Who are Ann Coulter's fans?

The BBQ Pit
221

[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 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.

222

[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 you’re thin-skinned. So?

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.

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.

So what? Coulter’s book’s are equally big heaps. So her exaggerations are perfectly normal.

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.

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.

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.

I’m sorry, this is too lame to bother the hamsters about.

And some of my best friends are colored.

Maybe you could actually read the book for yourself. It has some hard words, but ask for help if you need it.

Regards,
Shodan

223

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.

224

[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!

225

[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?

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.

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.

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.

226

[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.

227

[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 -

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

228

[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. :wink:

229

[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.

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

230

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.

231

[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.

232

[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).

233

[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.

234
  • George Orwell, Animal Farm
235

[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:

… 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.

236

[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

237

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?

238

[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?

239

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]

Btw, what happened to magellan01?
[/QUOTE]

He cut and ran. Traitor!

240

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!