# Who are Ann Coulter's fans? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 31, 2007, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709 "2007-10-31T14:07:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/221 "2007-11-05T22:23:59Z")
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool] First of all, when have I _not_ admitted that the left has its share of assholes? The left has its share of assholes. Happy?. [/QUOTE] I was already happy, it is simply that some folks around here seem to find that Coulter is SOOOO unique in this world of nasty politics. [QUOTE=MaxTheVool] However, the point I’m trying to make is twofold: (1) Ann Coulter is a spectacular beeyatch (2) There is not automatically some left-wing Ann Coulter just to somehow maintain some cosmic balance. Al Franken is not the left-wing Ann Coulter. Neither is Michael Moore.. [/QUOTE] Automatically a counter? No. The same way the Right does not have a Michael Moore, the Left does not have a Coulter. I don’t know know why one side succeeds more in certain venues than the other. This is not The Force, there need not be a perfect balance. [QUOTE=MaxTheVool] To address your specific points: (1) “Krugman’s book is full of attacks on the Right, without admitting to the fallacies of the Left.” Wait, dear lord, you’re saying that someone who identifies with a political philosophy wrote a book and it was slanted in favor of that philosophy and opposed to the other one? Really? . [/QUOTE] OK - I am responding to people who think that the only ones publishing bullshit one sided polemics is the Right. Since you have agreed that is NOT the case, no need to worry. [QUOTE=MaxTheVool] Can’t you see the enormous difference between “his book is really unbalanced and makes badly constructed arguments cherry picking data and is generally crappy” and “her book’s entire point, in black and white, is that all liberals are traitors/dumb”? They just aren’t the same thing at all.. [/QUOTE] I see both as worthless tomes with little to offer. Coulter’s is far more simplified and biting, Krugman veils his nonsense with a NYT byline and graduate degree. [QUOTE=MaxTheVool] (2) “Hitchens is an asshole who insults the religous - and not just the religous right.” Well, I haven’t read his book. I did go to [amazon.com](http://amazon.com) and read all of it that I could, namely, the first 5 or so pages of the foreword. And, oddly, none of it involves vitriolic blanket attacks on all religious people. In fact, he talks specifically about two religious people (a teacher and headmaster from his childhood) both of whom he mainly says nice things about. [/QUOTE] His title is AS vitriolic as Coulters, IMHO. I won’t read either book anytime soon. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/222 "2007-11-05T23:00:26Z")
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool] But does it, really? Let’s assume for a moment that your image of Ann is correct, and when she sat down to write **Treason** , she had some precise point about liberalism that she wanted to make, ie “modern liberalism in America has the following problems, X Y and Z”. So, she dispassionately decided, in the interest of getting that message across as broadly as possible, that instead of writing a book whose title and apparent premise was “Here are some problems with modern liberalism”, she would instead write a book whose title and apparent premise was “All liberals are traitors who hate America”. This would cause such controversy that lots of people would read her book. They would then, upon reading her book, realize that she did not actually mean that all liberals were traitors who hated America, at least not in the obvious, literal, sense. Rather, they would actually have her message about points X Y and Z communicated to them, at which point they would consider those points and see what they could do to address or attack them, thus improving the US for everyone. [/quote] Just like the title of every Pit thread is a calm and dispassionate statement of undisputed fact. > [@](#): > > So instead of me learning about X Y and Z and at least getting a chance to think about them, all that happens is that I come on the SDMB and have a screaming match with you. So you’re thin-skinned. So? > [@](#): > > Note how many Ann Coulter threads there have been in the history of the SDMB. In how many of them have we discussed issues X Y and Z, the hypothetical actual points she is trying to make when she clearly and directly calls liberals traitors? Pretty close to zero. Because the SDMB has a sizable population of people who can’t discuss Coulter’s ideas reasonably. That’s partly her fault, and partly not. There is a sizable population of the SDMB who can’t discuss anything in the Pit calmly and dispassionately. Or anywhere else, either. > [@](#): > > Thus, purely by observing the outcome, I am forced to conclude that Ann’s writing style does a fantastic job of getting her publicity, and piss-poor job of actually communicating the hypothetical subtle and nuanced position you claim she holds. She isn’t aiming at you. She is having fun at your expense, and aiming at someone else. There are any number of folks on the Left who do the same thing. > [@](#): > > But so what? The SDMB is a big heap of passionate argument, and when tempers flare of rhetoric demands it, exaggerations are perfectly normal. So what? Coulter’s book’s are equally big heaps. So her exaggerations are perfectly normal. > [@](#): > > However, if someone said “Hey, **MaxTheVool** , your ideas intrigue me, and I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter… please write 10,000 words about your opinion of the Bush presidency”, and this was something that was going to be widely read, something that might, conceivably, have the chance to change someone’s mind or open someone’s eyes, I would be VERY careful to make my comments and attacks supported and sober ones. And since Coulter is a best-selling author, and you (and I) are dumb schmucks who have to pay $7.48 to post, it might be the case that she has a better idea on how to reach a large audience than either you or I. > [@](#): > > When I have the time to really lay out the case about the problems with the Bush administration, and the evil and blundering things it has done, I have no need to fall back on rhetorical shorthand. And yet, on occasion, you do anyway. You are hardly alone, on the SDMB and elsewhere. Hell, CBS had to rely on forged documents to try to get across their points. > [@](#): > > (1) Others have mentioned this, but the biggest difference is that Bush is a public figure and all-liberals-in-the-US are half the people in the country. And here is the drawback of arguing things without first hand knowledge. If you had read the book Treason (I have - actually, I listened to it on CD in my car), you may have noticed that pretty much all of the figures Coulter identifies as traitors are also public figures. > [@](#): > > (3) Also, you are making a very dangerous slippery slope argument. If criticizing the president hampers his ability to lead, then criticizing the president hurts the country. And what do we call things that hurt the country? Treason! So criticizing the president is treasonous? Hmmm… seems like that isn’t really what most of us think the Bill of Rights says… I’m sorry, this is too lame to bother the hamsters about. > [@](#): > > Hitchens is an asshole who insults the religous - and not just the religous right." > Well, I haven’t read his book. I did go to [amazon.com](http://amazon.com) and read all of it that I could, namely, the first 5 or so pages of the foreword. And, oddly, none of it involves vitriolic blanket attacks on all religious people. In fact, he talks specifically about two religious people (a teacher and headmaster from his childhood) both of whom he mainly says nice things about. And some of my best friends are colored. > [@](#): > > Oh, and while we’re here, I (like **kimstu** ) would appreciate it if you took a second to explain precisely what it is that you think Ann Coulter is trying to communicate when she says (over and over again) that liberals are traitors. Thanks. Maybe you could actually read the book for yourself. It has some hard words, but ask for help if you need it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/223 "2007-11-05T23:12:10Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If you had read the book Treason (I have - actually, I listened to it on CD in my car), you may have noticed that pretty much all of the figures Coulter identifies as traitors are also public figures. That doesn’t contradict the point that she’s calling ALL liberals traitors, though. Sure, when she froths about a specific liberal individual, she picks a public figure. But she has also, as I noted above, stated very explicitly that she thinks that ALL people who don’t support President Bush are traitors. And clearly, that includes liberals. Neither you nor **magellan01** can dismiss this by pretending that Coulter really must mean something more “nuanced” about just a particular subset of liberals, and we have to read her book to figure out what it is. Nope, if Coulter had actually intended any nuance, she could have said somewhere “Oh, by the way, I don’t mean to suggest that ALL liberals are traitors”. Since she hasn’t said any such thing—in fact, she’s explicitly said exactly the opposite—she evidently DOES mean that all liberals are traitors. It’s hardly out of line or oversensitive for any liberal to resent such a grossly insulting and slanderous generalization. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/224 "2007-11-06T00:30:32Z")
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool] ..polar opposite of the stereotypical protestor (dirty worthless hippy)… [/QUOTE] Well, OK, buddy, but next time you desperately need a tie dyed shirt or a hand dipped candle, just don’t come crying to me! ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/225 "2007-11-06T07:22:19Z")
[QUOTE=Algher] I also think that the attention on Coulter only serves her ends, so folks who target her are only filling her bank account thanks to free publicity. [/QUOTE] I assume you’re referring to this type of attention, ie, people on the SDMB talking about her. If so, how do you figure? Are there people who are going to be lured into purchasing her books due to this thread? > [@](#): > > OK - I am responding to people who think that the only ones publishing bullshit one sided polemics is the Right. Not trying to be snide here, but… who would think that? That kind of belief about the other side (“liberals literally believe that all liberals are smart and all conservatives are dumb”) is precisely the kind of divisiveness that Ann Coulter promotes. > [@](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > Can’t you see the enormous difference between “his book is really unbalanced and makes badly constructed arguments cherry picking data and is generally crappy” and “her book’s entire point, in black and white, is that all liberals are traitors/dumb”? They just aren’t the same thing at all.. > > I see both as worthless tomes with little to offer. Coulter’s is far more simplified and biting, Krugman veils his nonsense with a NYT byline and graduate degree. Except that, and I guess maybe we just disagree here, Coulter’s book is hateful and divisive and libelous and personally insulting. Krugman’s is (at worst… I’m taking your word here) wrong and misleading. How you can view those two things anything like equivalent is beyond me. > [@](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > (2) “Hitchens is an asshole who insults the religous - and not just the religous right.” > > Well, I haven’t read his book. I did go to [amazon.com](http://amazon.com) and read all of it that I could, namely, the first 5 or so pages of the foreword. And, oddly, none of it involves vitriolic blanket attacks on all religious people. In fact, he talks specifically about two religious people (a teacher and headmaster from his childhood) both of whom he mainly says nice things about. > > His title is AS vitriolic as Coulters, IMHO. It’s certainly in the same neighborhood and might have the same effect of being counterproductive. Certainly I wouldn’t want to discuss a book with that title with one of my truly devoutly religious friends. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/226 "2007-11-06T07:25:19Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Maybe you could actually read the book for yourself. It has some hard words, but ask for help if you need it. [/QUOTE] Why was this necessary? I mean, sure, this is the pit and all, but Magellan and Algher and I (and a few others) had been having a basically polite and fairly interesting discussion. But any desire I had to respond to your post was totally negated by an uncalled-for personal attack. In fact, I sense an interesting parallel. You may have had a more nuanced point, but you threw in enough gratuitous insults as to derail the conversation. So be it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/227 "2007-11-06T13:46:43Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] That doesn’t contradict the point that she’s calling ALL liberals traitors, though. [/quote] I don’t have time to read thru all the cites, but the one I found says this - > [@](#): > > COULTER: Always, though I must say, going to Cornell and University of Michigan, their system didn’t work on me. Rather than becoming a liberal, I think that pushed me more to the right, or at least made me more skeptical and made me mildly contemptuous of liberals because I don’t like bullies and snobs, and that is what liberals are. And it just – I mean, if you have… > > LAMB: All liberals? > > COULTER: Well, certainly, the ones you see – **no. These are generalizations. Some of my best friends are liberals.** So apparently she does mean something more nuanced. Like I said, it’s difficult to discuss an author’s writings with people who refuse to read the books. And I have neither the time nor the inclination to read it to you. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Plastic\_Ninja](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f07891/32.png) [@Little\_Plastic\_Ninja](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Plastic_Ninja)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/228 "2007-11-06T15:47:15Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Like I said, it’s difficult to discuss an author’s writings with people who refuse to read the books. And I have neither the time nor the inclination to read it to you. [/QUOTE] Should we really have the inclination to read them ourselves? If I were conservative, I don’t think I would read or respect the opinions of someone who flat out says “All conservatives are gay homophobic pedophiles”. I’m at least more liberal than your average Texan (not hard), but I’m also very proudly an American. I’m the daughter of a veteran. I love my country. Telling me that I’m guilty of treason is, as we say down here, fightin’ words. It’s a grievous insult. Why should I respect a person who insults me? Why should I read her book? You think I should seek to understand someone who certainly does not care about my opinion? I thought it was us liberals who were the touchy feely “you just have to understaaaaaaaaaand” folk. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/229 "2007-11-06T19:35:47Z")
[QUOTE=Little Plastic Ninja] Should we really have the inclination to read them ourselves? If I were conservative, I don’t think I would read or respect the opinions of someone who flat out says “All conservatives are gay homophobic pedophiles”. [/QUOTE] Your call. I’ve read Al Franken, Molly Ivin and Hitchens, as well as Coulter. I wouldn’t feel comfortable condemning them unless I had. YMMV. Shit, if I couldn’t stand to read an opinion from someone who was an asshole about expressing it, I would have half the SDMB on my ignore list. Nobody should be forcing anybody to read anything. But you might consider how much you want to isolate your opinions by never reading anything from someone even if they are often offensive. > [@](#): > > I’m the daughter of a veteran. I love my country. Telling me that I’m guilty of treason is, as we say down here, fightin’ words. It’s a grievous insult. Why should I respect a person who insults me? Why should I read her book? Like I said, your call, but I kind of went over this with **foolguinea** ’s post. Hitchens accuses me of poisoning everything, because I am religious. Should I dismiss his book out of hand? Any number of Dopers (and no, it isn’t just **Der Trihs** ) accuse me of being a racist and a enabler of pedophelia and God knows what else, because I am a Republican. It’s a fairly vehemently asserted meme that anyone who voted for Bush is a mindless robot. **Polycarp** said I wasn’t a good American because I think Jimmy Carter is a buffoon. Various members of the SDMB have wished death on my family members. **And** , fairly often, many of the same people come up with interesting and insightful comments on all kinds of stuff. Since I am able to develop a thick enough hide to dismiss them when they’re being recta, I am also able to derive both pleasure and insight from their posting when they are not. There is a lot to recommend being able to draw the distinction. Like I said, your call. “She hurt my feelings” is a perfectly valid reason to put someone on your ignore list (metaphorically speaking). As long as you are aware that you might be missing something. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/230 "2007-11-06T19:49:51Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So apparently she does mean something more nuanced. But on a different subject. She says in your cite that she isn’t calling ALL liberals “bullies and snobs”. That doesn’t mean that she isn’t calling ALL liberals “traitors”, which she evidently **is** doing in many other statements. Again, like **magellan01** , you don’t seem able to refute this except by pretending that Coulter “really means” something other than what she’s clearly saying. Then you fall back on saying that I’ll have to read her works myself to understand her “real meaning”, because it’s “nuanced”. I don’t buy it. If she does not actually mean it when she clearly states that all liberals are traitors, then you should easily be able to find a cite from her disclaiming that intention and explaining how her repeated statements to that effect actually mean something other than what they seem to mean. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/231 "2007-11-06T20:36:32Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] But on a different subject. She says in your cite that she isn’t calling ALL liberals “bullies and snobs”. That doesn’t mean that she isn’t calling ALL liberals “traitors”, which she evidently **is** doing in many other statements. Again, like **magellan01** , you don’t seem able to refute this except by pretending that Coulter “really means” something other than what she’s clearly saying. Then you fall back on saying that I’ll have to read her works myself to understand her “real meaning”, because it’s “nuanced”. I don’t buy it. If she does not actually mean it when she clearly states that all liberals are traitors, then you should easily be able to find a cite from her disclaiming that intention and explaining how her repeated statements to that effect actually mean something other than what they seem to mean. [/QUOTE] But does it really matter? Case I – All liberals are traitors. Proof: liberal ideology is logically inconsistent with not being a traitor Objection: There exists a liberal ideology consistent with patriotism. Case II – There exist some liberals who are traitors. Proof: Some liberals have been convicted of treason or espouse ideology consistent with treason. Objection: The first is granted. The second is an empirical question. Political ideology is not a very good predictor of future treasonous behavior. Third, how many liberals have to be traitors for this to be relevant? The majority? The majority plus one? Minus one? Case III – There is a single traitorous liberal. Proof: See above Objection: See above These are the only three possibilities. Each are equally unhelpful and/or irrelevant. Though I am not ordinarily disposed to reading Coulter, I read the introduction to her Traitors book on Amazon. Aside from a few provocative adjectives, it was not particularly exciting. Most of the captioned section is just an attack on Eric Foner, an historian I happened to know as an undergrad history major at the school where he teaches. It wasn’t very interesting. Even if we believe that Coulter satisfied the third case, that Foner is somehow a traitor, she does not seem to make much progress generalizing to the first two. Offensive? Probably not. She would have to try harder to be truly offensive. The idea that we can take her “some of my best friends are liberals” at face value is utterly retarded. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/232 "2007-11-06T20:54:21Z")
[QUOTE=Maeglin] The idea that we can take her “some of my best friends are liberals” at face value is utterly retarded. [/QUOTE] What do you mean by that? Are you saying that it’s impossible that she has liberal friends? Or that she can have these views of liberalism and have liberal friends at the same time? I think it’s kind of funny the way people seem to think that ideologies should keep people apart. Most of my friends are liberals. In fact, my best, most dear friend in the world is a self-described socialist. Politically, she and I could not be farther apart. Yet, we have been as close as sisters since the 6th grade. And I would not call liberals treasonous by any means, but I do think much of liberalism is…well, let’s just say misguided. And I think much of it is contrary to the ideals of freedom that the U.S was built on (much of conservativism is, too…I don’t wish to debate the point here…I am only saying it to illustrate that one can have very strong negative feelings about an ideology, and still love and respect people who hold those views). ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/233 "2007-11-06T21:16:45Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] What do you mean by that? Are you saying that it’s impossible that she has liberal friends? Or that she can have these views of liberalism and have liberal friends at the same time? [/QUOTE] Neither. It is her use of a particularly infamous phrase to mitigate the force of what she says. Unlike her actual argument, it is also impossible to disprove. Who the hell knows if this is true? Last but not least, how does having liberal friends imply that she is not still mischaracterizing liberalism? It is a non sequitur, it is irrelevant, and it insults the intelligence of her audience. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/234 "2007-11-06T21:37:40Z")
> [@](#): > > The source of the trouble appeared to be that Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington had each played an ace of spades simultaneously. > > Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. - George Orwell, Animal Farm ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2007, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/235 "2007-11-07T09:27:41Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] Her point that these people are pulled into to be spokesmen for specific causes specifically because it is difficult to argue with them due to their victimm status. Two other examples she used was Cindy Sheehan (in the early days) to shit on Bush and the war and Max Cleeland to lay into Bush &Co. as a bunch of chicken-hawks. Her point was that their victim status does not make them right, but it stifles the debate. So the 9/11 widows needn’t be treated like innocent injured lambs when they hit the airways demanding investigations, blaming Bush, etc. Their arguments she be confronted and argued against just as if it were you or I making them. [/QUOTE] This may ostensibly be Coulter’s point, but it is horseshit and is really just a cover for something else. There is no difficulty in debating the views of victims and their relatives. It does not shut down the debate. You just say (as many real statesmen and leaders have done and will do) “Well, I understand that Mrs SoandSo is very upset at the moment and our deepest sympathies are with her. But the government of this nation has to have policies based on broad considerations of what is good for the nation as a whole and for these reasons [insert facts and logic here] we believe it’s appropriate to do such and such.” Such a response can be powerful and even use the victim’s status against them by subtlely implying (often quite correctly) that their emotional involvement disqualifies them from objectively considering the issues. But the normal response of a Rovian style political movement when faced with criticism that cannot be convincingly rebutted is to aim a vicious campaign of slanderous lies at the critic. Call them a pedophile, lie or subtlely mislead about their status or wealth, ruin their wife’s career, you know the type of thing. So what _really_ shits off those who belong to such a movement about outspoken victims is that the victim’s innocence and the empathy people have for them means that such a campaign will not work, or will even backfire. I could be wrong, but when I read something like this: > [@Anne Coulter](#): > > These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis… These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them… I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much. … I’m pretty sure I’m right. This isn’t about making the point that poor, sympathy deserving victims can still be dead wrong and must be debated. It’s just Coulter’s usual: an assholish _ad hom_, turned up to eleven in this case because it’s the equivalent of a pitiful, last ditch, squealing tantrum of a vicious bitch-child who is frustrated by the realisation that her despicable antics aren’t working as she believes she is entitled to have them work, on this particular target. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2007, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/236 "2007-11-07T13:48:08Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] But on a different subject. She says in your cite that she isn’t calling ALL liberals “bullies and snobs”. That doesn’t mean that she isn’t calling ALL liberals “traitors”, which she evidently **is** doing in many other statements. [/quote] _:shrugs:_ It hardly matters. If you are determined to take offense, you can always come up with a reason. FWIW, Coulter said that “these are generalizations”. Note the plural. It is not merely the one statement that is a generalization, that liberals are bullies and snobs, but other statements as well. Like I said, it is a waste of time debating books with people who refuse to read the books under discussion. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2007, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/237 "2007-11-07T14:39:15Z")
It’s like I always say: how can we ever expect to have a rational debate on the merits of coprophagy when, without fail, a few boorish spoilsports eschew the buffet platter? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2007, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/238 "2007-11-07T18:42:52Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Like I said, it is a waste of time debating books with people who refuse to read the books under discussion. [/QUOTE] Well, perhaps if you didn’t randomly decide to fling unprovoked insults in your first post in the thread (see my post 226), people would be more interested in debating wtih you and responding to your points. Btw, what happened to **magellan01**? ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2007, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/239 "2007-11-07T19:02:49Z")
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool] Btw, what happened to **magellan01**? [/QUOTE] He cut and ran. Traitor! ---
**Author:** ![CRich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@CRich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CRich)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2007, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709/240 "2007-11-07T19:15:11Z")
I’m pretty much a middle of the road moderate–social moderate, fiscal moderate. Couldn’t get much more middle of the road. I’ve always listened to both sides of an argument before making up my mind–now, I think in large part to Ann Coulter and others on the right more so than those on the left, you can’t have a discussion, just a shouting match with lots of name calling. I’m also a registered Democrat, although I’ve probably voted for just about as many Republicans as Democrats. Ann’s latest book tells me that if I had any brains, I’d be a Republican. Wow. Thanks a lot…bitch. Think she’d want to read a book entitled “Ann, If You Weren’t Such A Brain Dead Freak, You’d Be A Democrat”? How does that help us come to a consensus on a topic? If she’s got something of value to add to the conversation, why does she need to resort to insults and name calling? Because I’m thinking that if that’s how Republicans think about me, maybe I’ll just stop listening to them. And voting for them. Hey! Maybe she’s actually a stealth Democrat! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-ann-coulters-fans/424709.md?page=13)