Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Critique of Ann Coulter's The Church of Liberalism: Godless
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 5 of 298 (325631)
06-24-2006 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Omnivorous
06-24-2006 9:46 AM


Re: Ann'$ point
i have a theory. it goes like this:
ann coulter is a liberal.
her style is not actually biting towards the left, but rather a scathing condemnation of the right. her work is satire, or even humor. she's making fun of the idiocy of the right, by becoming a gross exageration of them: hypocritical, bullying, intellectually lazy and dishonest. but, i have a feeling that she turned at some point, when she realized that just as many people on the right were buying her books and taking her seriously. i guess they don't get the joke. the fundie-neo-con right isn't so good with subtlety and subtext. or irony, for that matter.
so now, coulter writes because it's a living.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Omnivorous, posted 06-24-2006 9:46 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Omnivorous, posted 06-24-2006 10:57 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 298 (325757)
06-24-2006 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Omnivorous
06-24-2006 10:57 AM


Re: Ann'$ point
i dunno, she's not much to look at these days. i think she's been puking her guts out over liberals a little too much, and should check herself into a bulemia clinic. she doesn't look healthy at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Omnivorous, posted 06-24-2006 10:57 AM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-24-2006 11:43 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 9 of 298 (325859)
06-24-2006 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Peal
06-24-2006 9:13 PM


nah, she dated a muslim. and muslim men don't go for that sorta thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Peal, posted 06-24-2006 9:13 PM Peal has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 14 of 298 (325941)
06-24-2006 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
06-24-2006 11:43 PM


Re: Coke Head
ann and dubya, sittin' in a tree...
ok, i don't mean to make too much fun, but it would explain a lot. she should get some help.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-24-2006 11:43 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 20 of 298 (326273)
06-26-2006 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by riVeRraT
06-26-2006 12:58 AM


Re: principals, not people
eh, you know she enjoys it. i don't see ann coulter crying herself to sleep because something some anonymous putz on the internet said about her. if anything, the libel (slander is vocal, ann; written material is libel) from the left only confirms her conspiracist worldview.
which is as good a reason to stop as any.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by riVeRraT, posted 06-26-2006 12:58 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Omnivorous, posted 06-26-2006 8:35 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 30 of 298 (326560)
06-26-2006 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Omnivorous
06-26-2006 8:35 AM


Re: Libel/slander must be knowingly false
As a public person, Ann would have difficulty suing for either libel or slander due to others' speculations about her personal habits. She has made herself a lightning rod for criticism through outrageous statements, and I'm sure she cries all the way to the bank.
yes, with a book called "slander."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Omnivorous, posted 06-26-2006 8:35 AM Omnivorous has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 34 of 298 (326631)
06-26-2006 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Minnemooseus
06-26-2006 7:24 PM


Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me exactly what Moore lied about.
Me too, but at a Fahrenheit 9/11 topic.
well, on my self-assigned reading list this summer is a book called "michael moore is a big fat stupid white man." after i get around to reading that, i'll let you know if i thought any of the authors' points were valid.
but i have two spong books to read and give back to brenna first, so it might be a bit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-26-2006 7:24 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 35 of 298 (326632)
06-26-2006 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
06-26-2006 6:18 PM


on a headline that wasn't actually a headline - it was just the title of a story that did actually appear in a newspaper.
editorials don't carry the same weight as factual newspaper stories. to conflate the two is dishonest, whether or not they both appear in newspapers.
And I've never seen Ann Coulter or any other liar actually release an annotated bibliography for their media appearance that provides sources for their assertions - but Moore did that with Farenheight 9/11.
go find an ann coulter book. i bet it has a bibliography. (although, apparently, not an extensive enough one to cover all of her plagiarism...)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2006 6:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2006 10:42 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 37 of 298 (326685)
06-26-2006 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by crashfrog
06-26-2006 10:42 PM


I guess I don't agree. It's showmanship, not dishonesty.
silly froggy, showmanship is dishonesty.
Editorials may be more commentary on the facts than they are facts, but editorials aren't lies, either. They're not fiction; they're conclusion.
look, of course the documentary is largely personal opinion. that's a standard bit they tell you in basic english classes. you don't put "it's my opinion that..." or "i think..." in an essay. of course you think, and of course it's your opinion. you're writing the the essay to defend or promote your opinion. that much is granted.
but this is not the same as conflating facts and opinions, or presenting opinions as facts. they are not the same thing. even if the opinion is right. this stuff about "factual information can be relayed editorials" is garbage, and you know it. it's still dishonest to present someone's opinions as a factual event reported in a newspaper.
we're not even talking about a staff editorial. we're talking about a letter to the editor. as in, something written by a member of the average population, in response to something the newspaper wrote (in an editorial, btw), put in an envelope with a stamp, sent through the mail to newspaper, and published in the "opinion" section, under the heading "your views."
publishing a letter to the editor as a factual statement made by a newspaper is not only dishonest, it's exactly the same as the worst kind of creationist quotemining: when someone quotes another author as saying something that they were quoting from someone else. it is misattribution of intellectual property, and makes it look like the newspaper has a view that it does not neccessarily hold.
it's about like me quoting you, quoting me, as proof that you agree to what i'm saying. because, look, there's my opinion right there in your post. it's dishonest.
And it's abundantly clear in the movie that we're not looking at a real newspaper.
and yet, it's presented as something the newspaper reported, not something that someone wrote into the newspaper to voice their opinion about. it doesn't matter how obviously dishonest something is. you can't say, "well, it's so obviously fake that it doesn't count."
it's still a lie.
You can be damn sure that Faren-hype 9/11 (or whatever it was called) or any of the other rightwing political slanderfests took the trouble to source their statements.
you're aware that about half the content of farenhype 9/11 is told from the mouth of ann coulter?
personally, i like george w. bush: faith in the whitehouse, which says on the back:
quote:
Says BBC correspondent Justin Webb, "Nobody spends more time on his knees than George W. Bush. "
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2006 10:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2006 11:33 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 39 of 298 (326693)
06-26-2006 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by crashfrog
06-26-2006 11:33 PM


Oh, you think Peter Jackson is a liar, too? Because he made a movie about stuff that didn't happen, called "Lord of the Rings"?
can you not tell the difference? we don't have a guy named "gandalf" or even "sauron" in the whitehouse. the closest thing he have to hobbits are an ancient species of hominds. no one things anything in the lord of the rings is even remotely true. compare to bio-pic movie, say the recent "walk the line." johnny cash was a real person, and so was june carter. but watching it, we know it's a fictionalized account of their lives, and not neccessarily accurate in every minute detail. we realize that artistic license has been taken.
but turn on something presented as a documentary, and you don't expect the same degree of artistic freedom. you may expect that documentarian is not telling you the whole truth -- stuff has to be editted for time, and a common license is what is and what is not shown. but misrepresentation of a letter to the editor as a factual newspaper article? that's not the kind of "artistic license" you can take in a documentary.
Seems to me that "it's obviously fake" is a pretty good defense against charges of dishonesty. Lies require the intent to deceive.
lies being pathetic does not make them not-lies.
Did Moore say "as reported by the Miami Herald..." (or whatever paper it was)? Or not?
tell you what, i'll see if i can find that portion of the film tonight, and tell you exactly what he said.
The people who write the letters, though, don't title them. The editors of the newspaper do. So, the only copy that Moore presented in his two-second graphic bumper as being the words of the newspaper in question actually were the words of the newspaper in question. They came up with that stuff, not the author of the letter. Again, how is that a lie?
as a summary of the content of the letter, not a factual account or even a representation of their opinion. it's still quotemining. if a creationist did this, would you still defend them?
Never seen it, but that's the first I've heard of her involvment.
i watched it, but tried to pay very, very little attention. it's far, far less scrupulous than moore's film. frankly, it made me more than a little nauseated.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2006 11:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2006 5:10 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 45 of 298 (327042)
06-28-2006 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
06-27-2006 5:10 PM


tell you what, i'll see if i can find that portion of the film tonight, and tell you exactly what he said.
That would be helpful, I think. At that time why don't we move it to one of the threads MM mentioned.
it's in the context of "how could bush get away with having fox rig the election" in the first 5 minutes of the film. the sentance out of moore's mouth while the fake article is on screen is "and even if numerous independent investigations prove that gore got the most votes" (then he goes to say that all that matters if how your daddy's friends on the supreme court vote). the pantagraph "article" is presented as a newspaper report on an independent investigation. it doesn't look egregiously fake on the video. it's presented alongside what presumably is a real newspaper article.
it's dishonest for a number of a reasons, most which i presented above. but secondary to those misrepresentations of what the source is, is the fact that it's not the number of votes that matters. districting has a very large effect -- it's actually something of an undisputed fact that gore got the most votes in the 2000 election. but that's not how the presidential election is run. ie: moore is also misrepresenting the american democratic process, by oversimplifying it.
now, if you can't understand how quotemining summary header in a "letters to the editor" section, and misrepresenting it as a factual newspaper report is dishonest, you can feel free to take it to one of those threads. you wouldn't stand for it if a creationist quotemined a source in this manner. step back for a second, let go of the left v. right bias, and forget that moore is making a valid point that you (and i both) think is right. lying for the right cause is not honest. it's not when creationists did it on the stand in dover, and it's not when moore does it either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2006 5:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Mammuthus, posted 06-28-2006 5:21 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2006 8:15 AM arachnophilia has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 48 of 298 (327259)
06-28-2006 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Mammuthus
06-28-2006 5:21 AM


(replied in the other thread. should move the discussion there now)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Mammuthus, posted 06-28-2006 5:21 AM Mammuthus has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 50 of 298 (332073)
07-15-2006 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2006 8:17 PM


Re: Just finished her book
I realize that EvC is utterly innundated with those of a more liberal persuation, and by default, they hate her guts.
perhaps maybe our dislike of ann coulter has reasons? actually, i think she's pretty funny.
But the woman can write. And no matter whether or not you agree with her particular brand of political affiliations, grant her that much.
actually, no, that's one thing that can be, and HAS been objectively proven wrong -- she cannot, in fact, write. she has to steal other peoples' thoughts, and re-word them. in school, we call that skill "plaigarism"
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 8:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 9:43 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 59 of 298 (332121)
07-16-2006 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Hyroglyphx
07-15-2006 9:43 PM


Re: Just finished her book
However, conservative arguments and liberal arguments are always a rehash on any given hot topic that helps to support their view. In fact, there is not a single original argument. This isn't plagiarism though.
uh, no. it really is plagiarism. really really. i'm not just saying that. seriously. it's all over the blogs -- even the republican blogs. when i said "objectively proven" i meant it.
By your version of plagiarism, we are all plagiarizing someone else right now. That just isn't the case.
it's not MY version of plagiarism, it's the academic definition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-15-2006 9:43 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2006 11:27 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 100 of 298 (332356)
07-16-2006 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Hyroglyphx
07-16-2006 11:27 AM


Re: Just finished her book
The only one who has a problem with Ann are those out to malign her. What will they think of next? Aside from the obvious, which is, conjecure is baseless without the actual text that was plagiarized. Do you have any links that actually give any specifics?
it's neither conjecture, nor baseless. seriously, it's made the news, even. read the links in the post i directed you to.
So far, all I saw on those blogs, those blogs of a leftists persuasion, claim that she plagiarized.
"the right-wing professor" is leftist?
But I didn't see any specifics.
you'll have to dig back in the archives a little. here is a list of quite a few.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2006 11:27 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024