Wow, I can see why you guys hate her so much. She’s a…real bitch. After reading her column “Feminists Can Be Hazardous to Health” (the column in questionwith the even better headline, “Freeze! I Just Had My Nails Done”), I just want to slap the face right off of her.
And let me say how ashamed I am of this local paper for running her column like it’s a good thing. Shame on them. Shame, shame, shame. Shame on any paper that runs venomous, half-baked, juvenile shit like that and calls it journalism.
Yeah, I mean, like, this Jewish person was complaining because his local paper was reprinting parts of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and I was like, “so don’t read it!”
I’ve read some of her stuff in a collection of essays she put out. I frankly don’t believe she’s serious. She’s a troll, just pissing people off so she can laugh at their outrage. As you know, trolls thrive on attention. Ignore her.
She’s right? Right about what?
I agree that my comparison is a bit over the top. But the question is not whether Ann Coulter has the right to write her columns, or whether the newspaper has the right to publish them. The question is whether they should do so.
Newspapers should (in my opinion) pick their columnists based on, among other things, whether those columnists back up their views with clear and correct arguments and facts, which Ann Coulter certain does not, and also, to be a bit pie-in-the-sky, whether the expression of those views makes the region and nation and world a better and more harmonious place.
While I agree that “All liberals are traitors who hate America and blame American first whenever possible” isn’t bad on the same level as “let’s kill all the Jewish people”, it’s WAY worse than, say, “ha ha, look at this dumb thing a specific dumb liberal person did. I like Bush!”
I didn’t read that article (and have no interest in ever doing so) and maybe I’m taking it out of context but I guess her point that she got her nails done is a tooting of her own horn at how great she is because she is (1) naturally beautiful and (2) enhances her natural beauty with various cosmetic applications. Ha! Ms. Uglo looks like this lanky kid who sat next to me in fifth grade and wound up having a sex chang. . . . :eek:
In all seriousness, she looks like (and is as sexy as) a grungy yellow mop that’s just been used to unclog a turd from Rush Limbaugh’s bowl - with an Adam’s apple.
Whoops, sorry for responding again, but I realized I had completely forgotten the main point, which is that I was responding (dismissively) to ExTank’s post, which seemed to basically be saying “no one should ever complain about anything that is published in any medium, no matter how vile it is, or the decisions made by those who chose to distribute/publish/carry it, because they can always choose not to view/read/watch it”. Which is just silly.
(Note the distinction between something like “I can’t believe that AryanWhitePress is allowed to exist and publish its racist screeds”, which is ignoring the importance of freedom of expressoin, and “I can’t believe that this newspaper, out of all the columns it could choose to publish, chooses to publish this one”).
I peruse the Sunday Sun (my girlfriend digs the crossword puzzle; I wouldn’t buy the Sun to wrap fish in) and in light of what I read in the Letters to the Editor and Editorial section, I think Ann Coulter’s column fits right in.
I watched an interview she did for the CBC (the one in which she’s confused about Canada’s role in Vietnam), and by her own admission she’s quite serious. She figures that the first two thirds of her “we should invade, kill, and convert” comment are now American foreign policy.
Yeah, it was the Sun. We forgot to get the Herald on Friday, okay?
**ExTank[b/], you don’t like my thread, don’t read it.
Ann Coulter can spew any crap she wants from her infantile little brain, but people don’t have to encourage her by financially supporting it. Why can’t she just be satisfied with a hateful little website, like your average rightwing nutjob?
(“Girl cop” indeed. I don’t completely disagree with Ann’s points on this topic, but I completely disagree with the way she says them and the conclusions she draws.)
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”
“Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of ‘kill everyone who doesn’t smell bad and doesn’t answer to the name Mohammed’)”
“Press passes can’t be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president”
"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. "
Which is not directed at an ethnic group but is certainly about intimidation through violence.
Oddly enough, I’ve thought about posting about this.)
I uh…get the Sunday Sun (it has the tv guide in it, okay?) and she’s had a column for a few months now.
I usually don’t read it (I can even make my way through whatever nonsense Fred Henry is spewing, but can’t manage her) but for some reason I did this week.
The woman is practically incoherent. I think I got the point she was aiming at - but she was all over the place! In addition to being a wingnut, she can’t even form a decent paragraph.
How do you describe her writing style? Purple prose? Hysterical (as in out of control emotionally, not funny)? Down-homey? She seems to be aiming at a folksy, casual style, (complete with sarcastic little “quips”). While I enjoy that style in journalists like, say, Dave Barry, Ann’s style completely rubs me the wrong way. I think it’s the mean-spiritedness of her writing that gets to me. Putting herself up by bringing other people down.
You make a good point, Quartz. I have to cogitate on that.