<p>Oh yeah, I forgot about that Stuart Smalley thing… It’s been a long time</p>
<p>Michael Moore is a political satirist… (my original post was about political satirists, not comedians, somehow, as usual things get twisted up and before you know it, your defending something completely different than your first point)</p>
<p>Doesn’t change that Ann Coulter is a political satirist. </p>
<p>She’s also a raving lunatic. I, personally, don’t care for her, I’m just saying that
</p>
<p>My father in law thinks she’s a riot. That’s what I meant by a person’s leanings. And, before ya’ll go attacking my father in law - he is one of the most honorable and decent men I have ever known in my life. He just leans way right. It doesn’t mean I don’t love him.</p>
<p>How do you know what my political affiliation is? Do you know me? I am really pretty open to all viewpoints, and that is the point I am trying to make. </p>
<p>People’s perceptions are what dictate their opinions. The way one person reacts to something may seem ridiculous to others.</p>
<p>Personally, I think the way some of these threads end up in attacking others is pretty ridiculous. Aren’t we all parents just trying to do the best job we can for our kids. Why do people have to get mean? I’m just asking… :(</p>
<p>I’m sorry. I vote both sides. But I tolerate people like Ann and Mike very little, because they don’t make a point to find a solution, they just try and destroy. </p>
<p>Remember… I’m good enough, smart enough and gosh darn people like me…</p>
<p>I have to admit I’ve never read AnnC (or MikeM or Alf either) From what I’ve seen of her on TV (or mike or al) Why should I support their lifestyle?</p>
<p>dearest hanna whom i would wish onto the supreme court despite our differing views, what really lurks behind the prohibition against voicing certain slurs? Is there an implicit threat of violence when one is willing to forget the individual by defining him as part of a lesser group, one not deserving of human rights? certainly, if namecalling showed the namecaller to be of low character, there should be no objection to the act of namecalling. in fact, we would welcome the bringing to light of a politician’s inner beliefs. really, shutting people down when they use objectionable language just serves to make it even more difficult to define the already too packaged candidates. the debate over defusing the power of repulsive words is an old one. beyond the sense that we should not treat people with disrespect, is there a motive for clamping down on language, such as preventing physical persecution? </p>
<p>if coulter called whatshisname ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’ and meant it to be demeaning how does it differ from using a historically hurtful word?</p>
<p>I am not asking ‘what’s wrong with hate-mongering’? Rather, whether it is wise and in the best interests of society as a whole to insist upon using the words that have had their power extracted from them. It seems the public dialogue becomes only more empty as we are guided more by where not to step.</p>
<p>This also is an question of public and private since many make jokes in private that were better left in dark corners. What does it mean to be one self in public and then another in private? The more readily people are publicly exposed for their private moments, their slips, and the more easy it becomes to dig up ones transgressions from readily available information, the more closely we conform to nearly enforced personae and lose the sense of a private self.</p>
<p>“My father in law thinks she’s a riot. That’s what I meant by a person’s leanings.”</p>
<p>But there are limits to this principle, and you are not acknowledging them.</p>
<p>“how does it differ from using a historically hurtful word?”</p>
<p>It doesn’t, necessarily. You can spew an equally bigoted rant without the forbidden words. Poisoned words are sufficient, but not necessary, to turn cross the line from legitimate satire to ignorant cruelty.</p>
<p>Here’s an example that responds to both rorosen and ag54. Suppose Al Franken made a joke that it’s no surprise that Condoleezza Rice did such a poor job on her Middle East tour, because after all, she traveled to Iraq at “that time of the month.”</p>
<p>I’ve been a Franken fan for 20+ years, and the language is all perfectly clean, but I’d wash my hands of him forever if he said that, regardless of my agreement that Condoleezza was ineffective. That kind of “joke” isn’t a politcal attack on Condoleezza or the job she’s done. It’s a sexist slur against all women. Calling Edwards a f***** is the same thing, and it deserves the same response.</p>
<p>There is plenty of fabulous, biting satire of Democrats and left wingers, and people all over the spectrum can appreciate it. I recall the brilliant headline from The Onion about the Clinton inauguration: “New President Feels Nation’s Pain, Breasts.” Genius, if you ask me. It skewers Clinton and Clinton alone. That’s the difference between political satire and “hate-mongering that appeals to the worst base instincts in people.”</p>
<p>Edited to add: as I’ve said elsewhere, the great comic geniuses of our age get a free pass from me to say whatever they want. Eddie Murphy has put out some completely homophobic albums, and you won’t hear me complain. No one mentioned on this thread qualifies in my book…YMMV.</p>
<p>Do you think Al Franken was joking when he said this? or is it a misquote? If true, it may prove problematic during his campaign. That’s the problem with the internet and a search engine…</p>
<p>I have no idea. And I have no idea. (Since he was working in sketch comedy in 1976, it wouldn’t surprise me if he adopted the voice of a character during an interview, but who knows?) I imagine that if his campaign gets off the ground, it won’t necessarily matter what he meant or even whether he really said it; people will see it and take it as they will. In general, people get less upset about statements that are alleged to have been made in 1976 than statements being made today, but again, who knows?</p>
<p>the humor in his stuart smalley character drew on closet gayness. you might call it cruel.
he called limbaugh fat, frequently. </p>
<p>humor has a component of nastiness. </p>
<p>what if the joke was blunted in this way:
it’s no surprise that Condoleezza Rice did such a poor job on her Middle East tour, because after all, she traveled to Iraq at “that time of the month.”…Purim.</p>
<p>There are lots of gray areas where reasonable people can differ about what’s appropriate, like Stuart Smalley or jokes about your own community (see: Bill Cosby vs. Chris Rock on the word n*****). There are all kinds of circumstances that can arguably mitigate the power of an insult in context (speaking in character; quoting someone; making a comment about bigotry; saying it in Alabama in 1951 when it was the cultural norm).</p>
<p>And then there are statements that, when you look at all the circumstances, are clearly over the bigot line.</p>
<p>A straight Washington pundit making fun of a political enemy by calling him a f*****? In 2007? Not a gray area. Over the line. Do you disagree?</p>
<p>truly I am more interested in understanding the line itself than in casting stones. sorry to say, I proceed with the conviction that everyone has a dark self-serving heart. When someone slips and those demons become visible, if only briefly, I am not willing to feel superior. ( I have other grounds for feeling superior) But as I asked before, is there a reason this line is drawn where it is? I understand the idea of gray areas and context when it comes to legal(real world)decisions. I think it would be helpful to understand the vanity of bruised identities since insults, the psychological realm, are so often the lubricant of violence. </p>
<p>who says she?s straight? she derives her sex appeal from her lanky, adamsappley, foulmouthed hoarsevoiced boyish charm. she?s one of the boys. oral as they come. anyway, sex is a blur that no one understands but almost everyone pretends to. certainly no place to cast stones.</p>
<p>Rorosen, very good and well written post. (I don’t know anyone gay whose gaydar she doesn’t ping, but I couldn’t think of a good way to say it.)</p>
<p>It’s kind of like the sorceror’s apprentice in Fantasia, all these smear tactics seemed like a good idea when they were just aimed at Democrats, but once you start something you can’t get it stopped. The Republicans are now smearing each other pretty good, and reducing a 19 year old party operative to tears:</p>
<p>I believe you have all missed Coulter’s point which is that it has now become virtually a crime to denigrate homosexuality and if you do you’ll have to be sent off to rehab a la the Grey’s Anatomy actor. Well you know what? A lot of people do not think the practice of homosexuality is a good thing. It is a value judgement that may be made on the basis of religion, morality, or even science. Those people may be wrong but if we were to poll the country in a secret ballot I’d wager they actually in the majority.</p>
<p>Does not approving of homosexuality make you a worse person than somebody who does approve of it? I’d say that depends on whether or not you want to send all of those who disagree with you off to a rehab clinic for a little mental brainwashing.</p>
<p>higherlead: “A lot of people do not think the practice of homosexuality is a good thing. It is a value judgement that may be made on the basis of religion, morality, or even science. Those people may be wrong but if we were to poll the country in a secret ballot I’d wager they actually in the majority.”</p>
<p>There are many polls on this subject. The majority of Americans find homosexuality acceptable right now. One of the major findings is that there are large differences by age, whether you look at support for gay marriage/civil unions, adoption by gay parents, gays serving in the military or overall attitudes toward homosexuality. Over time, the younger folks will replace older ones in the population, leading to greater support for equality in these areas overall. </p>
<p>Coulter is on the wrong side of this historical tide and conservative political operatives know this.</p>
<p>Let me also add that the chances are quite high that today’s college students will find themselves in workplaces and community groups with people who are openly gay. </p>
<p>This is why many Fortune 500 corporations do diversity training that includes gay men/lesbians as part of their definition of a diverse workplace and have policies that prohibit discrimination based on homosexuality and give benefits to same sex partners. If students today are to be prepared to take their place in those settings, to have bosses and co-workers and subordinates who are gay and lesbian, they had better learn to deal with them as fellow human beings. And besides the internal company rules, there are a number of states (including my own, Maine) that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. </p>
<p>Of course, people can hold whatever private or moral views they want, but these cannot affect how one acts in the workplace.</p>
I believe you are right on this; but it is worth remembering that much of the world–certainly the liberal/left–felt that the Ronald Regan and Margaret Thatcher were also on the wrong side of the historical tide in the 80’s.</p>
<p>…and you know how that one turned out.</p>
<p>I see Coulter as an infotainer. An employment made possible by the demise of the moribund (and liberal) mainstream media; the rush to cable; and the necessity of garnering an audience either through the voyeurism of reality TeeVee or the political pillow-talking rants of the face-o-the month with cable programmers. </p>
<p>Coulter is, perhaps, a flavor that has lost or is loosing its novelty.</p>
<p>“is there a reason this line is drawn where it is?”</p>
<p>No, I think it’s an arbitrary symbol, just like other cultural standards about what’s acceptable and what’s not. In football, it’s OK to throw your weight at your opponent and knock him to the ground, but it isn’t ok to grab his face mask. That’s a pretty arbitrary rule.</p>
<p>But the fact that the rules are arbitrary does not change the fact that intentionally violating the rules is meaningful. If someone grabs your face mask during a time out, you know that they are prepared to disregard the rules in order to intimidate you or hurt you. It tells you a lot about that player’s character. The same can be said of a pundit who violates the 2007 cultural rule that calling an opponent a f***** is an act of bigotry. It’s dirty, dirty game play, and it lets you know exactly who you’re dealing with.</p>
<p>Higherlead, this isn’t about approving or disapproving of homosexuality, and it isn’t about religion. (Who would Jesus call a f*****?) It’s about decency versus nastiness in American political debate. You can be against homosexuality without being nasty about it; the president, among others, does that well.</p>
<p>I doubt there are many folks who would approve of Rudy or Newt’s sex or bonding practices, though “hating one’s family” is profoundly Biblical. ;)</p>
- he is one of the most honorable and decent men I have ever known in my life. He just leans way right. It doesn’t mean I don’t love him.</p>