When will Ann Coulter go too far?

Politics and religion
141

Maybe because Hispanics are generally devout Catholics who do like the idea of getting the church more involved in people’s lives and don’t like the idea of abortion very much.

And those who got here legally, became citizens and have the right to vote generally do not care much for illegals; the attitude is, “I had to wait my turn; so can you.” And those who are second-gen or third-gen or twelfth-gen are even more likely to be hostile towards illegal immigrants, not less.

Also, Hispanics are not exactly a marginalized race in Texas. In fact, many Texans don’t even consider Hispanics a different race from whites; both “races” are a mixture of European and Native American descent. The only real difference is that white Texans tend to be Protestant, and Hispanic Texans tend to be Catholic.

Really, we can come up for reasons why the hispanic electorate is shifting to the GOP all day. You can say it’s because they’re a bunch of dumbasses who don’t realize how those Evil Republicans are out to kill them all; I can say it’s because the GOP happens to have policies that appeal to the demographic. It’s shifting either way.

142

His inability to fess up to his poon addiction while under oath got him impeached. But back on topic: You know, it’s enough to make one wonder why Ann Coulter sees closeted homosexuals under every rock she looks.

143

Before responding, I’d like to take this opportunity to state that while I am not technicaly a TS, I am a hermaphrodite who has previously self-identified as female and now lives as a man (a process simplified by a unisex name), so I feel specially qualified to answer this question.

The homoerotic aspects are most easily noticed in the subtle violence, hypermasculinity of the subject, and the voyeuristic aspect, each of which individually would be unusual for a female artist, but represented together in a single work are virtually unheard of. Also, all female artists are dykes. No, this piece is the creation of a male artist, and intended, perhaps unknowingly, for a male audience.

Moreover, while some might dismiss this piece as a fetishistic work, combining a religious subject matter with a ten-year-old boy’s simplistic revenge fantasy. But this is not the case. I believe the artist is a young man, probably in his early twenties, still living a very carefully guarded existence under the auspices of his intensely religious parents. He has an interest in bodybuilding, or rather an interest in male bodybuilding magazines, which are perhaps the only sexual outlet he can find in an existence dominated by family and church. He has always been interested in the male form, but learned long ago to limit his profligate output to religious figures as a means of avoiding suspicion.

But this is not an act of repression and shame, as we would at first suspect. No, this is a carefully crafted piece, in which the Christian perspective of redemption and forgiveness is rejected outright by an act of violent, intentional blasphemy. The artist has long empathized with the figure of Christ, suffering silent and misunderstood, but here he reimagines him (and himself) as a phoenix, breaking free from the confines of tradition and announcing himself to the world proud and unbroken.

This is not just the work of a gay man, this is an unyielding declaration of gayness, in no uncertain terms. This is, in fact, the gayest piece of art that has ever been created. And truly, it is a masterpiece.

144

Yeah, and thanks for your reply. I was a little shocked when you said that you were spit on in public, I guess I hadn’t thought it was that bad. Glad to hear that you have managed to find a bit of reprieve.

145

I heart Glenn

146

Stop threatening to put too fine a point on it. I’m not even sure what that expression means in the context of having already embraced calling me an idiot. I’m saying there is no significant difference in the “wrongness” of the humor, and the biggest thing that creates a difference is you getting riled up about it, to the point where you bring up the always popular dress/rape analogy. Give me a call when Ann Coulter rapes somebody, and you just might have something. Until then, leave the victim manufacturing to the professionals. Ann Coulter doesn’t matter; anti-gay legislation promoted by Republicans and social conservatives does. Ergo, she does the US a favour by putting such policies in candid words that everyone can understand, and she saves you all the trouble of paging through countless bland soundbites about family values.

If anything, you should be thanking Coulter for casting in the limelight what so many at that event probably feel to a certain degree. I wouldn’t even bother asking Coulter any questions about it: we know why she did it. I say put Mitt Romney on the spot and ask him if he thinks Edwards is a faggot as well, as often as possible.

It wouldn’t have made any sense, is what I’m guessing. Also, assuming it made sense at all as a joke, you’d be asking the same question of me except bringing it to the next level with “nigger” as your plateau of intolerance for America. And I’d be answering the same way…I don’t care. It’s just as important that vestigial anti-semitism be aired as anti-gay sentiment; it lets everyone know where they stand.

There’s literally no difference there other than homophobia hasn’t been stamped out of polite society like anti-semitism has.

Except there is still a huge difference between a joke and something that needs stamping out. Offensive humor is great not only as something that makes (some) people laugh, it’s great because it airs societal issues openly in a way that few other media can or will. I don’t think any sort of racial/minority humor is off limits, so long as it is a) funny and b) the one making it is willing to pay the price of being controversial. Ann Coulter occasionally hits a and certainly has b covered, so onward. She trolls vast segments of society with a single sentence.

Now, return to your regularly scheduled discussion of gender issues in this thread.

147

I was one of the people who metaphorically spit on Ms. Mulligan in public.

It was when she was taking over the UO volunteer program. UO players - and young male gamers in general - are a pretty rabidly homophobic bunch. It was very easy to make jokes about it, and I, well, did so, even going so far as to set up a mock “dream date with Durga” contest (Jessica’s professional UO nick). Ha ha, you get to win a date with a TS! Yeah, I was a putz. Jessica took it in good humor, but it hurt (she said as much in public) and it didn’t make her job any easier.

I apologized to her privately eventually, after the damage was done. She took that in good humor as well.

She’s a wonderful person no matter what her chromosomes may say, and anyone contemplating funding an MMO should hire her as a consultant pronto, since she’s worked on them for 20 years or so. And society could learn much from simply accepting people for whom they are and want to be.

Now, back to the ritualized stoning!

148

/me casts the first stone at Lum

149

So Ann Coulter is like the Tim Hardaway of homophobia? I much prefer Tim Hardaway as the Tim Hardaway of homophobia. I think Ann Coulter should have to be the Tim Hardaway of…
ATM fees?

150

I do not see it. If you knew nothing about that painting at all or the guy who made it, then saw it somewhere, I can’t see how you could have made the conclusions you have made about it.

I look at it, I see a buff Jesus on a cross that is breaking free. I do not see anything that makes a statement about being gay. What clues am I supposed be seeing that i am not?

If I were to ask to interpret that painting, as in what did it mean, I think all I would come up with is that Jesus is sick of being on the cross and has decided to “not take it anymore” and rip himself free. Maybe “I am no longer going to suffer for your sins.” is another interpretation.

I am going to go look at it some more, and may edit this post if I see a new interpretation.

151

I do know for a fact you have been informed that “he who is without sin” should cast the first stone. I know you want to follow what Jesus says. This, coupled with your conduct since the age of twelve, leads me to the only logical conclusion.

No one has told you that what you have been doing with your hand and that duck puppet is a sin.

152

Dude, your going to be turned soooo gay. Do not stare directly into his holy pecs.

153

LK are you deliberately missing the point?

Ann Coulter’s not a stand up comedian, she’s not a shock jock or anything else that you’ve compared her to. She’s a political pundit (a bad one) who was asked to speak at the “conservative event of the year.” She called John Edwards a faggot and got roaring applause. She didn’t call Edwards a faggot in the context of a stand-up routine, nor did she do it to shock us into a reaction or to help us explore our prejudices or biases or societal issues or any other zany justification you can come up with.

She called John Edwards a faggot to demean him, plain and simple. She called John Edwards a faggot the same way idiots in Quake or whatever the FPS of the moment is use the word. It was intended to belittel him. And her audience ate it up. I don’t find what she said particularly offensive, and I honestly doubt John Edwards did. I’m not manufacturing victims or whatever the hell you’re frothing at the mouth over.

What I’m saying (and all I’ve been saying) is that what Coulter said was pretty awful and the fact that she got cheered so heartily is kind of disturbing. I think it says something disturbing about the so-called conservative base. She wasn’t applauded because people thought that calling John Edwards a faggot was witty, or because it was particularly funny. She was applauded because people liked that she demeaned someone they disagree with politically.

But hey, I agree with some of what you’re saying. As someone who these days self-identifies as liberal I’m glad she opened her big yap. It exposes the ugly underside of the conservative movement for what it is.

154

Which, while often used as an after-the-fact explanation for any such humor, is usually just a cover for the simple fact that people get off on offensive humor.

She called John Edwards a faggot to demean him, plain and simple. She called John Edwards a faggot the same way idiots in Quake or whatever the FPS of the moment is use the word. It was intended to belittel him. And her audience ate it up. I don’t find what she said particularly offensive, and I honestly doubt John Edwards did. I’m not manufacturing victims or whatever the hell you’re frothing at the mouth over.

See this? A complete absence of froth. My bad, then. I mistook you for some of the other people in this thread who are opposed to offensiveness per se, on the grounds it might hurt someone’s feelings. Nevertheless, I still think you owe her a debt of gratitude. Her bluntness is your ally, in the same way that feel-good handwringing about her words is not.

Also, I am really upset that you are on Qt3 and use “Quake” as example of what “the people” play. Seriously, get with the program.

What I’m saying (and all I’ve been saying) is that what Coulter said was pretty awful and the fact that she got cheered so heartily is kind of disturbing. I think it says something disturbing about the so-called conservative base.

I guess I’m just so used to it as a fact of life in a country where something as insignificant and simple to resolve as gay marriage could radicalize national elections that it barely makes me blink in surprise.

She wasn’t applauded because people thought that calling John Edwards a faggot was witty, or because it was particularly funny. She was applauded because people liked that she demeaned someone they disagree with politically.

So, it’s not people calling each other faggots that bothers you so much as political candidates being demeaned and people liking it as entertainment. Now I’m really confused.

But hey, I agree with some of what you’re saying. As someone who these days self-identifies as liberal I’m glad she opened her big yap. It exposes the ugly underside of the conservative movement for what it is.

Not really an underside so much as a platform in and of itself. Can we agree that Paris is the capital of France? Good. Then we’re in agreement.

155

Now here’s a point where you and I are definitely in agreement: The response she got said something about the conservative base, or at least the Republican base. And what it says to me is that they perceive Edwards to be a threat.

I truly believe that if Edwards had been the Dem’s presidential candidate in 2004, he’d be our president today.

156

^—bloody awesome

157

It had nothing to do with Edwards.She could have said it about any known Dem and gotten the same response.

I’m not sure why your so in love with Edwards. He had his chance in a debate with Cheney and instead of using his Trial Lawyer +1 abilities he went out of his way to be congenial. Very disappointing. He does have him some sweet hair though. Is it the hair?

I do think that if anyone other than Kerry, Gore or Hillary was the '04 candidate the Dems would have won.

158

Throwing zingers in televised debates is a guilty pleasure, but it doesn’t win you elections. The greatest zinger of all time – “You’re no Jack Kennedy” – was given by the losing VP candidate in one of the biggest election landslides in history.

The explanation for this is simple: While it may make your current supporters feel better about themselves, it does nothing to win you over any new supporters, and galvanizes your opposition against you. When the victim cries “foul,” people are more likely to agree with him than they are with your clever retort.

My love for Edwards came from the fact that he went out of his way to be congenial. And his congeniality is in fact the skill that affords him the +1 bonus to his Trial Lawyer stat, and a +5 bonus to Beating Evil GOP Candidates. It also gives him Immunity to Mudslinging; mudslingers, in fact, must make a Saving Throw vs. Looking Like An Asshole or face losses.

It’s his attitude that’s a winner.

159

Maybe it would be better if we just thought of her as one, regardless of what she actually is. The way Keith Olbermann consistently refers to Rush as “Comedian Rush Limbaugh” has really helped me put in perspective all of the asinine things he says. He becomes less offensive, more of a clown really, and this diminishes his power.

There is no doubt she is vile–I mean, between her statement and the Tim Hardaway oral excrement I had the strange urge to call up my gay friends and apologize for straight people [and how idiotic is that?]–but if we just laughed at her–her in particular–and moved on, there would be no wind for her sails.

“I don’t mean to offend you Bob. But your brother’s a cocksucker. Does that offend you?”

-Amanpour

160

I wasn’t thinking of “zingers” though they are fun (and we can always thank Connelly for destroying Quayle’s political future).

I was thinking more “confronting the corrupt, dishonest and incompetent architect of an unnecessary and disastrous war with more than a smile and compliments on having a lesbian daughter”.

B.T.W. - I’d be ok with Edwards at the top of the ticket and think he’s handled the Coulter thing correctly - by leveraging it for more money and media attention - I’d just like to see a little more of his inner shark.