Ann Coulter is a horrible, ignorant person who once wrote a whole book accusing liberals of being Godless, as if that were an insult, and advancing arguments against evolution that made the standard noisy creationist look like a veritable scholar. I looked at her arguments, and I made a public challenge back in 2006 for any defenders to pick one paragraph from the book and we’d discuss it in detail — there have been no takers, not one person willing to stand up and support in detail any claim she had made. She also made some amazingly inane arguments: did you know that one strike against evolution is that the people who study it are mere biologists, which is not really a science, and that there are more women working in biology than, say, physics?
I was tearing into her quite regularly for a while there after that book came out. She was such an easy target.
But no matter. I’m acutely envious of Carl Zimmer, who Coulter regards as a giant flatulent raccoon. Man, I would love to have that on my résumé. Alas, Coulter has no idea who I am, so I’m not going to get that recognition.
By the way, the Coulter challenge is still open, and has been for five years. All anyone has to do is pick one paragraph, any paragraph, from her evolution chapters in Godless, and post it with a defense of its accuracy. That shouldn’t be so hard, should it? She wrote this whole book, I’m letting you pick the very best, most solid, strongest argument against evolution from it and present it here to stump us all. It’s strange that no one has managed to do that in all this time.
(By the way, as is usual whenever I mention Coulter, there will be petty people who will sneer at her appearance or make ugly remarks about her sexuality. Do not do that. I will cut you.)
(Also on Sb)
Remember that time she tried plugging her book on the Adam Carolla Show? He didn’t know who she was, but she had such a snotty attitude that he called her a bitch and hung up on her.
This was an awesome moment.
Boxcutter enforcement.
She’s in it for the money. If you offered her enough money to support Evolution and Atheism, she would out Dawkins Dawkins and out Hitchens Hitchens. But alas, she would still say PZ who?
Nahhh. I can tell you now that that particular fart only created Ann Coulter.
We can’t sneer? That’s not fair.
Sneer at her ideas and her stupidity. Those are definitely sneer-worthy.
It’s too bad her book is called “Godless”, that would be a good title for a gnu atheist book.
Yep, she’s in it for the money.
I’m curious, though. How would you like Ann to memorialize you? Since “giant flatulent raccoon” is taken, and since her taunts generally all “sneer at appearance or make ugly remarks about sexuality,” you’ll need to put something forward; I suggest your mustache. Would you rather go with a cephalopod theme and riff on Cthulhu, or go with the obvious but lame gibes about walruses?
It’s important; if you want Coulter to take a stab at you, you probably want to get in on the ground floor guiding her selection.
I have no opinion of Coulter’s sexuality nor do I feel the need to acquire one unless she decides to express her sexuality to me personally. Which is incredibly unlikely. OTOH, my impression of her intellect is that she has the brains of a kumquat and wouldn’t know a legitimate argument against evolution if she somehow stumbled across one. (Which would be hard since they’re as rare as unicorns, but even if Coulter found one she’d screw it up.)
I sometimes wonder whether Coulter is a “horrible, ignorant person” (as you put it, or whether she is 100% insincere and cares only about the money.
You can sneer at her behaviour and
theorieshalf-baked notions, not her throat.Fuck you Ann Coulter, Fuck you, you stupid ignorant moron purposely obfuscating the truth because your only concern is to make money off other stupid ignorant morons. In fact, you may not be as stupid as the ignorant morons you make money off after all, but still, brainless enough to perpetuate ignorance for monetary gain. I hope you end up penniless and bankrupt you fucking asshole.
That felt great…now that it’s out of my system…I can go participate in all the activities that the ignorant morons think will send me to hell.
I sometimes wonder whether Coulter is a “horrible, ignorant person” (as you put it, or whether she is 100% insincere and cares only about the money.
Wouldn’t the latter also imply the former?
Frank Zappa said it best.
What is the ugliest part of your body?
For people like Ann Coulter, it is her mind.
I miss Zappa.
Hmm, the advert above the comments is “Ann Coulter Free! Be among the first to read Ann’s column every week!”
Thanks, but no. I’d sooner put my eyes out with a hot poker than read the stupidity she spouts. I’ve tried to read what she has written, and she’s big on rant, low on actual content.
For some unexplained reason, GOProud, a very conservative gay Republican organisation which is committed to the rollback of any rights LGBT folk have gotten, idolises this woman. She was the keynote speaker at their convention and insulted them through and through, and still they idolise her. Of course, I don’t get GOProud, either.
Am I bad because every time I think of Ann Coulter I feel like I need to go re-watch Henry Rollins’ “letter to Ann Coulter”?
Reply to #7:
Dan Barker (of FFRF) has already written a book called _godless_; (Ulysses Press, 2008)ISBN:978-1-56975-677-5.
Ann Coulter: Setting feminism back a decade with every word she utters.
Speaking of this screeching banshee, she recently posted this baffling attack on evolution on WingNutDaily.
It included this bit:
This argument is, of course, one of the many reasons that creationism itself fails.
The fact that she included this reasoning in this piece makes me suspect that she’s trolling the world on purpose.
I agree that she shouldn’t be attacked for her looks or anything superficial like that (but FSM, it’s tempting because it’s soooo easy), if anything because she that tactic against others and we should be better than that.
But really, her comments about evolution can be addressed by doing token research in a decent biology library. So either she doesn’t do her research or chose to ignore what she found.
She’s as big an expert on evolution as she is on military history. Until I saw her interview on CBC I had no idea Canada had sent troops to Vietnam. :)
@MaJeff in #13:
It would imply that she’s horrible, not necessarily that she’s ignorant. She might be incredibly knowledgeable about the market value of feigned ignorance.
But I’d have to read her, line by line, to try to find one that was even remotely defensible. Why do you hate me so?
This might be the wrong place to look for a fan of Ann Coulter. I don’t even like her that much, and I’m a Christian, a conservative Republican, and (what the heck, might as well come clean) a regular viewer of the O’Reilly Factor, along with Pharyngula.
Also, Coulter IS a satirist. Does one “defend” Candide? Or just laugh along, unless one is too offended to de-pucker one’s lips? She is, at least, often funny.
Also (from skimming it in an airport bookstore or somewhere) I don’t think that much of the book is on evolution. And as a non-scientist, even if I did find a choice paragraph in it somewhere, I wouldn’t dare challenge Dr. Myers on his own subject, on his own site, defending someone else’s claims.
That’s three degrees of insanity. One, or at most two, is my limit, being as confessed a conservative.
Re: #20
I didn’t know that banshees are exclusively female; I just thought they were loud wailers.
I now retract “banshee” and replace it with “intellect vampire”.
Coulter? She’s still, considering the brain-dead quality of her ideas, alive-ish?
The banner ad says “Ann Coulter – Free!”
I never knew she was in prison, never mind released! Just goes to show how out of touch I am!
Oh please David. Bringing that excuse up in light of the specific subject matter of this post is stupid even for you.
She’s wrong on many levels. And not even wrong on many more. Hiding behind the “it’s satire” excuse only flies so far. In this case, it doesn’t even fly.
When?
It’s pretty obvious that she is a real-life troll who vocalizes stupid opinions for money (as well as the enjoyment she gets when people analyze and get REALLY MAD about the stupid nonfactual things she says, as if reality had anything to do with them). I don’t know why more people don’t recognize this.
Ann Coulter is pathetic excuse for a human being. A few weeks ago she was on Bill Maher’s show and claimed that we bombed Egypt to remove Mubarak. When everyone on the panel got done ridiculing her ignorance she back peddled a little bit and claimed that we didn’t actually bomb, but we threatened to. It was pointed out to her that she must be sniffing glue, because we never did any such thin, she just stuck to her guns insisting she was right.
David Coulter
O RLY? Care to provide evidence of this?
I *know* that we have evidence that the right wing can’t tell satire from a 2×4 applied forcefully to the head (Stephen Colbert is all the evidence we need).
However – where is your evidence that Coulter is a Colbert, other than in your head?
Every. Single. Datum. points to Coulter being nothing more than an opportunist. That is something really quite different from a satirist.
You wish. It’s simply grafted into her from the DI’s CSC, and she’s merely being as stupid as, say, Dembski or Behe.
She just says it louder.
Glen Davidson
David Marshall
The mistake a lot of people make with comedy is to think “But its just a joke” as if that means it shouldn’t be thought about.
But the thing is – humour is used to communicate ideas and satire is used to make points. Much like a metaphor has to be a metaphor for something, humour is a means of describing the world.
Thus if a satirist gets something dramatically wrong, if the point they are trying to make is false or stupid, then that point is still subject to argument.
That Coulter tries to hide her hideous ideology behind “But I’m just joking” – just marks her as being exactly the same insult to comedy that people who end posts with lol are. She believes what she says, she just thinks calling it satire immunises it from criticism.
Satire is not a synonym for humour. Satire also requires the satirist not to be intellectually dishonest. Coulter is funny only in that we laugh at her, not with her.
I love this clip from a debate between Coulter and Al Franken where he so successfully demonstrates what a shallow and horrid person she is, mostly by letting her speak for herself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=susZ2ceEHwk
Why, when she bullies minorities, of course. Don’t you get humor?
#25
Satirists are funny. Ergo Coulter is not a satirist. Plus too many people take her seriously. George Carlin is a satirist. You can tell (most of the time) when he’s not being serious. The only time when Coulter says she was “joking” is when she says something so crazy that it causes outrage. Then it’s like, “I was only kidding. Quit attacking me!”
I think it goes a little deeper than that. I don’t think she stumbled on a money-maker. I think she consciously looked about for a subject that would create a lot of controversy, and consciously took the side that she knew would both provoke one side, while raking in money from the other, both sides feeding the other, to the delight and expansion of her bank account.
I don’t get the feeling that she’s committed to any particular ideology, other than the one that provides her income.
She’s like a troll, and we shouldn’t feed them, I’m told.
Of course, I refuse to read her books, so I could be wrong.
That’s like calling you a scholar.
Oh, she sometimes rants so over the top that it’s clear that she’s joking to a degree. So she’s closer to being a satirist than David is to being a scholar. But she’s actually rather too directly attacking to be counted a true satirist.
Gee, David gets it wrong. Not exactly shifting his strategies, is he?
Glen Davidson
Does anyone really pay attention to Coulter anymore? Isn’t she who you call when your scheduled guest cancels at the last minute?
I remember this one time, I was rummaging through the bargain bin at my local bookstore. I thought I found a ransom note written by someone suffering from hypergraphia, but it turned out to be one of Ann Coulter’s books. It could have been “Slander”, but who the hell can remember all the details of a literary rape. I’m certainly traumatized (I can only remember the shrapnel of sentence fragments being everywhere and the scent of name-calling).
Well, you’re a bit sanctimonious sounding, to me, on the heels of the Bachmann photo, which – after all – was only a commentary which exploited her appearance, exploited her physical form (as a symbol of what devouring a corndog?). So to talk about Coulter’s eye makeup as contributing to her looking like a grim reaper (or some such) is no different. But that is in the past.
Good of you to address Coulter, but I wont lower myself to giving a shit about what she has to say, any more. Not even for the sake of grandstanding. Of course she’s ignorant; of course she’s evil.
Thanks. I’m sick of transphobic comments towards Coulter.
Actually I also think that Coulter is a satirist. My evidence? I attended a talk by her, and the (mostly conservative) audience laughed the whole time. She spent most of the time cracking jokes, though she was also earnest in her views. “It’s satire” is not an excuse, for it excuses nothing. But I still think it’s true.
The funny thing is that most conservatives don’t get Coulter either. I remember watching the end of a talk she was giving to some gathering of College Republicans a number of years back–just the usual diatribe against liberals, nothing out of the ordinary there.
But then she took questions, and the young and earnest in the crowd began peppering her with questions about what conservatives should be doing to promote and advance their agenda in Washington. She kind or hummed and hawed through a couple of answers and then held up her hand and said something like:
“Look. That’s not what I do. I’m not the one you should be looking for ideas, solutions, and answers from.”
It’s the exact same thing with Limbaugh — they are attack dogs, and nothing more. They simply do not have any interest in proposing solutions for themselves. It’s not what they do, and they probably couldn’t do it even if they tried.
Wow! Cor, you are saying that C**lt*r was zinged by the host of “The Man Show” and the author of In Fifty Years, We Will All Be Chicks? That would be incredibly awesome. This is, if Adam Corolla were a worthwhile person.
David Marshall, if *nn C**lt*r is satire, she is lampooning you side. And many of your comrades are taking her seriously.
In this case it is 100% an excuse. She’s not satirizing anything when speaking on Evolution, she’s just being 100% wrong. Claiming she’s a satirist is essentially excusing her wrongness. Bringing up her questionable position as a satrist is a diversionary tactic and subsequently, 10lbs of shit in a 5lbs bag.
Do you consider Rush a Satirist as well?
Coulter is sometimes useful for pointing out the hypocrisy of conservative Christians. She is so brash and crass with her crude attacks on liberals that while the Religious Right laps it all up, a good number of them will cringe at little at the same time, realizing that a lot of what she says isn’t at all in line with the sort of thing a good Christian is supposed to say.
Thus when people like James Dobson dedicates two radio shows to interviewing Ann Coulter (about her “Godless” book), it provides an opportunity for liberals and non-theists to go after people like Dobson for accommodating Coulter’s hateful and often indefensible rhetoric.
Sure, many so-called Christian conservatives don’t care, but I’ve met enough of them who are embarrassed that Coulter is seen as their ally over the years.
Oh right, she knows that to be the truth. Actually, there are quite a number of homologies between the bacterial flagellum and other parts. Possibly not each has an individual value, but that’s not a fair test anyhow.
There is a host of tests, from nested hierarchies to the slavishly derivative nature of life that evolution has passed. Notably, no one has come close to demonstrating that any organ couldn’t have arisen by “numerous, successive, slight modifications,” least of all Coulter. OTOH, since evolution isn’t a religion, not everyone thinks that all of the evolution took place in the original Darwinian sense–yet in defense of Darwin, note that Darwin himself wasn’t actually talking about organelles (does that make a significant difference or not? I don’t know, but he wasn’t).
But here’s another thing. Suppose that it turned out that the bacterial flagellum were created. What would that tell us about wings, eyes, and tetrapod skeletons? They clearly arose as expected from non-teleological evolution, not through some divine creative act–or at least that is all that we can determine through legitimate tests. That, of course, is why we actually do suppose that the flagellum arose by evolution–along with the homological evidence, of course.
This is the thing, morons like them think that we’re supposed to throw away evolution over the bacterial flagellum, when we don’t begin to have a reason to do so, and a host of reasons not to do so. And they still manage to explain nothing that evolution does, including the flagellum homologies.
So the ranter thinks we’re like a flash mob. Either she doesn’t know what a flash mob is, or what biology is. I’m betting on the latter.
Glen Davidson
Coulter is in it for her Honorary Man badge. The money is just an extra perk. She’s not better than Schlafly and Bachmann in that respect. She craps on women so that men will like her and tell her she’s not as bad as the rest of us.
I’ve noticed that whenever some right-wing loon comes up for discussion, people find it necessary to get into the “real believer/craven opportunist” debate. And almost always, the commenter comes down on the side of “they’re only doing it for the money”. Beck, Falwell, Robertson, O’Reilly…all of them shysters who would be stumping for Obama and universal healthcare if there was more money in it.
I guess it comes down to we in the reality based community finding it incomprehensible that someone could actually believe this crap and more or less form complete sentences. For me, I’ve always thought that Coulter and her ilk really are true believers–yeah, they’ll lie at the drop of a hat, and they love that right-wing demagoguery is so lucrative, but I don’t doubt that they buy into most of what they’re peddling.
And yeah, it seems she isn’t getting called as much for her punditry lately. I’m surprised she hasn’t amped up the outrageousness.
There are a large number of people who sneer at her appearance? Really? I don’t really doubt it, but I don’t understand it. Why not just call the idiot an idiot instead of saying that you don’t find her attractive (which really isn’t an insult at all)?
You are my hero, PZ. Thank you.
David Marshall, Sarah Silverman is satire. *nn C**lt*r is no Sarah Silverman.
People laughed != it’s satire.
People laugh because she zings, because she’s over-the-top, and because she includes satirical elements in her writing and speeches. She’s not a satirist as such, any more than “what’s up with airline food?” is satire.
I think she’s often entertaining to listen to, in fact. But again it’s her excessive attacks. One could pick out bits and pieces from all over where you could say, “ok, that’s meant to be satirical.” She just doesn’t actually create satires, though. There’s always a slavering attack dog aspect there, which can be funny (is in cartoons), but she’s really calling biologists a bunch of unthinking idiots, not writing a satire in which some particular incident or aspect could be skewered. “You’re a bunch of assholes” isn’t satire no matter how you dress it up, or even if it is done in a funny way.
The satirical elements are always too fleeting for what she does to be called satire. There’ll be a satirical or sardonic claim, then she’s back to the attack.
Anyhow, satire is often unfair to the extreme, meant to make people or events appear ridiculous even when they’re not.
Which changes nothing about Coulter not doing satire (except in bits and pieces, at best). She attacks, sometimes using satirical elements, but mostly with a sledgehammer wit that attempts to bludgeon with unfair “facts,” disingenuous claims, and disanalogies. An attack piece doesn’t become satire just because a few bits and pieces are on the satirical side.
Glen Davidson
Dear Ann did a great job of defending her claims with Jeremy Paxman’s interview on BBC. Her response when asked for an alternative to evolution is priceless. She may not be Stephen Colbert, but she is often as entertaining.
Translation: She is not a satirist, because that would be politically inconvenient for me.
Come on, is it really so hard to imagine that Coulter is a sack of lies and inanities AND a satirist?
It’s sort of like when people attack Coulter’s appearance by insinuating transsexualism. Obviously such people are making jokes… which doesn’t stop them from being transphobic assholes… which doesn’t stop them from being attempts at jokes… which doesn’t stop them from being transphobic assholes.
@Glen Davidson,
I basically agree with everything you said. Our disagreement is on what qualifies as a “satirist”, and I have no interest in defending any particular definition.
There’s nothing wrong with Ann that 40 pounds and a lobotomy can’t take care of.
Re earleycuyler @ #3
She’s in it for the money. If you offered her enough money to support Evolution and Atheism, she would out Dawkins Dawkins and out Hitchens Hitchens. But alas, she would still say PZ who?
I once read several years ago that a former gentleman friend of Coulters’ said, in an interview, that she didn’t believe 90% of the crap that comes out of her mouth or her word processor.
Up here in Canada we have Giant Flatulent Beavers.
Uhh, guys. Don’t even go there…
I’m half tempted to play devil’s advocate and see if I can find something, anything that I could possibly twist about from her book. Having never read it, I have no clue what kind of crap she put in there.
*sighs* Let’s do an argument from absurdity test here… let’s compare two equally polarising figures – One is an admitted Comedian and a staunch progressive Mr. Jamie Kilstein and one indivdual who claims to be a satarist (a variant on comedian) Ms Ann Coulter.
First Up: Jamie Kilstein
“What happens when you don’t criticise politicians on the left is like… so the Gay Community totally supported Barak Obama and his first decision is to have Rick Warren give the opening prayer at his inauguration. Rick Warren renowned Homophobe.
So I go onto Rick Warren’s Website ’cause I want to find homophobic stuff so I can trash him on stage. I found homophobic stuff, but I also found sexist stuff too, and I don’t know why that surprised me, but I was like ‘Alright kicking it old school, that’s fine I guess.’ Essentially he has all these commercials where women teach other women how to be subservient to their husbands and so I memorised one I wanted to read to you.
It was the first one I clicked on and it was this very pretty middle age woman sitting on the couch, big smile, one of those gun in the back smiles like ‘ha ha don’t pull the trigger’ like – let’s just call it the Scientology smile.”
(source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxHO0-_Jwk0)
And now for a Random Ann Coulter clip
(Clip of Obama saying the Religon was Hijacked by the Right, )
Anchor Asks: “You wrote a book called ‘Godless’ about the liberals, isn’t that devisive”
Ann: “Right, unlike a guy running for president making that little speech, in a church, in order to advance his nomination to be the Democrat Presidental Nominne.”
Anchor: “So only Republicans can talk in churches right?”
Ann: “No, but I do think anyone named B. Hussein Obama should avoid using ‘hijack’ and ‘religion’ in the same sentence”
Anchor: “I see, so you want to paint him as a terrorist to highlight his middle name Hussein…”
Ann: “Too avoid those two togeather”
Anchor: “…so only you and conservitives can talk like that? So someone with the name ‘Hussein’ should talk like that”
Ann: “Avoid ‘hijack’ and ‘religon'”
Anchor: “I see. When you say for example, ‘Democrats cannot concieve hate speech towards Christians, in their eyes Christians always deserve it’…”
Ann: “Right, as per Obama’s Speech”
Anchor: “That’s not devisive, ‘Assuming your aren’t a fetus the left’s most dangerous belief is their adderation of violent criminals'”
Ann: “That’s a beautiful line”
Anchor: “I know you love hearing yourself quoted”
Ann: “I do!”
Anchor: “Only the Right has religon the way it should be, but not the Left, right?”
Ann: “That’s Correct”
Anchor: “I think we’ve made the point that Ann Coulter might be Exibit A in terms of how they like to use religion and try to clober libreals over the head with it. Of course unfairly so and inaccurantly so.”
Someone Else Answers Question Sanly, but then Comes back to Coulter…
Anchor: “Obama says, ‘All children of God is chosen by God, rather we believe the worth and digity of every human being.’ Do you agree?”
Ann: “Yeah we actually do beleive it, that’s why we don’t think you should puncturing the skulls of fetuses and sucking the brains out, when he speaks on how divissive Chrstians are …”
Video kills out their
(Source: Hanity and Colbs, Fox News Channel, June 23 2009, Youtube Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H1YJCzjWeI)
I know which side I think is the real comedian, and which side I think is just saying it so people stop attacking her ideas.
Tacitus’s comment #45 about Coulter’s lack of policy and solutions made me think of a qoute of the Joker in “The Dark Knight”;
The same could be said about Rush, Beck, etc. On her appearance:
Seems to take the fun out of it. After all, Rick Perry is qualified for President because he has “presidential hair”.
You think that gets you off the hook?
I stopped arguing over whether or not Coulter really believed in her writing partly because her public profile seems greatly diminished these days, and partly because I’m not sure which is worse: That she really does believe these odious things and gets rich for writing them, or she doesn’t believe and cynically cashes in on the baser instincts of her audience. Neither is really consistent with having any hope for humanity.
Can we still speculate on Cthoulter’s species?
I’m voting for Bugblatter Beast of Traal
See, this is satire, pretending that Coulter really is a satirist who people just don’t get.
But yes, if she were actually playing like she were some weird right-winger, then she could be considered to be a satirist.
Oh, she’s working the crowd. But satire would be Al Franken playing Rush Limbaugh, not Ann Coulter playing herself.
Glen Davidson
Seymour Brighton, Seth MacFarland did not say any of that shit on this blog. I do not care about the three comment suggestion in this case. There is enough stupidity in his statement for a few stupid statements.
Threaten me with a petition.
Re: satire
A good satirist takes something that is true about the object of satire, and extends the trait to the point of absurdity, which makes it satirical. A bad satirist (which is the best that most “conservative” humorists are) take a false characteristic (a straw man, e.g.) and take it to the point of absurdity, which only serves to demonstrate the cluelessnes of the wannabe satirist.
Bruce: You’re right that good satire should make a point, and that’s where the humor should arise from. I was conscious of that: Coulter’s satire would only be effective, and really funny, if it reveals something true about her targets. Since her targets are roughly the kind of people who post on Pharyngula, and since her satire can be nasty, I wouldn’t expect many people here to appreciate any truth that might be found in her political (won’t say scientific) jibes: that would be like showing Religulous in church, and expecting the deacons to laugh.
So all I can say is, Coulter makes me laugh sometimes, as Bill Maher (who can be pretty nasty himself) may make some other posters laugh. I might even laugh too, sometimes. But I wouldn’t want to have to prove the humor in a court of law.
After reading one of Coulter’s books, I conceived a perverse fantasy: set Ann Coulter and Richard Dawkins up for a blind date at the Head of the River pub in Oxford, then hide behind a pint of beer at the next table and video the love-talk.
Hey “Coulter is a satirist” proponents, could any of you provide an example of this “satire”?
Do you people actually understand what satire is? To quote Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
#60- I don’t think a lobotomy would help. The idea reminds me of a line from a cartoon- “I was going to brain-wash him, but you cannot wash a peanut.”
Comment by Seymour Brighton blocked. [unkill][show comment]
Seems to me she is an opportunist. Good at marketing herself and knows her audience well. Doesn’t really know her subject matter, but she probably has a staff for that… I doubt she would debate with PZ because she would need to know her subject matter. I see her as a better educated Christine O’Donnell.
Far too often I hear in response to a right-wing internet screed, “There’s no way anyone would believe that! It must be a Poe!”
Speaking as a former conservative, Republican, and Christian, I can certify that there are people who believe this crap. I used to. They still make up a majority of my own family. I hear them chat about politics and religion at local restaurants and the supermarket.
For instance: Earlier this year, I heard a group of about a dozen 50-60-somethings chatting about the evils of socialism and Obama. The old, white, man who was leading the conversation proclaimed that “education was not a right” and that those who could not afford to learn how to read, write, and perform basic maths should instead prepare for a career in ditch-digging. He went on to suggest those on welfare should be required to live in barracks and work on various government projects without pay.
Everyone in his audience bobbed their heads in agreement.
These people are real. They really believe what they say they believe and they are far, far, more common than we like to admit.
Yeah! Just like those “nigger” jokes you and your fellow Republicans love so much. All that stuff about watermelons, fried chicken, crack cocaine, stealing TV sets, welfare queens, and lusting after white women; they are just SO true.
Go fuck off, David. Go fuck off with a dildo wrapped in razor wire.
Akira MacKenzie #77
Unfortunately this is true. Rush Limbaugh did not become a millionaire by chance. He calls Obama a fascist and a communist in the same breath and the dittoheads nod. He tells his listeners the lieburls want to take all their money and give it to the
niggerspoor and the audience shouts “Amen!” And Coulter is even worse than Limbaugh. Does she have a problem finding an audience to agree with her? Not hardly.David Marshall writes books exposing atheists as lacking a true philosophical appreciation of The Big Guy In The Sky but do the books sell? No, not really. Ann Coulter writes a book calling atheists orgiastic baby-killers and she makes the New York Times bestseller list.
There is plenty of reason to criticize Coulter (her anti-women/gay/secular stance, blatant lies, hypocrisy. . .), but her “womanliness” and appearance isn’t one of them.
@70:
Mike. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
What exactly do you mean by that question?
[one]
Oh hey! I forgot we could do that now! I think I’ll celebrate!
Comment by Seymour Brighton blocked. [unkill][show comment]
I’d forgotten exactly how carefully Ann Coulter treads the line between acceptable speech and incitement. It’s deeply frustrating, when you know that she and people like her are basically egging on the real attack dogs, the people who take their rhetoric seriously and commit violence against innocent people, and they haven’t the decency to stop themselves.
Satire and hyperbole are not the same thing.
Most satire is taking your opposition’s views to the extreme, not your own. Taking your own positions to the extreme is just hyperbole. Exagerating your own position in the context of satire would be commentary on your own kind rather than the other kind. It doesn’t make any sense and isn’t satire. What it really is is nothing more than inflammatory speech directed at true believers of the underlying concept. It is a joke that is funny (to believers) because it’s exagerating the belief.
Inflammatory, hyperbolic speech can be funny based on how you view humor, but it’s not satire.
Why? As I said back in the Dawkins/Vernon thread, why should I care about the feelings, health, or general welfare of a someone who subscribes to religion, capitalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, militarism, anti-intellectualism, or any other ideology that is factually wrong and/or detrimental to our civilization? Poking fun at a conservative’s looks is the very least I want to see done to them.
In short: If it hurts, use it. They fucking deserve it.
@Akira:
Because the vast majority of the time someone comments on Coulter’s “womanliness” it’s done by saying she’s really a man (as per Mike at 70 above.) This is horribly mean to her, and at the same time offends those of us who are transgendered!
Attack her ideas, attack her stances, but don’t attack the incorrect and transphobic idea that she’s really a guy.
@my 85:
*don’t state the incorrect idea…
You shouldn’t. You should care about the feelings, health, and general welfare of the comparatively innocent women you are discouraging from public life by reinforcing an environment that considers their looks an acceptable way to hurt them, and you should care about those people who are harmed by the transphobia frequently used against Ann Coulter. Bigotry doesn’t just harm its target.
Akira
No. Those attacks on her womanliness always end up being an insult to women who don’t fit in to a certain range of our definition of “women”. Throwing transgendered people under the bus just to insult Coulter isn’t cool. Throwing non-feminine women under the bus just to insult Coulter isn’t cool.
Hating Coulter for her politics is okay. Saying she is a horrible person (and she is) is okay. Coulter does deserve to be mocked and ridiculed (She, after all, said that killing abortion doctors was the same as fighting for rights and democracy). But that doesn’t mean you drag other people down with her with these gendered insults.
Being just a dimwitted fan of evolution I won’t attempt to go up against the full breadth of Ann Coulter’s intellectual rigor. I will only make this single hypotheses: After observing the latest evidence I have come to the conclusion that Ann Coulter’s brain was not intelligently designed.
I was reading one of her articles earlier and stopped probably before the halfway point. I’d seen it before.
Man, if creationists and other science-deniers are going to stay interesting, they’re gonna have to come up with more and more outlandish ideas. It’s
likebeing a fiction writer!I missed one:
Comment by Mike de Fleuriot blocked. [unkill][show comment]
madknitter,
Obligatory Flawless clip
I could see how one could interpreter what she does as satire. it is not very good satire nor can one look at it as very broad either. It comes from a very narrow point of view which is full of misinformation and an almost complete lack of understanding. It is only really funny to a very small close minded group, It plays on the prejudices and ignorance of its audience much like the “entertainment” of mr “I’m just an entertainer” Limbaugh
it is somewhat cleaver in the use of words but neither funny nor interesting just mostly just too nasty for me to tolerate.
uncle frogy
Or translation, you have a reading comprehension issue. And how would it be politically inconvenient for me?
No, not at all, but again you didn’t understand what i said. Satirist or not, she’s not satirizing when she’s discussing evolution (among many other things). That’s not satire. That just stupidity on display. She uses her claimed stance as a satirist as a shield so that she can espouse inanities and then have her sycophants claim “Oh that’s just satire”. It’s a diversion. And people fall for it.
It’s sort of like when people attack Coulter’s appearance by insinuating transsexualism. Obviously such people are making jokes… which doesn’t stop them from being transphobic assholes… which doesn’t stop them from being attempts at jokes… which doesn’t stop them from being transphobic assholes.
You really think how she described evolution is an attempt at a joke?
Awfully convenient that is.
fucking blockquote
“Go fuck off, David. Go fuck off with a dildo wrapped in razor wire.”
Thanks, Akira. Apparently our sexual customs differ, but I do so much appreciate the offer.
Thank you for that. I’m not a fan, but misogyny is still misogyny, whether the target is Rebecca Watson or Ann Coulter.
I suppose I could, just to play devil’s advocate, present a paragraph from Coulter’s horrorshow screed, but that would entail actually spending good money that might otherwise go to productive use on her book. Further, it would then require actually endangering brain cells in order to read the book.
No, sorry. I don’t think I’ll take the risk. We’re full up on toilet paper anyway.
DBM, you still here? I thought you left for greener pastures. All you will find here is well deserved ridicule for your less than intelligent thoughts, lies, and posts.
It’s simple really. GOProud benefits by screwing the rest of us LGBT folks.
(Also, it should be noted that they mostly fit the stereotypical conservative except gay.)
David Marshall, please make use of your dazzling intellect and towering scholarship and point out how *nn C**lt*r is satirizing the real traits of US liberals. Or do you think that US liberals are actually commit treason and are demonic?
Also, that was not a cleaver response to Akira. But I do not expect clever from you.
@Dm
Why can’t you appreciate Akira’s satire?
This is part of the reason why right wingers are generally not funny. They don’t get that satire requires pointing out absurdities in something (REAL absurdities) and highlighting it tongue in cheek, their idea of satire is just verbal abuse.
Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” is funny and biting because it takes the callousness of the British at the time towards the Irish and strips it of false smiles and facade…if the British weren’t actually being cruel to the Irish it would’ve just been an odd bit of Brit bashing.
Depicting a french character as being polite and deferential to an American in one breath then speaking in french insulting them MIGHT be satire on the relations between the countries. Depicting a french character as a coward who surrenders to fleas isn’t satire.
You shouldn’t make fun of Ann Coulter’s appearance for a variety of reasons. But her fee-fees aren’t one of them.
First of all, as a skeptic, you should realize that her Adam’s apple is not relevant to her arguments. Even if she were transsexual, that would not affect the validity of her arguments in any way. Honestly, if you claim to be a skeptic and need to have this explained to you, then you should be ashamed.
Second, by dismissing her arguments based on her appearance, you are also dismissing other people who either look like her, or actually the things you are using to try to insult her. If you say should be dismissed because she’s a woman with an Adam’s apple, you are saying that other women with Adam’s apples also aren’t worth listening too, even if they are actually right. By trying to insult her by calling her transsexual, you are necessarily implying that transsexual is a bad thing to be just by its own virtue, and that transsexuals are already something bad just by being themselves. If you are a progressive and you really need this spelled out to you like this, then again you should be ashamed.
This isn’t about hurting her feelings. Feel free to insult her in any legitimate way you please. If her feelings are hurt when I say her arguments are uninformed, then I don’t really care. But keep the criticisms legit, and that’s certainly not a hard thing to do with someone like Coulter.
Dianne:
Now THAT’S the RIGHT way to sneer at Ann Coulter. Molly nom.
David Marshall:
You misspelled “hateful” there.
Look, it’s simple, if Coulter is a satirist she’s a pathetically bad one, so claiming she is a satirist doesn’t exactly raise her standing any. It just makes her a shitty, failed, hateful satirist rather than a shitty, failed, hateful human being.
Eracer:
Don’t do that.
Because you’re not just poking fun at her.
“She looks just like a man, hahahahaha.” Well, what’s so funny about women who are not feminine enough for you? Why is merely pointing this out to them supposed to be so insulting?
“She’s actually a man in women’s clothes, hahahaha.” Well, what’s so funny about men who crossdress? What’s so funny about transgendered people? Why is merely pointing this out to them supposed to be so insulting?
“She’s so ugly, hahahahaha.” Well, what’s so funny about women who do not meet your personal criteria for attractiveness? Why is merely pointing this out to them supposed to be so insulting?
…
You get the idea. Hopefully.
The sexiest part of any human being is their brain.
Madame Curie was sexy.
Anna Kay Behrensmeyer is sexy. Look at all her publications.
Marianne von Harnack is sexy.
Caroline Shoemaker is sexy.
Ann Coulter (link to scan of her brain) is as completely asexual as a lump of granite.
Again, can David Marshall or any other Coulter apologist give me an example of something Coulter wrote as satire, please?
You can be lazy and just provide a link, if you want.
See, I’m just seeing all this non-response as validating my belief that conservatives just don’t have any clue what the fucking Jesus-shit-on-a-magic-cracker satire actually is.
@Akira MacKenzie
Because it hits innocent bystanders.
There are plenty of people who are physically unattractive, and people who are transgendered who are nothing like Ann Coulter, and by insulting her for that you make it appear that that is what you are insulting her for.
Her views are disgusting, her looks are irrelevant.
She’s not a satirist. It’s pretty easy to tell: if she were, then her audience would be liberals, not conservatives. A satirist’s audience isn’t the people they’re mocking, it’s the side they sympathize with. Coulter plays to conservatives. She directly targets them for her books and speeches and such, and they see her as one of them, and she never, never says that they’re wrong.
If she’s a satirist, she’s the deepest undercover satirist there has ever been.
Actually, it was the only thing outside of a jackhammer that I could think of that could penetrate the notoriously retentive anus of the average Christian.
If anything, I was suggesting the gentler option.
I’d pay good money to be Ann Coulter-free. Sadly her ads keep showing up.
If Coulter thinks she’s doing satire, she (like half the commenters here) gets satire backwards. It’s not a matter of amplifying your attacks on the people you don’t like to vicious extremes and then calling it “humor” — it’s about exaggerating the attitudes of those you oppose to comical extremes. While certain of Coulter’s characterizations of the political center-right (who she calls “the Left”) look like satire, they’re not — she insists that her claims and descriptions are accurate.
Huh, did PZ do some un-announced cleanup ? Seems like some people are replying to posts that are no longer there … Or am I just overlooking something ?
@hotshoe:
Looks like he did.
Ah. That’s how you got to be quite such a stupid, dishonest jerk. I did wonder.
hotshoe: probably people who couldn’t keep their opinions about her looks in their pants. They were warned.
I’m sure there are some things that Ann says that are correct. After all a broken clock is correct twice a day. What makes Ann so repulsive is the crap that comes out of her mouth.
I want to see her in a celebrity death match!
Yes, that’s fine, and sufficient justice.
I was just surprised that I didn’t see a note from our ECO to clear up my confusion about the posts replying to apparently non-existent posts.
A broken clock that’s stopped is correct twice a day; a broken clock that’s still running but slow is only right once in years.
Ann Coulter is the second kind of clock …
If Coulter was actually a transexual would her audience still find her appealing? Unlike being gay or lesbian you can’t simply “find Jesus” and stop “sinning.” I suspect if she was they’d drop her like a hot potato.
OK, I won’t go there, but please don’t anyone say they find her beautiful. That’s just as sexist, in its way, and hellz the fuck not true, objectively.
Oh snap, I went there.
Better get while the gettin’s good…
Least idiotic thing you’ve said in your entire post, and still stupid enough to get gumbied. Good show. Get lost.
@Akira: two words. Collateral Damage.
Threatening circumcision? Isn’t that rather, um…, SEXIST? Maybe I’ll start a petition to have you institutionalized! LOL
You, sir, are a fucking hero. The comments people make about Coulter on Bill Maher’s Facebook page incense my feminist ire and almost make me ashamed to call myself a liberal.
Somebody @121
Wow.
That was … just … sniny.
LOL
#121 is conservative satire at its
lamestfinest. Misses the point, and smirks while missing it.I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to jive with the stream of bad faith assumptions that are thrown the way of every conservative that’s capable of compiling a paragraph correctly. I don’t see why they have to always be cynically exploiting the ignorance of the unwashed bunch, because it just seems immensely unlikely that in all the cases these assumptions are made, that writing conservative books is best possible method for making gobs of money. If they really believed liberal ideologies, why wouldn’t they just write books targeted at incensing liberal audiences? For that matter, why not make a switch mid-career? That would be hugely appealing, and almost certainly a gigantic cash cow.
Because it’s hard to accept that people capable of writing coherently are also stupid enough to buy obvious falsehoods. But it’s really just a sign that willful ignorance isn’t closely linked to a lack of “natural intelligence.”
Could you do us a favor, Poopyhead, and not nuke comments entirely after they’ve been responded to? Replacing the content with something like “[fuckwittery deleted – PZ]” would be better, IMNSHO.
What Benjamin said.
Ditto Benjamin (especially if you like being called Poopyhead – seems odd, but whatever). I’m never comfortable with deleting non-spam comments. I understand that some comments stink like shit, but I like to think mental adults can handle something like that with the understanding that some people will just be assholes and that’s that.
For the same reason, I’m disappointed with the use of killfiles. I never use it because it smells of retreat; as if one can no longer face the argument or bear the abuse. Killfiles and comment deletions are the blog equivalent of jamming fingers in our ears and humming – potentially a sign of weakness.
Of course, trolls will be trolls and feeding them is usually a bad idea, but maybe we could generally be slower to block out voices we don’t like. (Here I address us all, and not just Admin).
Ok, no more sermon. . . Bugblatter Beast of Traal totally wins this thread!
BTW, comment 121 is in precisely the style of this guy I work with. Imagine being stuck in an ambulance with that guy all fucking day and you have my life. . . It’s absolutely uncanny; to the point that I wonder if it’s actually him.
Somebody – do you live in Folsom?
Cor (formerly evil) #129
There are some people who show themselves as unworthy of even ridicule and derision. Those are the people who get killfiled.
Anyway, your concern is noted.
Cor: ” Killfiles and comment deletions are the blog equivalent of jamming fingers in our ears and humming – potentially a sign of weakness.”
Hey, if you like to listen white noise and call it smooth jazz, that’s cool. But some of us get tired of hearing the same repetitive buzzing noise, hissing the same note incessantly. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.
I use it not to have to read idiocy like you keep posting. Repetitive, inane, insipid, and useless to take the discussion forward. But then, I really haven’t used killfile in a while, but tell people their on my list (they would be if I turned it on), letting them know they are too boring and inane to be read, so maybe they need to improve their game, or go away.
<blockquote@Akira: two words. Collateral Damage.<
@Cath: two words. Ann Coulter.
David said she was at least “funny.” Sneers about her looks are not allowed! Seriously, just be glad she’s on the other side. If she believed in evolution, it would probably be wrong.
Which is totally fine – you’re not instantly blocking people who make you feel yucky; like me, apparently. The point is that you aren’t running from someone, but either engaging them or blowing right past their twaddle. This seems like the mature route when dealing with the unworthy; again, like me.
What I don’t like at all is instant (single comment) kills and the proud announcement that the commenter Has Had Enough of This, followed by a flounce to the old killfile to keep out the bad gris-gris.
FWIW, I haven’t noticed you doing this Nerd, but I’ve had it done to me a few times and it always just seemed weak – like so-and-so was taking their ball and going home.
As for scrubbing, I guess that’s at PZ’s pleasure, but I don’t have to like it. Especially when we call conservatives cowards for censoring us when we crash one of their sites.
PZed said he was gonna cut certain comments. If folks were replying to them, that’s their wasted time.
By the way, here in the Ozarks, “cut” used to mean castrated.
Menyambal:
It’s not so much that they’re wasting *their* time, but that they’re wasting everyone else’s time looking for the comments that no longer exist. :-(
Good point, Benjamin.
If Ann C style satire had been used for “modest proposal”: “Boy, those irish sure suck.”
See that isn’t satire.
Actually, could someone post something from Ann C that is even funny?
Ann Coulter, is, quite simply, a complete and utter obnoxious dumb-fuck.
Her malicious hyperbole is lapped up by extremist right-wing wingnuts, and the impact on your country and your politics is…incalculably damaging to say the least.
How can justice-seeking/compassionate/truth-thinking/honest Americans even stand to have to hear her name?
Sometimes I wonder if the U.S. is going to self-destruct from idiocy. Then I’m reminded that there are right-thinking people like PZ, Harris, McCreight, etc. and that maybe it won’t happen.
Free speech is a laudible ideal, but shouldn’t what comes out of one’s mouth have integrity, and some element of truth?
Sadness and hope and all sorts of mixed feelings from one of your friends up north…keep fighting the fight against insanity!
This whole “Ann Coulter used to be a man because she has an adam’s apple” is pure crap anyway. I’ve known plenty of women with protruding thyroid cartilage—singers, mostly. You exercise the musculature around the voicebox constantly, it’ll be pushed forward. I suppose screeching at the top of your lungs would have the same effect.
Cor:
This, from the unbelievably stellar idiot who offended people left and right in this thread and was just so fucking sure you had me pegged, only to be completely and utterly wrong.
You’re stupid and an offensive douchebag, Cor. A killfile is a perfect place for you.
I wonder if she knows anything about evolution.
I tend to find the people who pooh-pooh it the most actually have no clue at all as to what it is and how it works.
(Then again, she strikes me as unwilling to learn, so I wouldn’t waste my breath on it. I doubt anyone would want to waste their time trying to get her to understand it.*)
*: Unrelated rant, but those sorts of people piss me off – people who just don’t want to learn anything. I feel sorry for people who want to learn and aren’t given the chance, but people who are just too lazy or ignorant to even try to learn more about a subject don’t deserve to have the time and effort wasted on them.
I believe that there are plenty of people who believe the bullshit Ann Coulter writes, but Ann Coulter is not among them. If she believed her own bullshit, she wouldn’t be friends with godless satanic treasonous liberal Bill Maher.
Well, it seems I found someone who likes Coulter’s book. I posted a link to this post over there as a throw-down to see if JD Curtis has the balls or the knowledge to take up your challenge.
We’ll see.
There we go: That’s the site for the post by JD Curtis:
http://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/2011/08/science-by-flash-mob.html
I’d have to read her book to take part in the challenge and frankly I’m afraid I’d catch something nasty if I did that. Not worth the risk.
I had no idea that people were still paying attention to Ann Coulter. I thought she was in the box with Macarena and those pictures I never figured out how to cross my eyes to see.
Kantalope asked: “Actually, could someone post something from Ann C that is even funny?”
Probably not. Wingnuts have different definitions of “funny”. After all, they consider Rush Limbaugh a “comedian* and think that the movie “An American Carol” was actually “insightful” and “humorous”.
But, anyway, here’s some of Ms. Coulter’s “hilarity”:
“I don’t really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester. … I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t want to impose my moral values on others.”
“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and ‘We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'”
“I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot.”
“We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee. That’s just a joke, for you in the media.”
“Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots.”
“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”
“Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do. They don’t have the energy. If they had that much energy, they’d have indoor plumbing by now.”
“Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?”
“We’ve finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they don’t want to fight it. They would, except it would put them on the same side as the United States.”
“Democrats couldn’t care less if people in Indiana hate them. But if Europeans curl their lips, liberals can’t look at themselves in the mirror.”
“Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.”
“Liberals are stalwart defenders of civil liberties – provided we’re only talking about criminals.”
“If we’re so cruel to minorities, why do they keep coming here? Why aren’t they sneaking across the Mexican border to make their way to the Taliban?”
And, classiest of all: “I mean, obviously, these people don’t deserve to die for a mistake. Or be raped for a mistake, or be accused of rape for a mistake. But how about warning people not to make mistakes like this?”
She is no satirist, but she is obviously trying to crack a few “jokes”. She is a “humorist” with a simultaneously mean and banal sense of humor, stemming from a persistently distorted view of reality. There are only so many times that you can repeat “libruls r traitors, lol” as a “joke” before someone’s role as a legitimate “comic” comes into question.
Akira = totally missing the point.
It doesn’t matter if you think Ann Coulter is hot, or not, or anything else appearance-wise.
When you say “Dur-hur looks like a man in drag,” the people you hurt with that aren’t Ann Coulter (she doesn’t give a flying fuck), it’s the guys who really do dress in drag and want to be accepted anyhow.
I’m considering saying something along the lines of, “When Coulter is asked a question, she totally pulls an Akira and talks around the point.”
See?
I just forced myself to read all of the quotes in 150.
Except for that crack about how we need oil to get our cocaine delivered, none of them were even witty. In fact, the impression it left me with was of a kind of political Carlos Mencia: one theme, setup-punchline-more setup construction, and a kind of aimless inability to pinpoint the actual humor in any given topic. I believe it was the Buffalo Beast which called her “an insult comic who’s mistaken for a pundit because she isn’t funny.” Exactly right.
I’m having trouble thinking of any conservative who can be funny on purpose. Anybody have an example?
Oh, I get the overall point about unintentially hurting others; however…
Then it sounds like some transvestites might have to learn a little concept called “context.” By attacking Coulter’s appearance, I’m not attacking them, I’m attacking a capitalist christian pile-of-shit who would be insulted by being compared to a group of people SHE thinks are Hell-bound abominations in the eyes of her imaginary sky tyrant.
You don’t think less of transvestites or transsexuals. I really don’t think less of them. However, SHE DOES and if it hurts her precious feelings, then that’s all that matters.
I will use whatever weapon is available to attack the Right wing and the religious until neither are a threat to our civilization. If it were revealed today that Coulter had been sexual molested by her 4th grade gym teacher, I would hope that left-wing atheists would be reminding her of that revelation in as many disgusting and lurid ways as possible every minute of the day until she did us all a favor and attempted to eat the muzzle of a revolver.
This is war. In wars there is indeed “collateral damage,” but if your goal is to win it, then it is unavoidable. I suggest you learn to suck it up. Otherwise, you’re sounding nearly as annoying as the Accommodationist hang-wringers and pearl-clutchers who lecture us that we’re not being nice enough to theist vermin.
Actually what you’re suggesting is that the people you just wronged learn to suck it up because ultimately your victory will be a victory for them. It’s a common enough belief and generally accompanied by a sense of righteousness that is horribly undeserved.
Cor: ” I believe it was the Buffalo Beast which called her “an insult comic who’s mistaken for a pundit because she isn’t funny.” Exactly right.”
Now THAT is humor XD
Also, Akira: Would it then be suitable to call her a lesbian, any variety of gender insults (bitch, slut, cunt, etc.), or possibly throw inapplicable racial slurs at her just because it would hurt Ann Coulter’s feelings? Does it not seem like throwing around accusations that she were gay, for instance, would be throwing LBGT folk under the bus by using the term as a term of insult, just because you know that Ann herself would be particularly resistant to such a label due to Republican Standard Homophobia? It would be akin to us calling her an atheist or a liberal as if it were a term of mockery: we are not hitting her Achilles’ Heel, we are furthering the usage of those group identities as something negative when there is absolutely no need for it.
MANN COLTUR HURRHURRHURRHURRHURR
ME AM SO CLEAVAR
@Akira:
Bullshit.
WARNING: Racism trigger.
To paraphrase now-cut-mike: “*nn C**lt*r’s lazy stupid arguments prove she’s nothing more than a high-yella’ nigger.”
NOW do you get it? Does THAT put things in perspective for you? Insulting C**lt*er using transphobic or sexist comparisons is figuratively no different that using racist terms.
OT: Thanks to you, Janine for the asterix method for avoiding robo-ads touting the lame hyperbolic tome. At least, I assume that’s your reasoning.
Akira MacKenzie said (#153): I will use whatever weapon is available to attack the Right wing and the religious until neither are a threat to our civilization.
A very highly questionable philosophical and practical principle – the end justifies the means – and which has been the cause of much grief and which has led to such edifying and admirable effects as the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and Abu Ghraib.
Ever hear of the concept of a Pyrrhic victory? While real war is the antithesis of civilization in which our better natures frequently – though not always – go by the board, starting with the nuclear option, particularly in a faux-war, is going to very quickly lead to that. If Coulter’s philosophy and ideas are scary then I think some of yours are hardly a whit better and are just as much a threat to our civilization.
Probably should have asked this sooner but what damage are you doing to Ann Coulter? She isn’t becoming anymore of a joke to those who enjoy her commentary and no one on this side of the fence seems to feel there’s anything coming out of her mouth that’s valuable. But as you can clearly see, you are damaging your ‘allies.’ They, unlike Ann Coulter, do feel the sting of your indiscriminate bombing and are growing fed up with it.
What’s the point of calling Ann Coulter tranny or a man in drag if it’s going to retard your advance?
I can confidently say that I really don’t give a flying fuck about propriety, manners, or political correctness anymore. All I know is, that when I look at Ann Coulter and I see a person I want to see her suffer–physically and emotionally–for what she claims to believe, regardless of whether they are real or just a cynical act for the sake of notoriety. After everything they had done throughout the last few decades American history, I want there to be painful consequences for being a theist and/or being a conservative.
I feel nothing but rage whenever I hear (or even think about) them speak on the topics of politics and religion, and it’s becoming harder and harder to contain it. I want to scream. I want to shout. I want to break things and beat the offender until they are a bloody pulp.
All the pointless debate, discussion, “education efforts,” and all the patient waiting for the culture to change in favor of secularism and economic sanity isn’t going fast enough, if it’s doing anything at all. I want results. I want the right-wing and the supernaturalists who lie about reality shut down forever so they are no longer an impediment.
I don’t really give a fuck how.
Calling C**lt*r a b*tch will do this how?
Sigh… It won’t.
Sigh… It won’t.
Whoops… sorry about that. I didn’t think it went through the first time.
That may be the most sickening thing I’ve ever seen someone write. You ought to go over to ERV at scienceblogs; I think those are more your type of people. That kind of attitude is not welcome here.
I didn’t know I had accidentally logged onto “The Intersection” or the JREF Forums.
You are a sad and scary person. Please look again at what you’ve written.
You just expressed the desire for liberals to drive Ann Coulter to commit suicide by exploiting childhood trauma in as many lurid and disgusting ways imaginable. How exactly did you expect that to be received?
Why do you care?
I really do hope that’s just the irrational outgassing of severe frustration, and not what you literally think and feel. If it isn’t, then I’m with SC in seeing your thoughts and ideas as scary and sad. And, for that matter, you become just as dangerous as the ones you’re raging at. I don’t know if you’ve ever contemplated suicide or known someone who has, but it isn’t anything to wish on anyone, even an opponent – political or otherwise.
And by the way,
It most certainly is not war. It is societal discourse, it is politics, it is argumentation. To call it war and to advocate such scorched earth tactics is to commit the same error as those who have sought to militarize politics by bringing guns to political rallies as if they’re only excercising a right. Do things like that, and it will soon turn into a war, and I guarantee that you’ll notice the mountain of a difference between the two then – but by then it will be too late, because that’s a bell you cannot un-ring.
I think the best way to illustrate why such tactics are never a good idea is not through any other argument than simple typographic correction:
When you stop giving a fuck about the consequences of actions, you inevitably invite the worst of them.
Akira,
You are fighting an individual when it’s an idea you should be addressing. Hurting Ann Coulter won’t make her ideals disappear, targeting her specifically will actually strengthen her appeal with many people. Targeting her in a fashion that debases groups on our side just makes it futile and hurtful. Please don’t do that.
You are without a doubt among the most disgusting and disgraceful people I have ever encountered, on Pharyngula or anywhere else. There are numerous trolls in the dungeon I’d rather have around than you. At least some of them tried to disguise their utter contempt for marginalized groups and assault victims. You know how, from time to time, you see the Horde playing with trolls as though they’re chewtoys? I’m not playing now. I can’t say it strongly enough: unless you get a sense of human decency, you’re not welcome here.
But ideas don’t come into existence out of nothing, nor do they exist in a vacuum. They are conceived by people; in this case, people without any sort of moral character. Their ideas are not the disease, but a symptom of disease: greedy and superstitious people.
Attacking the idea isn’t enough, you also need to go after the evil people who express them.
Akira and Human Ape xxx should hang out.
They’d get along fine.
Frustration, anger, and rage at the world is just about all I think or feel anymore.
From you, that’s about as rich as it gets. Get lost, asshole.
This is war. In wars there is indeed “collateral damage,” but if your goal is to win it, then it is unavoidable. I suggest you learn to suck it up.
If that’s true, and not hyperbole, then I’m being very serious when I say you need to get help. (From the nature of your earlier posts, though, it seems more likely to be hyperbole – that kind of all-encompassing rage is hard to put back in your pocket when you want to.) Simple observation of the culture wars and political strife do not result in that kind of mind-blurring anger and frustration – that reaction is usually the result of experiencing some sort of traumatic event, and leaving something like that unaddressed is seriously, unequivocally dangerous.
This is a signpost statement – as in, I take it as an indicator that tells me you haven’t dealt with actual collateral damage from actual war. Beacuse when someone – anyone – is faced with that, it is not something that person can “learn” to “suck up.” You’re forced to either deal with it and its massive effects on you and everyone else it touches, or you repress it, which is usually even more detrimental to your well-being.
Is Human Ape xxx BobC?
***
So happy to see you around again, brokenSoldier. Hope you’re doing well.
I’ve been diagnosed with rapid-cycling bipolar disorder. I’m on a constant weekly (sometimes daily) emotional see-saw.
Everyone, I’m sorry for my dumb-ass comments. I should have learned my lesson from the nihilism spanking I got last year, but sometimes I start feeling manic and angry and I won’t let a topic drop.
I’m going to back away from this thread and try to cool down.
thanks SC, and likewise :)
You know that’s a good point. Never crossed my mind but it would make complete sense.
Akira said: I’m going to back away from this thread and try to cool down
Good luck with that – seriously. It’s easy to get stuck in a mental rut and – mixing metaphors – wind up going in ever diminishing circles; not easy to step back and reacquire the necessary equilibrium. Meditation has worked for me – you might want to check it out if you haven’t already done so.
Clueless: The Church of Ann Coulter
(Too easy.)
Best to you, Akira.
ignoring the nihilist ravings…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism and the most angsty kind too.
If the theoconseratives are at war (and they claim that they are) but the liberals are not, or are not willing…
I am no games theory expert but, I don’t think that whole, “what if there was a war and no one showed up” works if one side does decide to show up.
@loreo #26
FYI banshee usually is female.
It’s from bean-sidhe which means either white/fair fairy (as in the celtic myth) or female fairy.
Bean which is pronounced ‘ban’ has both those meanings (white/fair or female, or sometimes wife).
And yes sidhe is pronounced shee.
As for the topic of the article I am very glad at this moment that we don’t really see much of her down in Australia. On the other hand we have Fred Nile.
Best wishes, Akira. Realizing when you’re in that kind of rut is the hardest part.
Carlie said (#188): Best wishes, Akira. Realizing when you’re in that kind of rut is the hardest part.
Quite right. A phrase from a song by the Eagles is, I find, of some use there: “don’t let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy”.
Ariaflame said (#187): As for the topic of the article I am very glad at this moment that we don’t really see much of her down in Australia. On the other hand we have Fred Nile.
Just out of curiosity, what do you know of the “Fairness In Religions In Schools” group [which seems anything but the case] down there? If the religious Stateside attempted anything of that sort there would be rioting in the streets – surprising that someone like Dawkins hasn’t weighed-in on the issue.
I had sent them some information in the way of moral support, but I think they were less interested in the depredations of the fundamentalists than in making religious instruction broader – not inherently bad in itself. But I think they were not terribly sympathetic to my suggestion that religious education of children largely constitutes indoctrination and child abuse and an abrogation of a child’s right to “freedom of conscience, thought and religion” as guaranteed by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – an agreement that literally every other country in the world has ratified with the notable exceptions of the United States and Somalia (know people by the friends they keep).
It’s a schooner!
@Steersman
I’m seeing some of that sort of thing, yes we are having to deal with the Chaplains in Schools program which is currently undergoing a challenge in the High Court here, and there are some schools which have religious Instruction, though that varies from state to state. It’s meant to be opt-out, though some places don’t make that clear, and it would be far better if it was Religious Education taught by actual teachers rather than evangelists. (And here by Religious Education I mean looking at history and mythology of many of the world’s religions rather than suggesting that any of these things are true. Had that growing up in Scotland and didn’t mind it (though it was the only thing I did terribly in tests for).)
NSW currently has ethics classes as option instead of scripture ones, though the aforementioned Fred Nile is trying to get them to stop that. Here is hoping that that attempt falls in a heap.
This is mostly stuff I have gathered from twitter and news since I do not have, and am unlikely to have children of my own to worry about, though I did see colour in bookmarks at a friend’s place that suggests there may be some locally.
On slightly the plus side it was pretty much thanks to the Chaplain at my high school that I started down the path to atheism.
Oh, look. The Coultergeist is at it again.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=339845
Don’t glare at me like that- poltergeists aren’t gendered.