First of all, at my college, I rarely even hear “that’s so gay,” and I never hear people insulting each other with the word ■■■■■■. Reasonable adults do not use that language in my experience. I also think the level of offense between “that’s so gay” and calling someone a ■■■■■■ is huge. From what I’ve always heard, the etymology is that suspected homosexuals were soaked with fuel and used like bundles of sticks to burn witches and other people who deserved a proper burning at the stake. Both terms (used in a deragatory manner) are unnecessary, offensive, and avoided by reasonable people, but I’d say using ■■■■■■ is much more offensive than associating gay people with being boring or “lame.”</p>
<p>^ Well said citygirlsmom. That is what I believe. If the word ■■■■■■ was accepted, young people would be saying that instead of gay. </p>
<p>I don’t need to use the gay insult, since I am tolerant and I’m educated and have been raised well. I can find other words to use to express my dislike for something. :)</p>
<p>Also referring to the post above me, since that poster and I posted at the same time…not one person has used the word “gay”? I think you’re lying. I hear people (college kids who are immature and high school kids) say it all the time. Also, I see it in blogs from people who do not attend my university. And I have heard people use the word “■■■■■■” to insult people, actually from a group on campus.</p>
<p>Just a sidenote: Isn’t this what Ann Coulter wants? She knew that if she said this word, people everywhere would blow a gasket about it. Offensive word + media = more attention for her. And it was no accident either.</p>
<p>Well this will be my last post on this forum for awhile since I don’t want to spend my spring break sitting in front of a laptop trying to defend myself constantly.</p>
<p>Coulter is often satirical and humorous. Edwards isn’t gay and everyone knows it and that is why her comments were funny. It is funny how liberals get so bent out of shape over an author making silly remarks but think nothing of someone comparing President Bush to Hitler. </p>
<p>What is even funnier is Howard Dean trying to associate GOP presidential candidates with Coulters comment by demanding that they denounce her comments. This is from a guy who has said some of the most mean-spirited things ever said.</p>
<p>Razorsharp, we are discussing Coulter’s remark. This thread is not about which political group is more moral or polite or caring or whatever, and I don’t think there have been many, if any, posts to that effect. No one here is saying that Democrats only say the good, while Republicans are mean and nasty. </p>
<p>
But yes, calling someone a ■■■■■■ is just so witty, isn’t it? All those fifth through eighth graders have such mature humor.</p>
<p>Yes marite, negative political advertising has alway been with us and perhaps it is more effective in appealing to our baser nature. And if fact I have no problem with honest negative ads directed toward an opponent as long as there is some positive ads promoting the candidate. And it doesnt have to be 50-50 either.</p>
<p>But Ms Coulther has made a cottage industry out of making the most provocative and outrageous statements. As your posts suggest her welcome is wearing very thin even in GOP circles. I am pleased to see her TV appearances dwindling greatly. I do not watch Faux News so I have no knowledge about her appearances there. </p>
<p>I have no such reservations about staunch Republicans like Newt who is a thoughtful speaker about the politics of the day even if I often disagree with his conclusions.</p>
<p>Obviously the GOP does and conservatives do, if they repeatedly invite her to SET THE TONE for their gatherings by making her the keynote speaker.</p>
<p>Razorsharp, if you thought the ■■■■■■ remarks were funny, I bet you really got a kick out of these:</p>
<p>the venom she spewed all over the 911 widows
her calling for the assassination of an American president and a Supreme Court justice
her statement that the “only problem” she had with what Timothy McVeigh did was that he didn’t bomb the office of an American newspaper instead of a federal building
her attempts to discredit the African American legislators who introduced legislation about slavery reparations, by trying to convince her viewers that these men were “white” not “black.”</p>
<p>Just a pile of laughs, right?</p>
<p>Why is Ann not funny? Look to post #50. Because gullible, prejudiced people listen to her remarks and go “Maybe it is true…” That’s bad enough in itself.</p>
<p>What makes it unforgivable is that by making her the keynote speaker at their gatherings, the right is going for just that effect–cynical manipulation of people who don’t know any better than to take her words to heart.</p>
HL, how we do you know you are not gay? In fact, it appears that all those repressed homosexual urges are making you crazy. Maybe you should just come to terms with this and come out. You will be happier as you will not have to pretend so hard that you are “manly”.</p>
<p>Who cares which side of the plate I bat from or which side you think I would be happiest batting from? I’m not running for public office and even if I were my positions on the issues ought to matter more than my position relative to my paramour.</p>
<p>What Coulter did was take a swing at Political Correctness and that is a healthy thing in a free society. After all the only free speech that needs protecting is the kind that people find offensive. Whether it is Coulter or Michael Moore throwing the dead cat on the high alter of the sanctuary I applaud it or at least rise to its defense.</p>
<p>As for Edwards it is not difficult to pigeonhole him as the fey favorite of Volvo-driving, Chardonnay-sipping elitists, and that is what Coulter did. Fair enough to say that was a cheap shot and not particularly funny in and of itself, but you cannot offend the easily offended PC crowd by bandying about a word that will send them into paroxysms of indignation without an object on which to apply the term. The “sin” that Coulter committed was to suggest that faggotry might not be an unmitigated good, and that is a point not even open to debate among a censorious segment of the political Left.</p>
<p>Every offensive comment is not a brave stab at excessive political correctness. Ann Coulter really does dislike homosexuality. Hence, when she insults someone by calling him a “■■■■■■,” she is offering an honest look at her opinions, albeit one motivated by her obvious desire to shock.</p>
<p>I also don’t understand why everyone assumes that people who criticize someone’s speech are automatically trying to censor it. Coulter should be allowed to say whatever she chooses, including at the Republican National Convention, if they were foolish enough to give her a platform. That doesn’t mean people are obliged to give her the platform in teh first place.</p>
<p>Spreading deliberate lies to appeal to base prejudice is healthy now?</p>
<p>What a crock.</p>
<p>The only good thing about Ann Coulter is that she’s made it clear that whatever “conversatives” may stand for now (some are big government, some are small government, some are financially responsible, others are piling on the debt as fast as they can, some believe in national security, some believe in squandering that security on foreign adventues)–they no longer have much claim to the high moral ground in American politics. </p>
<p>The Ann Coulters of this world have done tremendous harm to the Republican party, the conservative movement, and with it, the country and the world, by providing an automatic scapegoat for everything that goes wrong. </p>
<p>There’s no need to take responsibilty for the outcome of your actions, if you can just blame the “liberal media” everytime anything goes wrong. There’s no need to focus on the issues, or even have a good track record on them, if all you have to do is demonize the opponent, and people like higherlead will fall for it everytime.</p>
<p>Fortunately, I think the American people are finally started to wake up. The first response to the neglect and horrible conditions in the outpatient facility at Walter Reed was to deny there was “the other Walter Reed” and to accuse the Washington Post of distorting the issue. And for once, the American people didn’t let them get away with it. Let’s hope there will be a for twice, and a for three times, ad infinitum.</p>