« In Defense of "Wanker of the Day" | Main | "War Is Not The Instrument He Thought It Was" »
March 03, 2007
Thank You Ma'am
Occasional commentor Elizabeth Edwards has a nice post on the whole Ann Coulter brouhaha. I'm happy that she's using this as a way of attacking homophobia:
Although her words did not hurt us, they may have hurt some in the gay community. We are all sick and tired of anyone supporting or applauding or introducing hate words into the national dialogue, tired of people thinking that words that cause others pain are fair game. And we are sick and tired of people like Miss Coulter thinking that her use of loaded words about the homosexual community in this country is remotely humorous or appropriate.
In general, this is how people should respond to homophobic or racist language -- hit back against the speakers for being prejudiced. Enough progress has been made on the more crude variety of racial slurs that even outside polite society, they do more to damage the speaker than to humiliate the target of the language. It won't be long until antigay slurs work the same way, and every bit of scorn that we throw at people who use the slurs brings that time closer.
March 3, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
In general, this is how people should respond to homophobic or racist language -- hit back against the speakers for being prejudiced.
And then join hands and sing "Kumbayah."
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Mar 3, 2007 6:53:24 PM
It's good to see this. Since I'm never satisfied, let me say that it would have been better to see this not only from her, but her husband, Howard Dean, the HRC and anyone else who condemned Coulter's slur without really explaining why it's a problem.
Posted by: Stephen | Mar 3, 2007 6:59:07 PM
I can't satisfy you all the way, Stephen, but I can tell you what her husband said:
"Ann Coulter's use of an anti-gay slur yesterday was un-American and indefensible. In America, we strive for equality and embrace diversity. The kind of hateful language she used has no place in political debate or our society at large.
I believe it is our moral responsibility to speak out against that kind of bigotry and prejudice every time we encounter it."
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Mar 3, 2007 7:04:34 PM
It's not kumbaya to denounce someone - what other action would you have people take?
Posted by: akaison | Mar 3, 2007 7:32:34 PM
Good response, both from Elizabeth and her husband.
Posted by: nolo | Mar 3, 2007 7:35:07 PM
Just another politician taking advantage of a political opportunity. So what? Every other liberal contender wishes they had that opportunity. Conservative contenders are hoping for an opportunity like this to play to their base as well.
The reality is...nobody much cares. Coulter is known for this kind of stuff. Nobody cares about Coulter, and nobody cares that she called Edwards a faggot. Maybe it's because of his hair.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 3, 2007 8:29:49 PM
Maybe it's because it appeals to her base.
Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 3, 2007 8:45:02 PM
Neil the Ethical Werewolf wrote, "In general, this is how people should respond to homophobic or racist language -- hit back against the speakers for being prejudiced. Enough progress has been made on the more crude variety of racial slurs that even outside polite society, they do more to damage the speaker than to humiliate the target of the language."
Ridiculous. And just to point out how wrong you are, do you actually think that the target, in this case ann coulter, ever feels any shame about anything she says? Hell no. She cashes another check and laughs all the way to the bank.
Neil, you're absolutely right in that this is a good response from a candidate though not nearly strong enough.
Once again, the thing you do with comments like this is make people associated with the event wear them, forever. This should a sign around (to name just one) mitt romney's neck.
Comments such as coulter's aren't for "us" anyway. It's for the party faithful. You know, the ones who, as I said in an earlier thread, say fred phelps wrong but still think all homosexuals will burn in hell. And, it's a stance. It's an attempt to secure the "we're stronger, tougher and more candid than you" ground.
Stephen wrote, "It's good to see this. Since I'm never satisfied, let me say that it would have been better to see this not only from her, but her husband, Howard Dean, the HRC and anyone else who condemned Coulter's slur without really explaining why it's a problem."
Huh?
"explain why it's a problem"?
Seriously?
Once again, anyone that needs an explanation why calling an opposing candidate is a "faggot" isn't going to agree with or even understand the explanation.
The thing to do with a remark like this is to shove it down the throat of the supposed "moderates" who might, just might, be humiliated that talk like this came from the side they might support. Everyone else, on each opoosing side, gets it. You either think it's despicable or not. There's no need to explain it.
While I think Some Call Me Tim was maybe a bit cryptic, I think he's right. This isn't a comment in need of an explanation, it's a cudgel to use against anyone who takes CPAC money. Beat the living shit out of them with it. That will get results. If, for the next two weeks, every time mitt romney is in public, someone asks him how he can take money from a group that describes his political opponent as a "faggot" I think we'd see a shift away from the use of this kind of language. None of the rethug candidates want to be on TV or radio explaining why they take money from a group that sponsors such ignorant, hateful language.
Explaining why it's "hurtful"? Not all that powerful.
Posted by: ice weasel | Mar 3, 2007 8:51:10 PM
Neil,
I hadn't seen that for some reason. I'm quite a bit more satisfied.
ice weasel,
There are quite a few in the LGBT community who disagree with your contention that we don't need to be clear about why such language is unacceptable. I just agree with them.
Posted by: Stephen | Mar 3, 2007 9:09:12 PM
Stephen: I sort of see what you are saying. Think of it this way; it would be somewhat like it was in the 50s, and Coulter said that Edwards was "part n***er". You don't have to believe that there's anything wrong with being black to find such a remark offensive, as (1) an epithet was used, and (2) Coulter would have been trying to appeal to the racial prejudice of her audience, just as she's trying to appeal to their homophobia now.
Posted by: kth | Mar 3, 2007 10:05:47 PM
I'm curious, Fred Jones: If no one cares what Ann Coulter has to say, why was she invited to speak at CPAC?
Posted by: JBL | Mar 3, 2007 10:10:22 PM
Ann really isn't the sharpest knife in the shed, either...(see video)
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/ann-coulter-gets-owned.html
Posted by: minorripper | Mar 3, 2007 10:11:38 PM
"Ann Coulter's use of an anti-gay slur yesterday was un-American and indefensible."
Which America?
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Mar 3, 2007 10:17:50 PM
fodder (both plus and minus) for Gore Drafters.
http://johnstodderinexile.wordpress.com/2007/03/03/was-al-gore-abused-as-a-candidate/
Posted by: Sam | Mar 3, 2007 10:23:48 PM
Actually, I'm starting to think Coulter's comment was a signal: "Mitt might not have hated gays enough before, but now he applauds me when I make this comment." The attempted slam at Edwards seems like just an added benefit.
Posted by: Jade | Mar 3, 2007 10:42:28 PM
"Which America?"
I know which one. One that is One.
Posted by: Benny | Mar 3, 2007 10:52:07 PM
The reality is...nobody much cares. Coulter is known for this kind of stuff. Nobody cares about Coulter, and nobody cares that she called Edwards a faggot. Maybe it's because of his hair.
Apparently she was a huge hit at the CPAC conference. If no one cares about her, then who is buying her books, watching her on TV, and inviting her to Republican conferences to endorse presidential candidates?
If one accepts that the free market is morally neutral -- ie, that producers can't be held responsible for their product -- then we might be willing to give Ann a pass. Perhaps what we should focus on is condemning the consumers of Ann's products. Why would anyone socialize with those college Republicans who cheered her on? Why is an avid reader of Ann Coulter's books treated any better than someone who's a fan of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? If Ann was driven from the public stage, no doubt someone else would come to take her place. The problem is that instead of keeping consumption of her sort of media on the fringes of polite society -- much the same way that we treat pornography, open racism, and prostitution -- we consider it socially acceptable for her books to be sold in chain bookstores and allow her to be featured on cable news channels with no social consequences for those who watch her or read her.
Posted by: Constantine | Mar 3, 2007 11:12:34 PM
Oh boo hoo. If you really think gay folk are in their cups because Ann called Edwards a faggot, you've got to be kidding. I stopped paying attention to this childish use of faggot in Junior High, and I know I am surely not alone in that. I don't need Patronizing words from John or Elizabeth Edwards. If Ann's comments are offensive - and they are, as well as childish and inane - the person to be offended is Edwards, not the whole freaking gay community. This isn't about being anti-gay, it's about trying to denigrate Edwards because he's good looking in a somewhat pretty way; Ann just lacks the verbal grace to actually try to be clever, and so we get "faggot" like it's lunchtime at high school. The problem isn't that Ann hates homosexuals, the problem is Ann, it has been for a long time, and it's long past time when principled people on the right need to stop being cute about acting surprised when Ann says something asinine. But to pull out the rainbow flags and, as Tim says, insist we all sing kumbayah? Thanks, but no thanks. Go hug some other community, and leave the gays out of it.
Posted by: weboy | Mar 3, 2007 11:54:38 PM
The Protocols of Zion doesn't have the "plausible deniability" Coulter does. She's viewed as entertainment on the Right, so the viciousness and violations of proper standards are excused on that basis--all for fun. Obviously it's more complex than that.
Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 3, 2007 11:57:45 PM
I like her response. We are tired. That is why people flocked to the blogs here and looked here for relief from the hate politics of the right. We want to be inspired and to not use someone's race, creed or color or sexual orientation as a way to drive hate into people's hearts and tear this nation apart.
Posted by: vwcat | Mar 3, 2007 11:57:53 PM
"It's not big, and it's not clever." is an underused formulation. It makes Little Awful Annie look like a peer of her immature college-age fanboys.
As I said elsethread, the way to deal with Coulter is through performance art.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Mar 4, 2007 12:43:16 AM
"Ann Coulter's use of an anti-gay slur yesterday was un-American and indefensible. In America, we strive for equality and embrace diversity. The kind of hateful language she used has no place in political debate or our society at large.
I believe it is our moral responsibility to speak out against that kind of bigotry and prejudice every time we encounter it."
That is what John Edwards said about Ann Coulter, right?
Replace "anti-gay" with, let's say, oh, I don't know, how about "anti-Christian".
Here is what someone who was on his staff had to say about Christianity:
"Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology."
"The paradox was this—how can anybody look at the figure of Christ on the cross and think that’s anything but a condemnation of torture? For the thinking person, it clearly is. But for the fundamentalist, that image creates anxiety about death and makes them cling to their hierarchical values even more, and those values include the belief that Muslims are inferior, not-saved, and eligible for torture. They’re going to hell anyway, by the fundie logic, and why should god get all the fun of punishing them and making them suffer?”
He never did fire Amanda, did he? Was her statements about Christians "un-American and indefensible"?
Oh, Amanda was just kidding. Ann was too. And Ann actually got some laughs after her "joke".
Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 4, 2007 1:15:34 AM
Did Edwards wife express outrage at Amanda's anti-Christian rhetoric?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 4, 2007 1:16:52 AM
Toke: You're not big, and you're not clever.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Mar 4, 2007 1:27:23 AM
Edwards did condemn Amanda's comments. Think Romney will condemn Coulter's?
Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 4, 2007 2:00:36 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
