulter, I saw her on some conservative talk show when the subject of evolution came up. She said “Well, why don’t they talk to me? I know about evolution. I’ve talked to philosophers and matheticians about it.”
She was pissed that she is not recognized as the “Go-To” person when a producer needs a talking head on the subject.
It was sadly cute, in a way. Even the host gave her a funny look, like “You can’t be serious.”
The poll has gone.
@74: I like to use the spelling “ghey” in that context.
:)
Nentuaby @49:
You are correct, sir (ma’am?)! I just phell in love with the etymology – and of course b/c Annie has the air of a (domina)trix.
I was sort of enjoying Newfie’s link post above, until near the end, when I got this uneasy feeling that reminded me of years ago when I was watching a porn vid that took forever to download, dial-up style, about a Brazilian TS. Of course, the uneasiness was realizing what she really is(I’m waaaay over being worried about transsexual porn). I think Ann is a Brazilian TS, and her Daddy is a billionaire businessman into logging rain forests, killing tribal peoples, buying charcoal from 8 year olds, snuffing street urchins so the touristas don’t have to look at them from his mega hotels in Rio, etc. She not only inherited his ambition, and compassion, but has a huge chip on her shoulder for being the son who ended up girly, evoking her father’s wrath. She did a remarkable job of getting rid of that Portuguese accent.
I haven’t, please tell it.
Good point. I still want to read the joke, though. :o)
—————————
Compare:
Comment 51:
Comment 59:
Walton, I’m losing all hope. If she isn’t ugly, who (other than, like, Margaret Thatcher) is!?!
I wouldn’t have guessed it, but now I fear comment 51 must be right. <headdesk><headdesk><headdesk><headdesk><headdesk>
You’re not feeling guilty. You’re feeling paraphiliac or something…
I think that poll must have started as a failed attempt at haiku.
Here one joke: Ann Coulter walks into a bar with a duck under her arm, and sits down at the bar. A drunk liberal(Ted Kennady?) Slurs: “Hey, Where’d ja git the pig?” She says:”Oh Ted, you old drunk socialist fool, this isn’t a Pig, its a duck.” “I waazzz talking to the duck.”
My realization from Newfie’s post(#56) has soured a fantasy(forced anal sex with Ann) because part of the fantasy was that there was another option. When there’s only one option, its not so much a fantasy anymore.
Joel
We disagree, that’s fine. But I did not call anyone gay. If you’d like to accuse me of something, at least try to be accurate or have some evidence or something. Again, reading comprehension.
re. Cunt ,
One of the more useful aspects of the English language is that it regularly contains two different words of different origins (Romantic & Germanic) with slightly different variations in meaning. This allows a richness of depth & subtlety to English lacking in many traditional languages & more elegant than the endless compound words in German.
The problem with Cunt, is that the words that come from both traditions to describe the same thing, the female sexual organs & related activities, sound & look similiar (Germanic cognates include kunta or queynt/ Romantic cognates include cunnis or coney).
One has the typical hard Germanic sound & meaning (like Fuck). . . . Kunt
The other has the softer Romantic sound & meaning (like Intercourse). . . . Coney . . . (a small furry animal)
Sadly, only the hard & nasty meaning is possible at present, but read some of Shakespeare’s sonnets. He’s not singing the praises of milady’s rabbits.
.
Coulter IS a huge, f-ing cunt. And that isn’t mysogyny, people, it’s a fact. Even if you think I’m a huge, f-ing dick for saying it.
There’s another, more interesting poll on AOL right now:
http://news.aol.com/article/obamas-nonbeliever-nod-unsettles-some/316339?icid=200100397x1216995629x1201097429
It seems that President Obama upset a lot of Christians when he acknowledged that there are, in fact, “unbelievers” living amongst them.
As of this moment, belief in a higher power is trailing nonbelief in the poll.
They should add a fourth choice…
I’d like to fuck her then chop off her head.
I’m just saying…
Sorry PZ but even The Atheist Missionary thinks Ann Coulter is hot.
I understand why it is offensive to homosexuals when “gay” is used pejoratively to mean “bad.” But when you accuse everyone who does this of “homophobia,” it just makes the accusation of “homophobia” meaningless. Like comparing people to Hitler. It just has no meaning because people rush it out as soon as they get offended.
“Homophobia” should be reserved for people who actually think that homosexuals are immoral/evil and actively work to abrogate their rights, don’t you think? But hey, I’m not gay, so I’m totally fine with everyone changing the meaning to “someone who said something that offended me one time on the internet”.
I’ve misused the word “gay” (as in, using it to mean “bad”) before; an unfortunate habit I learned from some asshats I hung out with in high school. It’s rare that I do so any more, but when I do it’s an accident and if I notice I give myself a mental charlie horse. If that makes me a homophobe, fine. Jump up and down and shout it until you’re blue in the face. It’s not much of an indictment if that’s the case.
Incidentally, I was called a “faggot” by some asshole on the subway a few weeks ago. I wasn’t particularly offended.
The notion that describing an unpleasant woman as a “cunt” is misogynistic is so PC reactionary that it doesn’t deserve more comment than a derisive snort.
::snort::
Sorry to go OT. I am dying to find out if “So help me God” was included in the do-over of the oath on Wednesday???
… okay, I give up- I keep looking at the link, but I just can’t find the stupid poll. Could someone please tell me how to get to it?
Dagger, the poll was pulled shortly after PZ posted the thread. You should see a senator poll from the link now.
Is calling Ann Coulter a cock sucking whore ok, or is everyone going to jump down my throat for that like they did with Sarah Palin?
I just noticed how little outrage there was at calling her a cunt and was wondering if a double standard was being applied. Or perhaps we just all agree that Ann is a cunt.
So the progressive dewds are out in full force in this thread, eh? And for some reason, you all get to determine whether or not anyone can be offended by any particular word? And then you get offended at being called a homophobe/misogynist?… cognitive dissonance much?
—-
“I’d call her a “cunt” but, that would imply she is female.”
misogyny – check
homphobia/transphobia – check
—-
You’re assuming, of course, that the commenter thinks that Coulter is a person, while everybody knows that it is an evil robot. I mean, people don’t look like that, and people psychotic enough to have those absurd opinions and thought processes generally are not able to function in society at all.
You know, what’s terrible about Ann Coulter is everything she believes and says. Really. Why the need to comment on her appearance or call her a cunt? She’s an illogicial, ill-informed idealogue who believes that we should all conform to her remarkably small-minded view of the world. I can’t believe that the only criticism some of us can muster is to attack her gender (heh, she must be a man), indulge in fantasy of forced anal sex (also known as rape) and make fun of her general appearance.
I used to think that atheists were intelligent and capable of discussing issues without resorting to that sort of name calling and misogyny (Whether you care to admit to it or not, it’s misogyny when you attack a woman, even an unpleasant woman, through her gender.) PZ just posted that awful GodTube video chock full of Abrahamic faith-hate for women and most (not all but most) people got it. But because Ann Coulter continues to spew ideologicel invectives, she’s fair game for personal attacks and rape?
Maybe I’m taking it all to seriously but all I have to go on is what is posted. Maybe you’re all great people who wouldn’t actually anally rape Coulter, given the opportunity – oh, but only if she’s a woman because you would draw the line at anally raping a man. Maybe your post was off-hand and you didn’t have time to write what you were really thinking, but most of you certainly took the time to defend it.
I know there aren’t a lot of women on atheist sites. I don’t know why that is really but I know why I don’t like posting on Pharyngula or reading the comments. Because there is no shortage of misogyny and sexist commentary.
Now, I’m sure you can all jump on my comment and berate me for not seeing the humour and insight of your posts, of being overly PC and misplacing my righteous indignation. But all I see are a bunch of ill-mannered kids using dirty words to insult a woman they don’t like – a woman who has a lot of valid things to criticize.
—-
And I realise that the origin of this bad/gay confusion is probably borne out of homophobia, I’m saying it’s not necessarily homophobic to call something bad “gay”.
—-
Really? I think that most people now find the (formerly very common) tendency to call people or things that are tight with money ‘Jew-y’ or similar extremely offensive. What, precisely, is the difference?
If calling Ann Coulter a “cunt” is misogyny, that what is it when you call a guy a “dick?” To me it’s little more than a gender-specific way of saying someone is an asshole.
what it is, is a sign of a person with a weak vocabulary, pretty much, and a lack of creativity with curse words.
If you not only can’t tell a cunt from an asshole but you can’t tell a dick from an asshole, you’ve got problems no one here can help with. Possibly you inverted everything when you stuck your head so far up your ass you got tonsils in your eyes.
Will somebody kindly tell the divots that using “cunt” as an insult is the problem? I sure as hell like mine better than I like Ann Coulter, and it’s a lot more fun.
Though if Coulter can shoot ping-pong balls across the room, she might have some human potential after all.
You don’t really know much, do you? There are plenty of smart women on this blog who make it the popular place that it is.
And why you would post here while not liking to is a mystery indeed.
There are rude comments for sure but it is never allowed to pass without comment and if you had bothered to read the entire thread you would have realized that.
Other than that, please continue not liking to comment and not reading this blog.
Sam at # 107,
I believe the doubtful bit of literature regarding Ms Coulter is actually written about very VERY consensual sex ( in fact the male is a rather reluctant participant initially). It doesn’t have anything to do with rape. I’m not saying it’s a Pulitzer winning essay ( or for that matter even a taseful bit of prose) but if you’re going to make allegations regarding Pharyngulites and their attitudes to rape then you should really get your context correct.
May I ask where you got your statistics on the number of females on atheists sites? I actually think Pharyngula has a rather good balance of genders represented but it is all hard to tell given the non-gender specific names some people use.
you guys are disappointing me!
where’s all those votes for new york in the fox replacement poll?
i soiled myself going over there, it’s your duty to as well.
Bullshit. You believe that is what it means, but you are not the arbiter of what something does and does not mean to others, only what it means to you. And yes, you are taking it all too seriously. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes an insult only means what it says on the surface, your attempts to make it mean more notwithstanding. “Ann Coulter is a cunt” does not mean “Ann Coulter is a female genital organ”. It means “Ann Coulter is a very unpleasant or stupid person” according to the Cambridge dictionary, although it is a crude way of saying it.
If I say “Ann Coulter is a man” (which I did not) I might simply be defending women everywhere by not including her in that group. That is not misogyny. If I said “Ann Coulter is a cunt” (I did not) it is not an attack on her gender, it is the equivalent of calling a man a dick. That is also not misogyny. Since when is acknowledgment of ender an attack on it? Besides, using the opposite gender term, for example saying “Ann Coulter is a dick”, has implications that saying “Ann Coulter is a cunt” does not.
Obviously none of the name calling is very polite, but I don’t think it is meant to be – it’s name calling. And I don’t think people really care what the self-appointed internet PC police think about it. But you can’t really expect them to let false accusations pass either.
Anyway, think of me what you will, and feel free to hurl whatever insults my way that you care to. Call me a dick even, I won’t think you hate men.
David Marjanović, OM @ #90
“Why the long face?”
Well, *someone* had to say it.
@Sam: No, it’s misogyny when you attack a woman *because* of her gender. That woman is a/an (insert insult) is a descriptive personal attack. Women are (insert insult) is misogyny. There’s a difference.
@Doo Shabag: You pretty much can say whatever you want and people can get offended by it if they feel like it. If what they think of you is important to you, that’s what apologies are for. If not, that’s what the phrase “Go fuck yourself.” is for.
Can we please stop the histrionics over who offended who and who has a right to be offended yet? Everyone has a right to offend and be offended. The world is not made of nerf. This is the internet. We don’t know you. Inflection does not carry here. I’ve been called lots of racial slurs. They long ago ceased to bother me.
Back on topic: I’m sad I didn’t get to vote against Coulter. She’s a hateful spiteful human being and deserves only scorn and ridicule. May she always have an ice cream headache and an itch she can’t quite reach.
The quality of the comments on this blog has really dropped in the last 6-8 months or so.
Craig
I’m pretty sure you made that same statement about 6-8 months ago.
http://news.aol.com/article/obamas-nonbeliever-nod-unsettles-some/316339
Here’s a poll worth crashing.
Oh, pleeeaaase let’s not have the whole “is it sexist to use female-specific insults?” debate again. It wasn’t productive the first fifteen times.
Indeed.
Are you really stupid enough to consider that because one (or even several) atheists have done something you can convince yourself that it is indicative of the behaviours or attitudes of all (or even many) atheists?
The problem isn’t you ‘taking things too seriously’; misogyny is wrong and you’re correct in decrying it. Your error comes in assuming that because a couple of posters do it that a) all of us do it, and b) none of us dislike it as much as you do.
There are a lot of comments posted on this site. I read a great number of them and can confirm that the vast majority do not contain misogyny. That you have determined from a few posts on one topic is enough to ‘go on’ then you’re making a serious mistake.
Either you’re reading a different Pharyngula from the one I’m reading – and the one frequented by posters such as SC OM, Patricia OM, Kseniya OM, Bride of Shrek OM, Janine, Jadehawk and Speedwell (just to name a few of the brilliant ladies* who are highly regarded regulars here) – or you’re an idiot.
*Patricia, of course, is both a lady and a slut – and proud of it.
And I am taking offence at the fact Wowbagger has NOT named me as a slut.
…I’ll have you know, Siree, that I can twirl my skirts, lick my lips and down my vodka equally well, if not better, than that harlot, that strumpet, that *gasp* jezebel named Patricia. She ain’t nothing but a chook raisin, sangria slurpin, hussy from Oregon!
..actually on a “serious” note Patricia and I became self named sluts in the great mysogynist/anti-mysogynist slanging match that was the “Dear Sir” thread of “08.
“I’m saying it’s not necessarily homophobic to call something bad “gay”. ”
It is.
JThompson
Agreed. I am mostly uninterested in what people think of me, and I haven’t apologized for anything, I just generally prefer to discuss rather than end conversations with something like “go fuck yourself”. I like to make sure they understand my point of view, especially when they are factually wrong. If they then conclude I’m an asshole that’s fine, like I said, I’m not really interested in what they think of me.
Bride of Shrek,
My sincerest apologies. I was trying to remember exactly who, other than Patricia, embraced sluttiness and wasn’t 100% sure so I went with the one I had no doubt about.
Was this:
supposed to be some sort of defense? Did you miss the “offensive” part?
***
Oh, piss off, Walton. If people are going to continue to use misogynistic epithets, then I’m happy that others are going to express their displeasure. If they (or antigay or racist comments) became a regular feature of the comment threads and no one said anything about it, I would stop visiting the blog.
I’ll also note that your remarks about Coulter represent quite a change from your earliest comments, in which I believe you pointed to her as an American political figure you admired (I think “love” was the word you used).
Well, it’s been discussed at great length, if you’re interested:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/sarah_palin_ignorant_and_antis.php
(Can’t believe I’ve posted this twice in the span of a few hours. Is it World Misogyny Week or something?)
While I can’t stand Coulter’s on screen persona, I was pleasantly surprised by her most recent book “Guilty”. It was well reasoned and well researched, and highly critical of the republican party’s conduct of this last election, but mostly for laying down in front of the liberally biased media. Democrats might also appreciate it, because she documents how Senator Clinton got the media treatment usually reserved for Republicans as Obama got a pass on everything.
(I think “love” was the word you used)
Indeed it was:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/are_you_on_this_list.php#comment-913574
Glad to see Pharyngula‘s had such a positive effect.
Yeah, ’cause people are really going to respect the judgment of someone who considers Jonah freakin’ Goldberg a historical scholar.
“Yeah, ’cause people are really going to respect the judgment of someone who considers Jonah freakin’ Goldberg a historical scholar.”
When a work is well researched and reasoned, you can make your own judgements. Goldberg did a good job on “Liberal Fascism”, I am not familiar with his other work.
And my assessment of the quality of your thought is shown to be accurate yet again, and within minutes. You actually think that sentence makes sense as a response to what I wrote.
Yes, that’s the piece of shit you cited. No intelligent person with any knowledge of the history of liberalism or fascism or of historical methods could think he did a “good job.”
I’ll now go back to ignoring your idiotic comments.
SC’OM,
You might be interested in the discussion KG and I already had on this thread:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/the_ways_of_the_bush_administr.php
It is good practice to review your prejudices and assumptions every so often. Both communism and fascism had hegelian origins and elevate the collective over the individual and get caught up in dictatorial personality cults. Even today Castro, Chavez and Che Guevarro are lionized by the left. On that other thread you will find a link to Goldberg’s booktv.org talk. Challenge yourself.
Aw, I’m too late. There’s a new poll up though:
Which Democratic Senate seat situation is the biggest fiasco?
Fair and balanced, u-huh. Even more ironic, it’s called a ‘no-spin poll’.
“Che Guevarro”? Come on.
Andyo.
My bad. I didn’t look it up this time. I spelled it right on the other thread, because I pasted it in. I hope it isn’t a bad word in spanish.
I already read it, you jackass. What did you think I was referring to?
I’ve also seen his talk. And I know vastly more about liberalism and fascism (which I’ve taught about) and historical research (which I do) than Goldberg. Why don’t you try reading some works by real historians, or for a summary Michael Mann’s Fascists, which I’ve quoted several times here? You know nothing of “the left,” either, or of me (an anarchist) or KG (a former anarchist and now democratic socialist). Give it up.
Not exactly convincing anyone of your comprehensive knowledge of the left, are you?
SC,OM,
Have you become a spelling troll?
Anarchists, wow. You must be disappointed in how the state never fades away. F.A. Hayek offers an explanation in a chapter on why the worst rise to the top, in the “Road to Serfdom”. I’m sure we could have a quote war. Since I specialized in the neo-Hegelians I approached fascism more from its philosophical origins, and found that Golberg captures that aspect well. Goldberg looked at what the fascists claimed they believed in and how the left loved that part. In practice they did as poor a job of living up to their ideals as the communists did. But do you really think left wing ideology should get off scott free just because attempts are unable to remain “true” to them?
“I’d call her a “cunt” but, that would imply she is female.”
Am I the only one who didn’t find the cunt bit offensive, but the way it was phrased? Maybe I hit the 4chan too hard years ago, but words like “fag” “cunt” “bitch” have long lost any edge and are yawn-worthy to me. To actually drag gender into it though… What’s the point? Not that I haven’t seen plenty of guys be insulted using their gender, but wouldn’t it be more efficient to kick her where it actually hurts for her: her beliefs and opinions. I doubt she would even blink at gender/genetalia/sexuality insults.
That said, I can only hope she’ll soon suffer from some accident creating amnesia taking most of her past life away, so she’d have an opportunity at re-evaluating her life and viewpoints with fresh eyes. Would be pretty sweet if she wound up trying to counteract what she did in the past, like a reverse case of Prince (a.k.a. Prince, the artist formerly known as ‘The artist formerly known as Prince’). Not bloody likely, but one can always hope.
africangenesis,
“Che Guevarro” is nothing more than a rather funny-sounding typo though, so no worries. “Che” is a word that only Argentinians use just like Americans use “dude”, hence when you hear Spanish-speaking people, especially Latin Americans, say “un che” (a che), they’re referring to an Argentinian guy. It is not part of Guevara’s name, he was Ernesto Guevara.
But, since you were talking about communism, I found it rather amusing that you’d grossly misspell the name of one of its most important figures in the Americas. He even has a trendy T-shirt. He is also known as “El Che”, which means The Che.
Speaking of misogynistic insults, “che tu mare” can be used as a short form of “la concha de tu madre” in some societies (mostly Peruvian) whose literal translation would be “your mother’s cunt”. But that’s nothing to do with the word “che”. As long as you don’t use those three words in that particular order, you’re OK.
Alghough, I don’t know about all this. I really don’t feel offended by any words, maybe because I don’t feel like I belong to any one group of people in particular. I am Japanese-descendant, born and raised in Latin America, now living in Los Angeles. I don’t know what group I belong. Obviously I don’t either have a religion, but was brought up catholic. I have good and bad things to say about all of my own subcultures, that could be construed as racist if, say, “whitey” said it. (Was that racist?, sorry).
In my own culture, we are called “chino”, which is just the Spanish word for “Chinese”. Should I be offended, like many “like me” are? And what would it tell the Chinese? I am not either Chinese, nor offended. I don’t know what my point is, just rambling here.
The main idea behind Ann Coulter is to denounce “liberal hypocrisy”. The positive statements from Ann Coulter are hardly to accept, and they are even at odds with her lifestyle. Coulter’s conservatism is a bit ecclectic and for a very commercial reason: she wants to sell to religious conservatives, market libertarians, neo-conservatives, financial conservatives, etc. However, the negative statements from Ann Coulter must not be disregarded without a think: there are plenty of problems with the so-called Liberals, in both shores of the Atlantic Ocean. We must not accept Obamas or Zapateros asking for our votes for no other reason that “fear of the right”.
I’ll also note that your remarks about Coulter represent quite a change from your earliest comments, in which I believe you pointed to her as an American political figure you admired (I think “love” was the word you used).
“Earliest” being the operative word. Don’t tell me that you didn’t change between the ages of 18 and 19. Or that any intelligent, responsive person has exactly the same views, likes, dislikes and outlook from one year to the next, regardless of the stimuli to which he or she is exposed. People change.
It would be arrogant, to the point of insanity, for someone to go through life ritually chanting “I’m right, I’m right, I’m right” and taking on no influences whatsoever from anyone else’s opinion. Even the greatest scholars, philosophers and political figures change their views, often dramatically, over time. I’m sure you, as an academic, are aware of this. If great people can change their minds, are mediocre people like me forbidden from doing so? And are you actually unhappy that I’ve changed my mind in this paticular instance?
Astounded by the defenses of misogynistic attacks on so emminently attackable an “intellect” (snicker) as Ann Coulter, my conscience requires me to add one more voice to those who reject the inappropriate name calling. Attacks on physical appearance, gender or genitalia belittle those who make them, moreso when the issue is her complete detachment from both facts and reality.
Rather than debating whether or not some group is entitled to be or should be offended, why not start with the high road and leave the vicious attacks to the small minded: the neo-cons and the phantom worshippers? Rising above the pettiness always reflects better on the intellectual superiors in any argument.
Didac at #142: I substantially agree with you.
The American right is capable of bizarre lunacy and, at times, substantial hypocrisy. No one’s disputing that. And I suspect Ann Coulter has adopted her… ahem, unique style principally in order to sell books; indeed, she’s quite candid about the fact that selling books is the main aim of her public appearances. She does say absurd things at times, particularly when she comments on fields where she lacks expertise; her historical revisionist defence of McCarthyism was amateurish, to say the least, and rested on a feeble caricature of Cold War-era Democrats as “soft on Communism”. She also, by her own admission, has little understanding of economics.
But with all this in mind, this doesn’t mean that the American left are any better, or that every criticism Coulter makes of them is misconceived. She is quite right that the media gave Obama a free ride (though I think it’s too simplistic to ascribe this to ingrained “liberal bias”; rather, Obama, like Tony Blair, was exceptionally skilled at manipulating the media). The left, with their grandiose statist/collectivist schemes to “help the poor” (which usually end up exacerbating poverty and making things worse), are just as dangerous as the right.
I think I made my point quite clearly, and Andyo said pretty much the same thing.
You’re ignorant and confused. Anarchists have never believed the state would fade away – that’s why a common anarchist slogan is “Smash the state” and not “Let the state wither.”
No, we couldn’t. First, I don’t engage in quote wars. It’s a stupid way of arguing. Second, even if I did, I wouldn’t bother to do so with such an ignorant and confused person. Third, I have no idea what your point is supposed to be.
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
***
Walton – I don’t know what you’re on about. “And are you actually unhappy that I’ve changed my mind in this paticular instance?” Did you not read my comment @ #130? I’m quite happy about it, and hope the transformation proceeds.
“No Spin Poll” = We can’t spin it away from it’s predetermined outcome.
SC,OM,
“…for a summary Michael Mann’s Fascists, which I’ve quoted several times here?”
“First, I don’t engage in quote wars. It’s a stupid way of arguing.”
Oh. Thank goodness. I prefer to deal with the concepts directly anyway. But, I am sure I would be overmatched in any discussion with you, and your refusal to participate would just be a generous act of mercy.
Wowbagger @ #126
You are forgiven my lad. Just don’t ever let me catch you NOT calling me a slut again…Bloody southerners.The cheek.
SC @146: Fair enough; I didn’t see your comment at 130 until after I’d posted my response. My apologies.
Insofar as I’ve experienced any “transformation”, I’d say I’ve come to the realisation that the mainstream American right (and, to a lesser extent, the mainstream European right) are as bad as the left in many respects. Instead, I’ve become far more drawn to free-market libertarianism, combining economic and social freedom.
The root of the problem is that the “Reagan conservative” movement united libertarians and fiscal conservatives with Falwellite religious “social conservatives”. The reality, however, is that the two ideologies have nothing in common other than their shared opposition to socialism. I’d go so far as to say, in fact, that the term “right-wing” has no real coherent meaning; any term which attempts to encompass libertarians, fascists, and a whole host of different movements in between cannot have any objectively meaningful definition. But I’m digressing here.
On a related note, I’m not going to join the ongoing debate between you and africangenesis about the link between fascism and the Left – firstly, because I’m not an expert on fascism and can’t match your knowledge on the subject, and secondly because I strongly suspect the arguments of Goldberg et al. are too simplistic (which is inevitable, I suppose, in a politically-charged “popular history” such as Liberal Fascism). I’m also wary of describing “the Left” as if it were one homogeneous entity; as I noted above, the terms “left-wing” and “right-wing” have very little objective meaning. Rather, I’d simply say that what fascism has in common with socialism is that they are both statist/collectivist; they both believe in the subordination of the individual to a centrally-guided collective, albeit that their motives for this belief, and their desired outcomes, are very different. I appreciate, though, that I could be drawing an overly simplistic parallel.
Ann who? That’s like asking what you think of Chester A. Arthur.
Walton,
Yes, left and right have no coherent meaning, although I think in the US the distinction can be crystalized a little better than in Europe where conservatism has conotations that take it back to authoritarianism, so both ends of the spectrum are more equivilent. In the US where “conservatives” are classical liberals identifying with the revolution, the founding fathers and constitutionally limited government there is clearly authoritarianism on just the left. So I don’t consider it too much of a stretch to more rigorously define the spectrum as totalitarianism on the left and anarchy on the right. The Reagan revolution did muck things up a bit by bringing in the socially conservative Democratic elements. These still haven’t been fully steeped in the conservative/libertarian philosophy and often are just one issue voters.
On the fascism front, I think you underestimate Goldberg. Yes he is pulling liberals chains a bit with “liberal fascism”, but it isn’t his “arguments”, simplistic or otherwise, that would be useful here where his authority isn’t respected. Rather, what would be useful is his evidence, e.g., quotes from liberals fawning over the fascist policies and ideals and achievements Wilson, Mussolini and even the Nazi’s before their dark side became more evident. SC’OM, is right for the wrong reason, there wouldn’t be quote war, but not because Mann vs Goldberg would be worthless, but rather because how do you respond to quotes out of the liberals own mouths or pens, with more quotes? Hmmm.
I’ve read Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. I was not impressed.
Fascism is a charged and blurry word these days, used by both the left and the right to assail their enemies and to incite their followers to action. Liberal Fascism clearly intends to do both.
It’s easy to understand why some of Goldberg’s examples of “liberal fascism” may, at least on the surface, ring true. There are elements of mass politics on the left and the right that are similar: mass rallies, militarism, the marginalization and extermination of one’s enemies.
The definition of fascism offered by Robert O. Paxton in The Anatomy of Fascism identifies the commonalities between mass politics across the political spectrum, and, at the same time, firmly place fascism on the right wing of that spectrum, where, despite Goldberg’s best efforts, it decidedly belongs.
Goldberg’s characterizations of Franklin Roosevelt, the Clintons and other liberals as fascists fails to take into account the latter part of Paxton’s definition. FDR, for instance, was despised by wealthy elites and often charged by them with being “a traitor to his class.” A descendant of New York’s Patroons, he did not identify his interests with the elites of his time. Neither did FDR take power by employing “militant nationalists.” He was elected to office four times by the American people. Nor did he pursue the New Deal “with redemptive violence.” It could be argued that by allowing Japanese-American citizens to be interned in concentration camps, he engaged in “internal cleansing without ethical or legal restraints.” However it is a specious argument. The internment of Japanese-Americans was promoted by panicked nativists on both the right and the left.
The Clintons did have a fairly friendly relationship with some elites; after all, Bill Clinton took over George H.W. Bush’s NAFTA and managed to get it passed over the protestations of unions and working Americans, so could be guilty of “external expansion” on this score. His promotion of globalization (which outside the US was seen as the promotion of Americanization) could qualify him as an expansionist as well. Clinton however did not engage in “redemptive violence” in the U.S., and so, on that score at least, does not fit the definition offered by Paxton.
It is inevitable, I suppose, given the current political climate where intolerance and invective are fashionable, that Paxton’s definition of fascism will be assailed as the work of a member of the “liberal professoriate” regardless of his political beliefs. In addition, the definition will no doubt be attacked as incomplete or malicious or tendentious.
It’s offered as a counter to Goldberg’s definition of fascism, a definition which he never states forthrightly, but relates only through the selective slander of the political enemies of the right and a willful misreading of history.
I assume you’re trying, lamely, to allege a contradiction between those two statements. There is none. I’ve quoted from a work of (secondary) history on substantive historical issues (specifically, in this case, the role of the German churches in the rise of fascism). It was not in the context of a “quote war,” and if anyone had provided a reference to a solid historical work that had different findings that would not have turned it into one.
Quite right.
Walton:
Sigh. Yes, I’ve gathered. Change, but not progress.
Whatever your reasons, thank you. (And there is no debate ongoing.)
Yes, you are. As you should be aware by now, there are of course decentralized forms of socialism, and those that are vehemently antistatist. Unlike libertarianism, though, they all reject the subordination of the individual to the corporation. And as for “economic and social freedom,” do you really want me to link to the Pinochet/Friedman/Hayek article again? Anyway, I’m not interested in having this discussion today, but I will say that, although the change is not in the direction I would like (to put it mildly), I am happy to see that you can change your views when presented with evidence. I hope you stay open to change in all of your ideas, including (no, especially) this blithertarian nonsense :).
SC’OM,
Your ignorance of libertarianism shows. There is no doctrine of subordinating the individual to the corporation, and there is general criticism of “free” trade treaties which grant rights to corporations that are not also available to individuals. There is debate about the philosophical legitimacy of government created artificial beings such as corporations, and whether government can morally limit liability. But of course many libertarians are also economically literate and recognize the capital formation benefits of limited liability corporations.
Gah. That is the stupidest fucking thing I’ve read in a very long time.
OK, back to ignoring.
Africangenesis @152:
In the US where “conservatives” are classical liberals identifying with the revolution, the founding fathers and constitutionally limited government there is clearly authoritarianism on just the left. So I don’t consider it too much of a stretch to more rigorously define the spectrum as totalitarianism on the left and anarchy on the right. The Reagan revolution did muck things up a bit by bringing in the socially conservative Democratic elements. These still haven’t been fully steeped in the conservative/libertarian philosophy and often are just one issue voters.
Interesting, and I agree to a large extent with your analysis from a historical perspective. Of course, the first great ideological divide in American politics – the Jeffersonians against the Hamiltonians – was all about small-government libertarianism versus strong quasi-monarchical centralised government. The great irony is that, while Jefferson won in the short term – and modern American conservatives pay lip service to his ideals – today’s America is much closer to Hamilton’s idea than Jefferson’s. Hamilton wanted a strong presidency with broad powers (check), a central bank and public debt (check), a large standing military (check), and power to be arrogated to the federal government rather than left with the states (check). Notably, Jefferson was also a deist and a passionate supporter of the separation of church and state.
But I think that if we’re talking about the mainstream of today’s self-identified conservatives (Coulter, Limbaugh et al), we have to recognise that there’s a strong undercurrent of authoritarianism in their social conservatism. While they recognise the value of capitalism, I don’t think they have the deep-rooted ideological belief in freedom, and in protection of the individual’s rights against the state, that I share with Jefferson (and that I get the impression you share also).
I also think that to characterise the spectrum as “totalitarianism on the left, anarchy on the right” is a little simplistic (even from a purely American perspective), because it excludes the phenomenon of left-wing anarchism. Leftist anarchists, unlike anarcho-capitalists, don’t believe in the sanctity of private property (indeed, some of them adhere to the maxim “all property is theft) and are therefore classifiable as being “on the left”; but I don’t think they can be classified as authoritarians.
This is why I prefer the Nolan chart (developed by libertarians, incidentally) in which libertarian-authoritarian is a separate axis from (economic) left-right. Left-wing anarchists go in the extreme left-extreme libertarian corner, while Stalinists belong in the extreme left-extreme authoritarian corner. Fascists are roughly in the centre on the economic axis (Hitler’s policies being broadly Keynesian), but obviously are at the extreme authoritarian end of the Y axis. The best-known use of the Nolan chart is for the online Political Compass test, which you may have heard of.
I’m always glad when PZ mentions Coulter. The sexists emerge, my killfile button goes into action, and it becomes much faster and easier to read the comments sections here. Thanks, PZ!
Walton,
The republican leadership in general has become remarkably ignorant of conservative principles. I think this is partly due to the end of the cold war which helped crystalize the ideologies. Coulter and Limbaugh, both are too willing to use government to solve social problems. But there is still much less authoritarianism on the right than on the left, not just on economic issues but notably on social issues such as conscription vs an all volunteer army. Recall that John Kerry spoke of duty and mandatory public service requirements much like Ted Kennedy has proposed in the past. Kerry quickly deemphasized these programs, removing them from his web site, when the draft became an issue in the election. The Republicans resisted raising education to the more centrally controlled authoritarian stage until Bush caved in to the polls and ran as “The Education President”.
Yes, any single dimensional left-right scale is an over simplification. The 2-D social-economic scale eliminates much of the ambiguity. But where with the left-anarchists fit on the Nolan scale? Surely they don’t belong right next to the anarcho-capitalists. Their mass-action “democracy” terroism can be just as limiting on freedom as government is. Just imagine what happens when someone decides he’d like to hold on to the product of his own labor.
Yeah, the killfile is the way to go.
Otherwise we might hear something that offends our delicate sensibilities.
That’s the way of an open, rational society.
Well done there.
Of course there is always a line to be drawn, but when this subject comes up, it never seems to turn into a reasonable discussion.
Personally, I never get offended by language. So it can be difficult for me to understand. I accept the fact that others are offended, and when I find out that I offended someone, I try to look at the statement with fresh eyes. Sometimes I see that I may have gone too far and I apologize. Sometimes I decide they were being too fragile and I either try to explain that or I jab at them with a pointy stick.
After all, there are many, many, many people who are offended by everything we talk about in these posts. Perhaps if we had a society wide killfile they could solve that problem eh?
If only we had a book that would tell us what is and isn’t allowed. A book that we could hold up as universal truth. Perhaps written with the authority of an almighty parental figure. Yeah, that’s what we need.
ggab,
That book might be Pinker’s “The Stuff of Thought”. It is not prescriptive, but if you want to engage in courteous discourse that doesn’t bypass the rational faculties and assault the emotional part of the brain, you should avoid the taboo words that it discusses. This is a long link to an excerpt, I hope it works. Warning, Pinker actually gives examples using the words he is discussing.
http://books.google.com/books?id=jylSITT9ZNUC&pg=PA323&lpg=PA323&dq=pinker+obsenity&source=web&ots=LbRXR_mFAW&sig=E1ld3mqZYrbfepjoRGBPiEKKneo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA369,M1
Killfile works wonders. Otherwise I’d be exposed to africangenesis’ looneytarians idiocies, his utter ignorance about history, politics and especially economics (I’m sure he’s mentioned von Mises or Hayek already), and his whining about liberals (interesting how looneytarians say they dislike conservatives and liberals equally but have nothing but praise for conservatives). Killfile has kept my blood pressure down because the only looneytarian I’m exposed to on this thread is Walton.
Walton is also quite ignorant (“Fascists are roughly in the centre on the economic axis”) but makes up for it by being self-deluding and silly as well (“…they have the deep-rooted ideological belief in freedom, and in protection of the individual’s rights against the state, that I share with Jefferson”).
Walton,
On the Nolan scale, left-anarchists actually do fit next to the anarcho-capitalists. You’ve got to remember, it is a graphic scale, just like Hitler and Stalin were authoritarian but then disagreed on economic policies, left and right leaning anarchists will agree about social liberties but disagree about economic policies.
The analysis of the scale is here:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
You can take the test on the main page.
Also, your interpretation of a 2-D ideological scale is quite wrong. Anarchism is on the far left, authoritarianism is on the far right. You’ve got to remember that historical communism differs a great deal from what Marx was actually advocating. The final stage of communism was predicted to create a state in which no government was necessary. In a sense the “dialectic” would swing along the spectrum as necessary to protect the revolution. In reality once a group has power they rarely if ever actively work to surrender that power.
Finally, the argument that conservatives pattern themselves as classical liberals like the founding fathers is a case of historical revisionism and projecting their ideas backward through two stages of time. You don’t measure a group of modern people and ideas and then try to draw historical groups of people and use that modern scale to compare them. By the standards of their time the founding fathers were screaming radical liberals on some issues, moderates on others, but they weren’t classical liberals. You have to look at people, their actions and ideals, within the context of their own times. People have rights? Radical. A country governed without a king? Radical. Equality before the law? Radical. Limitations on the government requiring free speech, religious freedoms, rights in court, prohibitions on punishment? All left leaning, at the time. Today’s conservatives like to claim the heritage of the founding fathers, but quite frankly that is silly. We all share the heritage, the difference is liberals have taken their example and continued to push for more (at the time) radical change, the conservatives have simply looked back and established their own ideals as those of the founding fathers. The problem is, those same conservatives would have mostly opposed the revolution 230 years ago. They would have been Royalists in France, they would have been loyalists here in the Americas, they would have been Cavaliers in the English Civil war.
Conservatives often seem to be unaware that even they, the bastions of tradition, heritage, and culture, are themselves changing over time; that they would be seen as liberals by their own ancestors.
dogmeatib,
It is illogical to assume that the founding fathers would identify with the “radical” to the point of reversing their recognition of the importance of a limited government with checks and balances. They were radicals for freedom not a government imposed equality, and you forget that they were from the propertied class themselves. There is a sizable subset of the conservatives that would go to the barricades as rapidly as any French revolutionary.
It is the liberals of today that look to give the central government control of more of the economy and to have it address more social issues. Of course they complain with someone they disagree with wields those same reigns of power they had been lobbying for. It is rather undemocratic of them to assume they would never lose an election.
Tis Himself: Walton is also quite ignorant (“Fascists are roughly in the centre on the economic axis”)…
Erm, how exactly do you dispute that statement? Hitler and Mussolini pursued economic policies centring around heavy state intervention (including, of course, labour conscription), expropriation, protectionism, and the Keynesian principle of stimulating the economy via high spending on government projects. At the same time, they weren’t completely anti-capitalist, and indeed many of the existing major private-sector business concerns (Krupps, IG Farben) co-operated extensively with the Nazis. So they don’t belong far to the “left” on the economic scale, but they certainly don’t belong on the “right”. I am using the terms in solely an economic sense, because I don’t believe there’s any coherence or objective meaning to the way we use the terms “left” and “right” in everyday political discourse.
This is not an attempt to attack leftists, moderates or Keynesians by pointing out the similarities between their economic policies and Hitler’s. That would be stupid, and it annoys me when conservatives do it. (See, I’ve just debunked your statement that libertarians are “full of praise” for mainstream conservatives.) Rather, I’m simply defending the illustrative statement that I made, and defending myself against your charge of ignorance. I don’t doubt that I am ignorant of many, many things in many, many fields – as are you, and virtually every other human being. But I’m damn sure that, while I may not be right, I at least have an arguable point founded in fact.
africangenesis,
Again, you’re using todays concepts and terminology, for their time they were radical. For today they were used as the pattern from which a classical liberal is defined.
It is illogical to assume that the founding fathers would identify with the “radical” to the point of reversing their recognition of the importance of a limited government with checks and balances.
It isn’t illogical at all, it is irrelevant. Whether they would see themselves as radical or not doesn’t matter, though personally, as an historian, I believe they were quite aware of how radical they were. The very concept of limited government is radical. Checks and balances were the ideas of Philosophes and Enlightenment thinkers, not actual practices to be implemented. Again, you are projecting modern ideas into the past. At the time their ideas and actions were radical, and on the political spectrum, they were radical liberal. They would not even begin to become status quo, let alone conservative, until the French Revolution entered its most radical stage.
They were radicals for freedom not a government imposed equality,
Really? So you argue that our system is not founded upon the concept of a government imposed and defended equality before the law? You are simplifying their positions in order to better match one that you support. The fact is they were quite contradictory.
They were radicals for freedom? One word … slavery. That “radicals for freedom” crap is pure fantasy. They were quite free within the British empire. They had their own elected assemblies, by simple matter of distance they had great freedoms, greater than the people of London for example, and had precisely the same amount of representation.
The Washington administration’s use of military force to put down the Whiskey Rebellion was no different than the Royal government’s attempt to suppress the agitation over the various taxes enacted to pay for the 7 years war. Difference? The new government was successful.
Dogmeatib,
You are trying to have it both ways. Just because they were radical liberals in their day, doesn’t mean that their philosophy isn’t the same as US conservatives today, except of course, today’s conservatives are opposed to slavery and to the conscription that they practiced even during their revolution. The founders did recognize the internal contradiction represented by slavery. Their practice may not have matched the idealism of their philosophy, but is that really unusual?
The equality of the founders was of equality before the law, which is not the material equality that todays liberals focus upon.
I’m surprised there wasn’t an option for:
“Somebody needs to shut that cunt up before I come over there and fuckstart her head.”
Guess I would’ve picked “I can’t stand her.”
This is a fair comment. I apologize, Walton, you’re not nearly as ignorant as africagenesis. Let’s look at Italy before World War II.
Mussolini’s National Fascist Party came to power during a period of social unrest. Working class activism was rife, militant trade unions were organizing increasingly frequent strikes, and the Italian Socialist Party was making significant electoral gains. This caused widespread fear among Italian capitalists and much of the bourgeoisie, who believed that a bolshevik revolution was imminent. With the traditional right-wing parties appearing incapable of dealing with the situation, King Victor Emmanuel III turned to the Fascists, which he considered to hold a hardline right-wing orientation by violently suppressing strikes, and appointed Mussolini prime minister. Soon after his rise to power, Mussolini defined his economic stance by saying: “The [Fascist] government will accord full freedom to private enterprise and will abandon all intervention in private economy.”1
During the first years of Mussolini’s regime the Fascists had a generally laissez-faire economic policy. Free competition was encouraged. Taxes, regulations and trade restrictions were reduced. Government expenditures were lowered and the budget was balanced. Some government monopolies (such as the telephone system) were privatized. Some previous legislation introduced by the Socialists, such as an inheritance tax, was repealed.
So what happened to change this movement away from socialism towards a free market? The Great Depression started in 1929. Prices fell, production slowed, and unemployment rose. Trying to handle the crisis, the Fascist government nationalized the holdings of large banks which had accrued significant industrial securities. The government also issued new securities to provide a source of credit for the banks and began enlisting the help of various cartels (consorzi) that had been created by Italian business leaders since 1922. The government offered support to these organizations in exchange for promises that they would manipulate prices in accordance with government priorities. A number of mixed entities were formed, called instituti, whose purpose it was to bring together representatives of the government and the major corporations. These instituti manipulated prices and wages satisfying the wishes of both the government and business. Mussolini also adopted a Keynesian policy of government spending on public works to stimulate the economy. Between 1929 and 1934, public works spending tripled to overtake defense spending as the largest item of government expenditure.
In 1935, following the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, the League of Nations imposed trade sanctions on Italy. This forced Italy to achieve autarky2 immediately, and strengthened Mussolini’s belief that economic self-sufficiency was vital to national security. The sanctions did not have their intended effects, because the Italian government had already begun restricting trade and preparing for autarky. In particular, Italy imposed a severe ban on most imports, and the government sought to persuade consumers to buy Italian-made products. In May 1935, the government compelled individuals and businesses to turn over all foreign issued securities to the central bank. By 1936 the economic sanctions on Italy were lifted, but the Fascists continued to insist on economic isolation.
In short, the Italian Fascists tried to go free market until the Depression and diplomatic problems forced them to take other routes. And then in 1939 World War II broke out and Italy went onto a war economy.
1Alexander J. De Grand, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. New York, Routledge, 1995. pp. 60-61.
2An autarky is an economy that is self-sufficient and does not take part in international trade, or severely limits trade with the outside world.
Just a reminder — while I find it a little odd that someone would have a problem with sexist invective directed specifically and only at a woman who’s made it her life’s work to throw other women under the bus, “cunt” really doesn’t fly in English. In French and Spanish, it’s pretty casual, but that’s because you can’t always expect a one-to-one correspondence in meanings between equivalent words. (English “cunt” and French “con” (why masculine?) aren’t even cognate anyway, they just look sort of similar.)
Coulter deserves all the abuse she gets, but us guys probably had best leave the misogynistic snark to her female “fans”.
Tis Himself at #169:
In short, the Italian Fascists tried to go free market until the Depression and diplomatic problems forced them to take other routes. And then in 1939 World War II broke out and Italy went onto a war economy.
Yes, and I think we can probably conclude from this that fascism has no inherent economic standpoint; it isn’t an ideology defined by its economics (unlike socialism). The same can be seen with modern fascist and quasi-fascist parties; for instance, the racialist-authoritarian British National Party here in the UK are free-marketeers when it suits them, but also use a lot of socialist rhetoric (they rail against privatisation of health services, for instance) and are thoroughly anti-free trade and pro-protectionism. I suppose the problem, analytically speaking, is that fascism is fundamentally irrational and populist in its outlook, and is therefore inevitably difficult to position on the political spectrum.
@ggab ignorantslut #160
Well said.
In the English speaking world, the word “cunt” does not have the same degree of taboo in Australia and New Zealand as it does in the UK or US. In Australia it can be used to indicate affection, in the same way “bastard” can be a term of affection in British English. The world “twat” is considered very offensive in the US, but in the UK it is far less offensive, and is used to indicate that someone is an idiot.
*sigh*
Here we go again.
*sigh* The whole point of the problem about sexist invective is not that it is invective, but that it is sexist. If you really must treat some body part as a revolting and disgusting thing to be compared with, please stick with arsehole.
Matt, I’m not sure where you’re coming from linguistically, but I have the impression that “cunt” is more insulting in Australia than the UK. “Twat” is very mild here, seen more as humorous than obscene. I wonder if you have a cultural misunderstanding? Australians insult their friends a lot, and you could use “cunt” in that joking way. But that’s only because it really is an insult. You could only say it to a good friend.
Cath,
I tend to agree with Matt. I only ever hear the word used in an offhand, often endearing manner amongst close male friends – and never in the same way as they used it in the US; only guys are ever described as ‘cunts’, never women.
But it’s one of those things that they aren’t for the most part, going to say in front of women.
@Cath the Canberra Cook
I agree that sexist invective is bad because it’s sexist, I just disagree that calling someone a name for female genitalia is automatically sexist. “women are vile” is sexist. “that woman is vile” is not sexist. The same applies no matter what insulting word you substitute for “vile”. I’m not saying no one can be offended by another’s word choice, but that doesn’t give the right to call it something it is not.
Why, in your mind, is this an ok substitute? Because everyone has one? Or because you think there is something disgusting about them? What if someone is offended by your use of arsehole? Are you allowed to call a gay man an arsehole without being accused of homophobia?
Like I said, I know many consider it an offensive word (and I’ll point out again that I haven’t called anyone that name in case someone thinks I am trying to defend myself), but it is not sexist. It’s just rude.
Doo Shabag:
In as clear a form as I can possibly put it:
Insult: You are an *insert disgusting vile thing here*
Not insult: You are an *insert happy fun thing here*
Now do you see it?
In your post above, you say that calling someone a cunt is apparently the *same* as calling them vile. In your world, it seems that a cunt is a vile thing. “That woman is vile” == “that woman is a cunt”. It’s the predicate, not the subject that we are getting upset about.
You could use freely use “arsehole”, “unwashed armpit”, or “rancid pile of dingos kidneys”. Arseholes are best known for producing shit, and yes, everybody has one. I do wonder at the attempt to single out gay man. I thought teh buttsecks was very popular these days.
BTW, wowbagger, the usage of cunt in an endearing manner among close friends” is what I was suggesting as a possible cultural misunderstanding. We use friendly insults on our mates – and believe me, women do this too! But it’s still considered very vile indeed when yelled at a stranger from a passing car.
Cath the Canberra Cook:
Oh, I see it alright. But the point is that even the Cambridge dictionary says one definition of cunt is “a very unpleasant or stupid person”. You don’t get to decide which definition someone is using when they use the word, they do.
I said no such thing. I said you could substitute any insult into “that woman is a (insult)” and it is not sexism. I never said every substitution was equivalent. I am agreeing it is not a polite word, I am saying it is in no way sexism or misogyny.
Dispensing maybe, producing no. Because I have decided that you are using the “to create” definition rather than the “to give birth to” definition. See how unfair that is? :)
Epic blockquote fail, sorry . . . I think it is still readable though.
LOLz
I thought it was a haiku:
I love Ann Coulter
I like her, but she’s too harsh
I can’t stand her face
Any thing OhReally does is an indictment of his seriousness.
Coulter has always seemed to me to be the official Republican version of the Scarlet Pimpernel.
(With a grievous attempt at sex-appeal)
None of the available choices accurately reflects my total indifference to such a worthless, goose-necked fraud.
I tried to post this while the site was having major problems, I’ll try again and hope we don’t end up with a massive multi-post:
You are trying to have it both ways. Just because they were radical liberals in their day, doesn’t mean that their philosophy isn’t the same as US conservatives today…
I’m not trying to have it any way, I’m pointing out the rather ridiculous flaws in your argument. BOTH US conservatives and liberals today trace their roots to the founding fathers. On the one hand conservatives attempt to embrace the principles as they see them according to their interpretation based upon conservative principles. On the other hand liberals attempt to embrace those same principles as they see them, according to their interpretation based upon liberal principles. You can’t claim that one or the other better represents those ideals because they both do. The founding fathers were, in their time radical liberals who embraced change. They supported freedom of thought, speech, religion, equality before the law, limitations on the power of government, etc. They established a form of government that conservatives today embrace and wish to maintain, as is, without any changes. Conservatives, by definition, wish to maintain heritage and culture, they protect the status quo. The simple fact of the matter is that the status quo of today is the radical liberalism of the 18th century.
Conservatives 800 years ago argued that the only person who had rights was the king, those rights were divinely provided by God. To question that position was to question God Himself. King John was forced to sign a document upsetting this balance and ultimately fought to the death to try to reverse the pressure to recognize rights for anyone but the king. In this battle nobles were granted rights and commoners were granted bare bones legal rights in court.
Five hundred years ago conservatives argued that only the nobility and royalty had rights. Simple commoners who questioned this could face quite gruesome deaths.
Two hundred and fifty years ago the firebrand radicals of the day were arguing that everyone had rights. Locke didn’t publish his treatises on government until after James II was forced to flea England … why? Because had he attempted to do so he would have been executed. Voltaire was forced into a vagabond life for questioning the status quo.
During the American and French revolutions it was suggested that all men had rights. Again this was a rather radical suggestion. There were conservatives in both countries who tried to maintain the status quo. Royalists in France, Loyalists in the Colonies. Even after the revolutions were successful there were those who tried to install Washington as King … again, a conservative position. There were those who tried to first maintain a constitutional monarchy in France and then fought to restore the king.
What you don’t seem to recognize is that history is a see-saw between liberal and conservative ideas that has been gradually sliding towards the more liberal ideas for the last two thousand years. Conservatives today may aspire to be like the founding fathers, but they are no more like them than liberals are and have no more legitimacy to claims that they better represent their ideals than liberals do. Today’s conservatives would be considered rather liberal by late 19th/early 20th century standards and downright radical by late 18th century standards. Both American liberalism and American conservatism are based upon the ideals of the founding fathers. The only difference is that the liberals embrace the notion of change and improvement while the conservatives maintain their dedication to tradition and status quo.
The equality of the founders was of equality before the law, which is not the material equality that todays liberals focus upon.
The problem is, yet again, you are ignoring the fact that equality before the law was a radical liberal notion at the time. You’re taking men from the 18th century and their ideals, as you project them backward, to support your current position. The problem is you can’t do that. You can’t call Lincoln a racist by today’s standard because he was a man locked in the mindset at the time in which it was assumed that the races were unequal. An attempt to make a special claim to the ideas and ideals of the founding fathers by conservatives ignores the definition of conservative. In many ways conservatives wish it was 1788, the problem is, if it was 1788, they would wish it was 1688, but then in 1688 they would be supporting James II and wishing it was 1588, and so on.
To make matters worse, to claim that conservatives espouse the ideals of the founding fathers has been patently false since at least the Goldwater era. Nixon shattered the idea of a transparent government. Reagan and both Bushes presided over the expansion of massive debt as the expanded both the size and the influence of the federal government. They abused the legislative and judicial branches, violated constitutional rights, and ignored limitations on their powers at every opportunity. If your argument is instead supporting laissez-faire economics as “conservatism” then you’re simply supporting the short-sided blinder vision of the world espoused by libertarians. Libertarianism is utterly ridiculous in that it simply wishes to ignore the realities of the last 150 years and sacrifice all social advances in the name of what really boil down to economic “liberties.” It tends to ignore the realities of deregulation, ignore the realities of corporate power, ignore the realities of poverty and crime in what amounts to an orgy of self-interest.
So which are you arguing africangenesis, the bankrupt corrupt failure of a party known as the Republican party, or the self-centered narcissism and greed of Ayn Rand? The former sacrificed any legitimate ties it could claim to the ideals of the founding fathers in an orgy of greed, corruption, and interventionist assaults on personal liberties and civil rights. The other is an idiotic wishful system as doomed to failure as Utopian Marxism because it, like Marxism, ignores the realities of large groups of people.
Sorry for the book, it is actually a composite of multiple posts that I merged when the login was FUBAR.
Haven’t had a chance to get here for weeks. Saw this old post and clicked on the link, despite knowing the poll would no longer be listed. Guess what was instead?
“Which Democratic Senate seat situation is the biggest fiasco?” with three states listed. (Hint: not Minnesota, for example, since that’s not yet officially a Democratic seat.)
On a supposed “news” site. Weren’t these slimebags supposed to slither away in shame and disgrace after January 20th?