Ann Coulter (Is she hateful?)

Much of the "debate" thus far has revolved around a basic tu quoque fallacy. The line of reasoning is that Ann COulter's hateful rhetoric is somehow "excused" or "justified" because it is a "response" to other hate from the "left."This is irrelevant. When you say that you hope or wish for someone to die, when you call someone a "retard," you are being hateful. Whether your target was or was not previously hateful is irrelevant.Ann Coulter is absolutely hateful, or rather, she espouses hateful rhetoric.

quote:

---

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm... so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions.

---

quote:

---

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslimsat least all terrorists capable of assembling a murderous plot against America that leaves 7,000 people dead in under two hours.

---

quote:

---

I think [women] should be armed but should not vote ... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it ... it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.

---

quote:

---

When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.

---

quote:

---

My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact.

---

I could go on. Generally what she's doing it an attempt to "humorously" phrase her arguments, and typically she's addressing a specific audience - "preaching to the choir," basically. The primary audience of Fox News likes to get all riled up against "liberals," not entirely unlike how a lot of liberals (myself included) used to enjoy getting a little riled up by Olberman when he was on MSNBC (though, to my recollection, Olberman never suggested that an entire subset of Americans lose their right to vote, or expressed a wish that Fox News would be bombed).Is there "hateful rhetoric" on "both sides?" Of course there is. We all call each other idiots and worse. Some of us are worse about it than others.But at the end of the day, what matters is not who said the most insulting words, or who was more angry.What matters are the policies themselves, and the world that they would bring. Politics, especially American politics, has long been something like competing soccer hooligans, a simile I've used often. We have our sides; what the other side says is wrong, and what our side says is right, and we don;t really think at all about what's actually being said so much as who said it and in what way.Look at the Presidential debates - we hat talking heads going on for hours about how the electorate would respond to which candidate was too nice or too mean, as if that matters one bit for the running of the country, whether the government should be able to regulate environmental emissions, the future of the "War on terror," or how best to continue or speed up economic recovery!The only way to stop all of the partisan bickering and nonsense is for everyone to recognize that we really do all have the same goal: we want the country we live in to prosper, and we just have different ideas about how that can be achieved.Pursuant to that, we need to sit down and talk about actual discrete policies and their measured results. We need to think about our support of policies beyond the basic snap-judgement used in politics today, and actually look at the effects of a policy. We know with certainty, for example, that "abstinance-only" sex ed does not work; rather, counties using "abstinance-only" suffer from significantly higher teen pregnancy rates than do districts teaching sex ed in a more comprehensive manner including use of condoms. It's not a matter of moral judgement, you enforce your morals on your children as parents, not as voters for the school board. It's not a matter of condoning teen sex. It's a matter of deciding which world you'd rather live in: the one with more, or fewer teen pregnancies. That's it.Choose your policy based on the results you want, and to hell with which "side" thinks what.Focusing on which political blowhard is the "most hateful" just feeds into the cycle and worsens the distraction away from actual policy decisions and their expected results. We're choosing the politics of personality instead of intelligently analyzing policy proposals and determining our support through the use of projections created with the use of real-world data.Of course, I don't think humanity as a species is ready for that. Our culture thrives on the drama of personality politics and tribalistic separations. There is "us" and there is "them." But I'd really, really like to be surprised.

...really?All that stuff about "what you do to the least of these, you do to me," and "turn the other cheek," and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," all that is irrelevant to Christianity?

quote:

---

7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
7:9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
7:10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

---

Hey mods - I know this is the Coffee House and all, but there was at some point a topic in this thread, and I'm fairly certain that is was not in fact related in any way to Jesuits or the Protestant Reformation or calling the Pope the Antichrist (we all know the current Pope is Emperor Palpatine, and he cannot be two fictional characters at once).

Hi FEY. I understand what you mean - I feel something similar when you slander "liberals" and call them all "liars" and "biased" without a shred of evidence to support such claims. You're far from the only one to make me feel those things around here, either - just to throw a few names out, crashfrog and RAZD have both been able to make me feel pretty damned angry. Not enough to involve blood, of course.But when I get too upset, I stop reading for a bit. Sometimes I go and get laid - that always helps. I remember that, whatever happens, this is just an internet debate site. In the end, arguing on the internet is akin to the Special Olympics - even if you win, you're still retarded (hopefully others will excuse the somewhat offensive joke in favor of its intent). This debate board can never hurt you, and none of the participants can cause you any harm except that which you allow by getting all riled up. Just relax. I feel that sort of anger every time I listen to Fox News.How should we determine which of us is listening to absurdly biased media, and which is closer to the facts? I doubt a screaming fit, trollish nonsense, or "blood" will resolve the disparity. What do you think we should do? Personally, I'd suggest looking at issues one at a time and comparing the spin to objective evidence. What do you think?

Just putting this in the public arena. Foreveryoung responded to my previous post with a PM that said only this:

quote:

---

From foreveryoung
To Rahvin

​

Fuck you

---

He then began jeering all of my posts from today. And GDR's as well, for some reason.

My goal was not to embarrass him - though if he feels embarrassed by his own words, perhaps next time he should not send messages he would find embarrassing.My intent was to show foreveryoung that, whatever he wants to say to me, he can say it as a public reply for all to see. By simply posting his PM in public, I discourage him from sending future "Fuck you" PMs.

Hi Faith, I think I understand what you are saying, so please correct me if I'm wrong. You think that words like "hateful, reactionary, and homophobic" aren't used to convey actual arguments, but are instead simply used to cause an emotional reaction and vilify conservatives. Essentially you view those words as ad hominem attacks on the person that typically mean that the person using them has no real argument. Is that about correct?I can understand that. I've had people attach emotionally charged labels to me so as to completely dismiss my arguments, and I've found it frustrating. I imagine that, in your case as an example, someone just replied to one of your posts saying that you were a "reactionary" (I'm just picking the least offensive of the words above) and didn't address a single point you made, that this would be frustrating, even infuriating if it happened with regularity.I'm honestly trying to see this from your perspective, Faith, so I'd appreciate an honest attempt to see things from mine as well.What I'm seeing here is more soccer hooliganry. It's like one side is just screaming "Commie!" and the other side is screaming "Corporate pig!" and nobody is actually listening to each other or addressing each others' points. It just boils down to each side screaming "you're on the other side!" and that's it. Not very productive or even very interesting.What I think you aren't understanding is that you're throwing the word "liberal" around as if it's some sort of insult - basically you seem to be using the term as an emotionally charged label that allows you to dismiss your opponent without addressing any actual points. This may not, however, be how you're intending to use the word - it's just the way it's coming across.I think that's part of why you see such opposition - intentionally or otherwise, you're conveying that you thing "liberalism" is a bad thing in its entirety, and many here are self-identified liberals. We're all just drawing a nice big line for our sides so we can disapprove of each other while never actually talking about anything of substance. It's a microcosm of what some of us feel that Ann Coulter and those like her do (and there are examples on the "left" as well) - rile up the "sides" against each other, get everybody screaming "liberal!" and "conservative" as if they're insults, and the whole thing turns into a nice big soccer hooligan riot where we all trample each other, not for actually being bad people, but for having the temerity to have a difference of opinion. I think here you're just running into the complexity of assigning a binary label (liberal vs not-liberal) when political leanings are a much larger spectrum. For example, you and many others will identify Obama as a "liberal," and compared to you or Mitt Romney or George W Bush, he certainly is. But compared to me, he leans pretty far to the right, and I have trouble calling him a "liberal" because I view him as far more moderate...from my perspective.Personally, I think that political discourse cannot be improved by continuing to identify each other with such simple labels as "liberal" and "conservative." Those labels certainly don;t encompass all of our views - I know there are conservatives who would disagree with you just as there are liberals who would disagree with me - I'm a huge supporter of nuclear power, for example, and a lot of Earth-conscious people oppose me even as I self-identify as more on "their side."I think that the "liberal" vs "conservative" shouting matches get us nowhere, and I'd rather have real discussions about actual policies and societal issues. Instead of just lining up according to who's a hippie and who's a Captain Planet villain, I'd like to actually discuss the environmental and economic situation of the world and explore solutions that address both jobs and cleaner air.I think that "homophobia" is more than just a "liberal flag word," and that hatred of homosexuals is a real societal problem just like racism, as we still occasionally read in the news about some poor kid who was bullied to the point of suicide for being gay, and I think that's a real problem that needs to be addressed.I think that "hateful" rhetoric is a real problem...and I think the solution is to stop shouting labels at each other and to start talking with each other to find new solutions from our shared perspectives. You and I are never going to agree on some things, but I bet you'd agree that it'd sure be nice if we could lower the unemployment rate.What do you think?

Hi Faith,You know, this would be an extremely difficult undertaking for both of us - attempting to discuss an issue without turning the discussion into a shouting match about each other and our "sides," just focusing on the problem and solutions from our differing perspectives. If you're willing to try it, then I am as well. I think the problem here is that we (and I absolutely include myself in this) often "speak factually" when the facts we are presenting need to be supported with evidence because they are not self-evident. I can't just tell you that the Earth is billions of years old, even as I understand that to be an established scientific fact - you certainly don;t see it that way, and just saying it is just another assertion unless I can back it up. Likewise when you "speak factually;" sometimes you're presenting a fact that doesn't match up with my understanding of the facts, and so evidence and argument is needed to show me that it is a fact.We would both do well to remember at all times that neither of us is omniscient or has all of the facts. If the information upon which we build our understanding is wrong, then our understanding will be wrong as well, and that goes for both of us. If we go through with this, I will absolutely take no offense if you tell me to stop, slow down, and center myself on the issue again...and I hope you'll expect the same from me. Neither of us is perfect, and emotions are kind of built in to human minds, so this is really going to be rough. But I'll try to avoid harping about the "Neo-Con agenda" if you try to avoid dismissing my words as a "liberal agenda." And I won't call you a liar even if you say something I think is wrong - I think we can both agree that at worst one or both of us might speak an untruth that we honestly think is true because it's something we've heard or read; we need not be liars if we have ourselves been lied to. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you'll do the same for me. I'm quite familiar with a mismatch between what is intended and what is actually conveyed; I have a tendency to come across as condescending and rude even when I'm just trying to be helpful. I believe you when you say that you don't intend to use "liberal" as some sort of curse, and I appreciate that you accept that this is the way that you're being read even if it's not what you intend.Rather than going point-by-point for the rest because I need to head to work...The examples I gave we just that, examples. They weren't necessarily intended to be debate topics - just to illustrate my points. I'm not particularly attached to using any one of them as the topic for a debate, particularly if you don't feel particularly interested in them.You mentioned what you term the "Culture War." Would you like to pick a specific topic from under that umbrella, something that you see as a problem that our society needs to address, and then we can try to discuss that problem and potential solutions? We could set it as a "Great Debate" if you like, and possibly request moderator assistance if one of us thinks the other is starting to lose focus on the issue. What do you think?

At issue is your comparison of liberals to traitors; that somehow we had better be intimidated and put in our place before we turn into full traitors.Liberalism is not at all congruous with treason, faith. The comparison itself is beyond insulting. Liberalism leads to treason in the same way that conservatism does - that is, they do not, not by themselves.Amusingly, the actual traitor in Coulter's quote was a Muslim theocratic extremist - by any definition of the term, he would have been considered an ultra-conservative, not remotely a liberal, unless you think that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are secretly huge supporters of women's rights, gay marriage, and religious freedom.Executing a traitor should provide exactly as much of a "warning" to conservatives as to liberals...but curiously Coulter, and you in defending her, apply it only to liberals. Because you disagree with us.Even vehement political disagreement is not treason. One can be a full-on Communist without being a traitor, Faith - treason requires giving aid or comfort to an enemy in a time of war. Simply being a liberal (or even a radical) is protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

I think that may be more of a commentary on the problems inherent with a "winner take all" two-party representative political system like what exists in the United States than a clear picture of whether Fordham Jesuits are "conservative" or "liberal."