Ann Coulter (Is she hateful?)

Why can't you get DrA and most others here to understand that. Most of you guys are 2 or less on that scale and that it why you see fordham university as conservative.

I've had my run-ins with depression - it's actually fairly common. It's something to take very seriously. Go see someone as soon as you can, even if it's just your general practitioner (family doctor). Miss classes if you have to, just go.

Hi foreveryoung Curiously, I would put myself at 2 or less, and my opinion is that overall Fordham is slightly more conservative than liberal as it is a religious college with a conservative religious background, a 6 or possibly a 7. So where are you on the scale that you see it as liberal?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : spacing

She's got you snowed, FEY. She doesn't believe half of the stuff she writes. Her brand of 'hyperbole' sells more books & gets her more speaking engagements, so that she can sell more books.The only reason she mentioned the NYT is because that was the first 'liberal' institution that popped into her blonde head. It could've been the ACLU, or any other organization conservatives deem 'liberal', and therefore wicked.I think you'd be fairly shocked if you really knew Ann Coulter.

Perhaps it would make it simpler if we considered something even closer. Would wishing that Fox News was blown up be considered acceptable by you ?

This is a reply to Faith but it's actually aimed at foreveryoung. I want to second Faith's advice to find a good councilor; they can be a real blessing (I'm speaking from experience).But that might ought to be step 2. You probably should see a doctor first to see if your depression has reached the point where medication is a good idea. If you are clinically depressed, counseling without the medicine is not typically as effective. And if you are severely depressed, you need medical help ASAP.

It would have to be said the WAY Ann Coulter says such things if you are intending a comparison with her. My objection to Dr. A's comparisons is that they literalize or personalize what she doesn't intend that way.He compares her hyperbole with someone's belligerently saying something angry or threatening to a person's face, which is a stunning mischaracterization of her intent. I guess I'm finding out how liberals read this stuff, which is enlightening, but it is appalling to say the least. The NY Times building is a symbol she's using for Liberalism, but some here keep literalizing it as her wanting to hurt the people who are in the building.Your comparison is similar to his, in that you seem to think a "wish to blow up Fox News" has anything in common with what she said, which it doesn't. She has not the slightest "wish" to blow up the NYT building which is what your comparison implies. It's purely a symbol for Liberal Media influence. Hurting people and blowing up buildings is not going to get rid of Liberal influence, which is her real aim. Such a wish wouldn't even cross her mind. Like Dr. A, you miss her sarcastic hyperbole and get perilously close to a literal idea of a wish to blow up Fox News.Again, she could be accused of bad taste in some of her comparisons, but the accusation of "hate speech" or any similar accusation implying a desire for literal personal violence of any sort utterly -- staggeringly -- misses her kind of humor.And by the way I'm no fan of Fox News.Added edit: Look, I know there ARE some conservatives who talk violence in a literal way, I encounter them on conservative blogs. I disapprove of it, but I don't see it as any different from the Leftists who went around blowing up things back in the sixties and seventies and still think such actions are "revolutionary." The violent mentality on both sides is out of bounds.But Ann Coulter's humor has nothing to do with that.Another edit: Here's another thought. The violence in her symbols actually has the effect of dispelling or dissipating any real urges to violence that may accompany our polarized politics and makes it possible to channel such feelings more productively. Jokes "blow off steam." Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : subject verb disagreement corrected

Ah, right. Ann Coulter says that she wishes McVeigh had killed the people who work at the NYT, and I am making it a personal people thing. She, meanwhile, was conducting a high-minded discussion of ideas, like the intellectual that she is. No I don't. Do not tell me falsehoods about what I think. In the first place it's rude, in the second place it's stupid, and in the third place it won't deceive me. Explain why the comparison is absurd. This soccer fan was waging a "purely verbal war" on what he "hated with a fiery passion", namely the deficits of the England soccer team as he saw them. It's not like he had any personal animus against David Beckham, Beckham hadn't seduced his wife or run over his dog. OK, so on the issue we were originally discussing, that she was "spreading hate", you admit that I'm right? That there was "plenty of hate in her remarks"? You're still lying to me about what I think. Stop it. Perhaps you should read the question to which you are replying. But what if I am insincere, and I am really targeting her ideas? That would be OK, yes? If I don't really believe that she's done anything wrong, but am just attacking her on partisan grounds because she's a conservative, that would be "hyperbole" and "sardonic wit", right? I'm only in the wrong because you think I mean what I say. Can you give examples of this in the good ol' USA? Ah, paranoia. So, the question of whether I'm hateful comes down not to what is in my heart, but whether I'm right? But I thought that hating her ideas was OK? If I've found a way of hating her ideas, then anything I say in the service of that, true or false, is just "hyperbole" and "sardonic wit", right? No I wouldn't. As I said, if I said something like that, it would be hyperbole. In fact, this is so far from my feelings that I felt sick and dirty just writing that purely hypothetical example. It would not, and never could be, my personal desire.So it would be OK if I said that it was, right? Not so much.I had always thought that it was an expression of hatred to say that one wishes that some person would die a violent and premature death. Indeed, I would have said that if that's not an expression of hatred, I don't know what is and nor does anyone else.But now it's gotten all technical and confusing.Perhaps you could help me. Let's take an example. Suppose a liberal says: "My one regret about 9/11 is that the terrorists didn't target the headquarters of Fox News". Suppose that he does not really believe what he's saying, and is merely expressing his hatred for conservatism.Is that OK? Is that a non-hateful thing to say? And would it be "hateful and hurtful" for conservatives to criticize him for his remarks?

This is all I read of your post for now. Ann Coulter did NOT say she wishes McVeigh had KILLED PEOPLE, that's your literalizing that makes it personal people thing.But I guess you're going to stick to it.

That's exactly right, I'd say. Her intent, obviously, is to say something angry or threatening to a person's back. I just don't get any sense from her words that she's careful about making that distinction. Timothy McVeigh, after all, was not a person who deployed a theoretical bomb but an actual one. Am I certain that she would be glad if the New York Times, and liberalism in general, was "blown up", discredited, and eliminated of all influence? Sure I am. But it's pretty clear that if the building and its occupants were literally destroyed and killed by a terrorist bomb, she'd be enthusiastic about the result to the extent that it represented a misfortune for liberals.Don't get me wrong - that happens on the left, too. A lot of people were pretty inappropriately and publically happy when conservative blogger and editor Andrew Breitbart died, unexpectedly, of a heart attack. But those people were roundly censured by the left, and were either fringe figures to begin with, or were rapidly demoted to same. Public apologies were given.To my knowledge, nothing of the sort ever happens to Coulter, which is why her continued prominence in the conservative movement is largely considered problematic by both mainstream and conservative leaders, and why liberals - rightly, I think - dismiss the intellectual legitimacy of the movement conservatism of which she is a part.

quote:

---

You also said in an interview with the New York Observer, My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building. Do you stand by those quotes or do you think that perhaps you should have phrased them differently?

​

Ann Coulter: Ozzy Osbourne has his bats, and I have that darn convert them to Christianity quote. (Thank you for giving the full quote. I have the touch, don’t I?) Some may not like what I said, but I’m still waiting to hear a better suggestion.

​

RE: McVeigh quote. Of course I regret it. I should have added, after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters.

---

From the horses mouthReally? Editors and reporters are not people? How do you sleep at night?Edited by Theodoric, : ? mark

OK now I have to prove to you literalists that editors and reporters are also symbols of liberal influence and not people she wishes to hurt. I'm not even going to try. I don't believe this craziness. But have it your way, I've done all I can do, and I think I need a nap.

Oh with Conservative Republicans?
Easy to do, sort of like that Dunning-Krueger effect.
Ignorance not only breeds confidence, but also a clear conscious.

In other words IOKIYAR.The self-deception is quite amazing.

quote:

---

It would have to be said the WAY Ann Coulter says such things if you are intending a comparison with her.

---

I will agree that my comparison left out Coulter's disregard for the victims, but that's hardly a positive thing.

quote:

---

Your comparison is similar to his, in that you seem to think a "wish to blow up Fox News" has anything in common with what she said, which it doesn't. She has not the slightest "wish" to blow up the NYT building which is what your comparison implies.

---

In other words you would ASSUME that her statement dis not reflect what she literally wanted and you would ASSUME that my statement was intended literally. Whereas, of course my intent was simply to change the target. So it seems to me that the "big difference" is simply in your prejudices which control your interpretation of the intent.So let us get this straight, in the wake of a tragedy you think it is appropriate to use the event to call for the silencing of your political opposition, while displaying a callous disregard for the victims.I cannot agree.