Comments on: Ads

517 — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:15:16 -0800

Can we get someone else to do it?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:19:05 -0800

priceless!

By: geoff.

geoff. — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:19:45 -0800

Ann Coulter, however indirectly, paying for this site? Your'e against this why?

By: carsonb

carsonb — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:20:47 -0800

What have you got against four panels?

By: serazin

serazin — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:31:44 -0800

Ann Coulter - Free? I'll take a dozen! They make excellent toothpicks.

By: exlotuseater

exlotuseater — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:36:05 -0800

perfection.

By: pupdog

pupdog — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:39:50 -0800

Ann Coulter - Free? I'll take a dozen! They make excellent toothpicks.

They're better firewood - once you get them started you can never get them out.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:44:54 -0800

I was thinking of a different meaning of "Ann Coulter-Free!"

By: davejay

davejay — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:05:59 -0800

Seconding mediareport. That's a MetaFilter I could get behind.

By: BeerFilter

BeerFilter — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:19:28 -0800

I just threw up in my mouth.

A lot.

It spilled.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:23:41 -0800

what was the URL for that ad? I can filter it out.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:25:11 -0800

Oh, god, if you do that she'll just bitch about it on a cable news show.

By: davy

davy — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:26:08 -0800

what was the URL for that ad? I can filter it out.

Why? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of charging us $5 not to have to see those ads?

By: davy

davy — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:26:55 -0800

Besides, shouldn't Coulter have Free Speech too?

By: dhammond

dhammond — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:37:12 -0800

An Ann Coulter ad is a delightfully perfect juxtaposition to Iraq/Bush/Electionfilter.

By: 517

517 — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:45:08 -0800

I think the URL the ad goes to is http://www.humanevents.com/offers/offer.php?id=ANN401

There is also another one in the google text ad triple set that goes to the same webpage.

By: Samuel Farrow

Samuel Farrow — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:00:01 -0800

I had to look up on wikipedia who Ann Coulter was, and am glad I did.

A two party politcal system is not just is simpler - there is comedy gold in there as well.

By: The Deej

The Deej — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:07:00 -0800

Oh c'mon... what? Afraid you'll offend someone?

By: mathowie

mathowie — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:13:11 -0800

Ok, I added humanevents.com to the block filter. These ads shouldn't show up anymore.

By: Steven C. Den Beste

Steven C. Den Beste — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:21:15 -0800

It does rather seem misplaced, like a PETA ad in "Garden and Gun".

By: 517

517 — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:21:44 -0800

Sweet, thanks.

By: wendell

wendell — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:29:02 -0800

Now MetaFilter really IS "Ann Coulter-Free"!!!

But obviously that website name "humanevents.com" is WAY inaccurate. If Coulter were capable of human anything, she'd have jumped off a cruise ship a long time ago.

By: wemayfreeze

wemayfreeze — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:32:54 -0800

I think that's a little rash, matt. Are we really in favor of inhumane vents? I mean, is that a position you think the site should support? And all the, you know, killing of things that they do? I guess?

By: trondant

trondant — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:34:55 -0800

Besides, shouldn't Coulter have Free Speech too?

People are allowed to use public toilets too, but the ones who smear their shit all over the floors, walls, and ceiling? There's another place for them to broadcast their scat.

She can express herself on her personal, private shitter until the end of time, but lunatics really shouldn't be given consideration when it comes to public discourse.

By: wemayfreeze

wemayfreeze — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:35:39 -0800

Oy, beat to it. Well, at least I showed up, you know? Let nobody say I didn't show up.

By: spiderskull

spiderskull — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:22:12 -0800

Isn't it kind of weird to block that? I just can't imagine someone seeing that, and saying "That's the final straw. I'm never visiting this website again for a banner ad that the admins probably had absolutely no say in choosing!"

By: spiderskull

spiderskull — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:23:18 -0800

If Coulter were capable of human anything, she'd have jumped off a cruise ship a long time ago.

Oh come on... that's just not right.

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:25:23 -0800

Oh come on... that's just not right.

Seriously. That's way too humane.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:45:09 -0800

Besides, shouldn't Coulter have Free Speech too?

she has it - on her OWN website

By: Falconetti

Falconetti — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:47:54 -0800

Besides, shouldn't Coulter have Free Speech too?

Metafilter isn't the federal government (although Matt has executive privilege)

By: Arturus

Arturus — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 01:58:16 -0800

that the admins probably had absolutely no say in choosing

Well, I'd say they just chose.

By: mmahaffie

mmahaffie — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 03:45:47 -0800

Well, I'd say they just chose.

As is their (Matt's) right. I wish there were other aspects of he current political situation that we could filter out of our lives by blocking domains.

But then, there's all this reality to deal with.

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:22:50 -0800

This is what you get when you post NewsFilter in a context-sensitive age. Learn from it, and stop asking Matt to clean up your mess. Remember, you the Newsfilterite brought this stuff into our formerly "best of the web" site.

Next time, wipe your feet so you don't drag so much crap in here. We have a mat.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 05:27:07 -0800

Ok, I added humanevents.com to the block filter. These ads shouldn't show up anymore.

i feel so much safer now.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 05:32:27 -0800

Silly. I know that there's already a sort of a "Two Strikes" policy regarding FPPs on Coulter, O'Reilly, and their ilk, but like Eideteker pointed out, that ad wouldn't be on here if people didn't post lazy-ass Outragefilter that do more to propagate Coulter's message than some silly banner ads.

On MetaFilter, consumers get the ads they deserve.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 05:39:37 -0800

i feel so much safer now.

No, see, it's the vomit.

By: The Deej

The Deej — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 05:48:33 -0800

Well. So much for open-minded lefties.

By: Anne Coulter's Butt Plug

Anne Coulter's Butt Plug — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 05:50:06 -0800

Hey, now. That's my bread and butter!

By: mediareport

mediareport — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 05:56:42 -0800

So much for open-minded lefties.

*snort*

Yeah, I'm so ashamed I'm not open-minded enough to want to monetarily support someone who shits on my living room floor while spewing bile at me about how much of a traitor I am.

Fuck that. There's a limit, and she's been way over it for years.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 06:05:18 -0800

Well. So much for open-minded lefties.

Fallacy of equivalence.

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 06:16:01 -0800

Frankly, I'm disappointed that Matt hasn't solicited ads from the KKK and NAMBLA. It's really kind of a disgusting display of close-mindedness if you really consider it and are also a crazy person seriously wtf.

Being selective about whether or not you want to plaster advertisements with the smirking face of a shock-jock poli muckraker across the front of your site strikes me as pretty far removed from any meaningful suppression of speech.

By: The Deej

The Deej — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 06:26:58 -0800

Frankly, I'm disappointed that Matt hasn't solicited ads from the KKK and NAMBLA.

Hmm. Maybe he has, and they turned him down.

By: Lentrohamsanin

Lentrohamsanin — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:04:59 -0800

Besides, shouldn't Coulter have Free Speech too?

No. Coulter and people like her shouldn't even have Free Movement. They should be locked in tiny little boxes and fed a handful of angry wasps everytime they open their mouths.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:28:06 -0800

I'm disappointed that Matt hasn't solicited ads from the KKK

The pure white background of the plain theme speaks for itself.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:36:42 -0800

You're saying white people are plain? Racist bastard.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:39:06 -0800

The Deej writes "Well. So much for open-minded lefties."

Open minded means being open to arguments from both sides, and then making your decision. It doesn't mean never making a decision. Ann Coulter is not a new person. Maybe people here have considered her arguments, and rejected them. Maybe they've rejected them out of hand. But there's no evidence here either way. The only way this thread would prove that lefties aren't open-minded is if all the people here arguing against her had only heard of her because of this thread, which I find insanely unlikely.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:53:51 -0800

that ad wouldn't be on here if people didn't post lazy-ass Outragefilter that do more to propagate Coulter's message than some silly banner ads

Actually, it's pretty rough context matching. The Coulter people are probably advertising on any post on the web with "Bush" in it. The post is about Scooter Libby getting out of jail time and it's a pretty major event that has absolutely nothing to do with Coulter.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:59:01 -0800

The post is about Scooter Libby getting out of jail time and it's a pretty major event that has absolutely nothing to do with Coulter.

Fine, that ad wouldn't be on here if people didn't post lazy-ass Outragefilter ~~that do more to propagate Coulter's message than some silly banner ads~~.

By: TheDonF

TheDonF — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:59:33 -0800

"Let the gnashing of teeth begin" indeed...

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:04:12 -0800

Coulter and people like her shouldn't even have Free Movement.

spoken like a true fascist pig.

By: dios

dios — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:05:44 -0800

I love when Coulter is mentioned. Because without fail, the same old sexually-frustrated and misogynistic comments come out about her gender and sexual activities. I guess she causes castration fear in men or something. Whatever the reason, there has never been a mention of Coulter here without some reference to sex. And it's so powerful that we even have people paying $5 to make jokes about sexual acts involving Ann Coulter. It's awesome because it is so blatant and obvious. And I love things that involve prurient interests, and Coulter always brings those out. There should be some term derived from ad hominem called "ad sexualem" or something that refers to making sexual attacks on the speaker.

As for blocking her ads, I don't see any real ethical, practical or rhetorical reason that would weigh on either side of the question of whether Matt wants to allow certain ads here. In fact, I could probably hash out some economic reason that has to do with my lack of understanding of ads: if Matt gets paid based on click-throughs and purchases, then ad space probably ought not be wasted on products which are disliked by the apparent majority of the site.

By: bru

bru — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:08:46 -0800

Selecting the ads they want or don't want in their media has always been part of the daily job of publishers.

Screening out ads is no more unusual than deleting comments, FPP or questions that break the rules. And as it is a yes/no business transaction, you don't have to give any explanation for it.

By: ericb

ericb — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:15:07 -0800

Rep. Hunter: Ann Coulter Is ‘Approaching That Level Of Being A Great American’.

Ann Coulter: "I'm more of a man than any liberal." [talking with Bill O'Reilly on his Fox show about her aggressive stance toward politicians like John Edwards].

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:16:39 -0800

As usual, shrill ad-hominems like "sexually-frustrated" and "misogynistic" are thrown out thoughtlessly. Coulter is unapologetic about using her sexuality to sell and profit from her hateful politics, so if the right apologizes for her behavior as "satire", there should be no shrill objection from using her own satirical approach to discredit her.

By: Lentrohamsanin

Lentrohamsanin — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:20:06 -0800

spoken like a true fascist pig.

Just knowing what's best for the world doesn't make me a fascist.

Now get in this box.

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:33:28 -0800

Whatever the reason, there has never been a mention of Coulter here without some reference to sex.

You know how much I hate it when someone pulls a "never" without citation, man.

By: The Deej

The Deej — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:47:48 -0800

You know how much I hate it when someone pulls a "never" without citation, man.

Yeah, they never cite!

By: hermitosis

hermitosis — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:48:59 -0800

You know how much I hate it when someone pulls a "never" without citation, man.

Still, I think dios is onto something here.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:02:13 -0800

okay, so to lighten the mood a bit, I was wondering something:

How exactly does the advertising on the site work? I guess it's a lot like almost every other site, but I always assumed that google adsense or whatever was in charge of what got put on the page, and that you would have to go through them to block something. I'd imagine that if you blocked stuff from their advertising by domains, they might be a little upset about having their shit blocked when they're paying for it to be on your site, no? Or is it that they have a filter setup on their end that you can access and say "please don't target my site for ads from this domain, thanks." I'm just asking out of curiosity, btw. I don't care what you do with the ads. I don't see them and it's your site.

By: yhbc

yhbc — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:05:09 -0800

dios: your last comment is just as applicable if you substitute "Hillary Clinton" for "Ann Coulter".

By: acro

acro — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:05:45 -0800

dios: first link from google: fuck.ann.coulter

By: theora55

theora55 — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:05:50 -0800

I'd leave the ad, Matt. Free speech and all. And the irony is almost enough to make me log out to see the ad. Not really, but I like the idea.

By: dios

dios — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:11:01 -0800

dios: your last comment is just as applicable if you substitute "Hillary Clinton" for "Ann Coulter".
posted by yhbc at 11:05 AM on July 3

I think that your general point is correct. But with regards to Hilary, it's not quite as awesome since it usually doesn't involve as explicitly sexually deviant language. Hillary doesn't get her butthole as frequently rhetorically reamed as Ann. Hillary seems to get more lesbian comments, but that is my unscientific guess.

I suspect the instinct comes form the same place, but they manifest in slightly different ways.

By: peacay

peacay — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:57:25 -0800

is it that they have a filter setup on their end that you can access and say "please don't target my site for ads from this domain, thanks."

Yeah, it's exactly that. It's very easy. A few clicks and a cutnpaste jobby.

By: Carbolic

Carbolic — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:07:39 -0800

I'm surprised that many MeFites wouldn't find it ironic and funny that a Coulter ad showed up in an FPP about what many probably see as further evidence of the criminal nature of the Bush administration.

By: hydrophonic

hydrophonic — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:11:24 -0800

If only.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:17:03 -0800

Blazecock Pileon writes "Coulter is unapologetic about using her sexuality to sell and profit from her hateful politics, so if the right apologizes for her behavior as 'satire', there should be no shrill objection from using her own satirical approach to discredit her."

Uh, how does that work? "I think action A is inherently a bad thing. However, a person I hate does action A, and justifies it. Therefore, I can do action A." The only way that works is if you believe their flimsy justification makes it no longer bad. In which case, you're not even disagreeing with them in the first place. If you think Coulter's hateful use of sexuality is a bad thing, but you're cool with hatefully using sexuality yourself, then you don't really think her hateful use of sexuality is a bad thing.

I mean, it's straightforward: if you think something is bad, you think it's bad, and therefore that you shouldn't do it. Doesn't matter if someone else justifies it.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:41:41 -0800

I have no problem with people using Coulter's rhetoric against her. If she uses her sexuality to profit from her ideological views, what the right wingers in their infinite wisdom call "satire", then there should be no complaint from shrill demagogues about that tactic being used to "satirize" her.

I mean, it's straightforward: if you think something is bad, you think it's bad, and therefore that you shouldn't do it. Doesn't matter if someone else justifies it.

It's not straightforward at all. If you and dios really, honestly believe that putting Coulter in a bad light is wrong, you both should also complain about what Coulter says, for example — but I don't see you folks ever making that argument.

By: SeizeTheDay

SeizeTheDay — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:50:55 -0800

If you and dios really, honestly believe that putting Coulter in a bad light is wrong, you both should also complain about what Coulter says, for example

This is such utterly absurd logic. Because people are otherwise silent about Coulter's political stance, they aren't allowed to attack misogynistic and abusive language that's used to disparage her? Doesn't that strike you as just a bit narrow-minded?

Or, in other words, isn't your comment just another way of saying, "Either you're with us or against us?" Hmm...where have I heard that before?

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:53:05 -0800

Or, in other words, isn't your comment just another way of saying

Not at all, just pointing out the inconsistency. You're free to be as inconsistent as you like.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:09:09 -0800

If you and dios really, honestly believe that putting Coulter in a bad light is wrong you both should also complain about what Coulter says, for example — but I don't see you folks ever making that argument.

Heh, in the most recent Coulter FPP I suggested folks do just that rather than resort to the usual lame tranny jokes, which I thought were offensive and LGBTphobic.
Where were you then, Blazecock Pileon?!? Where were you then?!?

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:12:09 -0800

Blazecock Pileon writes "If you and dios really, honestly believe that putting Coulter in a bad light is wrong"

Huh? No, I'm groovy with it. She's a waste of human flesh. I'm just not big on doing it via misogynistic insults. I don't call Rush Limbaugh a fat fuck, either, just an evil fuck. That kind of thing.

Blazecock Pileon writes "you both should also complain about what Coulter says, for example — but I don't see you folks ever making that argument."

Sorry, I thought it went without saying. C'mon, you may not know me intimately well, but you have a general idea of my political bent. I don't complain about what Coulter says because we all know that she says puke, so there's no real discussion to be had on that point. Like I don't often talk about how I actually believe the earth revolves around the sun.

Blazecock Pileon writes "Not at all, just pointing out the inconsistency."

What inconsistency? You're saying it's inconsistent that I believe that putting her in a bad light is wrong, yet I don't complain about what she says...except I don't believe putting her in a bad light is wrong, so that half of the equation is gone.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:18:33 -0800

Alvy Ampersand writes "Heh, in the most recent Coulter FPP I suggested folks do just that rather than resort to the usual lame tranny jokes, which I thought were offensive and LGBTphobic. "

Actually, you put it far better than I had, and you get at the corner of what I'm talking about.

Ann Coulter uses misogyny, homophobia, and the like to insult her opponents.
I don't like that, because I think it's offensive to women, homosexuals, and the like.
People on MeFi sometimes (not always, and not everyone) use misogyny, homophobia, and the like, to insult her Ann Coulter.
I don't like that either, because it's offensive to women, homosexuals, and the like. I don't care that it's offensive to Coulter. That's not who I'd prefer to avoid offending.

Coulter may defend her use of these slurs as "satire". I don't care. She can defend it as an alien language that coincidentally sounds like English, for all I care. It doesn't change the fact that if I were to insult Coulter using misogynist, homophobic, or similar insults, I'd be insulting women, homosexuals, and the like. She's evil, and just because she defends her evilness as "satire" doesn't mean that I should be evil too and use her same pathetic excuse.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:44:37 -0800

Coulter may defend her use of these slurs as "satire". I don't care.

I do care, as far as it entirely justifies using her "satire" against her and her only. It doesn't justify using her "satire" against anyone at all: just her, in this very specific and consistent context.

By: SeizeTheDay

SeizeTheDay — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:49:57 -0800

But then that's your personal problem, and not one that you can raise as a point of argument when others oppose misogynistic and sexist language used against her. People can rail against hate speech in this case, and it really shouldn't affect you. You have your view: tit for tat. Others have another: an eye for an eye makes the world blind.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:51:12 -0800

So if I said "She's just another dyke that just needs a hard cock to bring her around", that would be groovy, despite the fact that it insults lesbians by presuming they're just confused heterosexuals, because it uses Coulter's style of "satire" against her?

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:51:19 -0800

I don't like that either, because it's offensive to women, homosexuals, and the like.

I do not agree with this statement and on some level believe it to be patronizing, since it requires agreeing with several stereotypes to believe any insults directed at Coulter are really directed at other groups in a hateful context. If she is insulted, she is insulted using her own hateful rhetoric against her. The context is wholly within the scope of her words, and no other groups should feel offended for who they are.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:51:27 -0800

I agree with everything bugbread has written. (And I think it odd that blazecock pileon would seem to equate dios and bugbread and imply that bugbread is a conservative.)

However, Ann Coulter is for me one of the few people/circumstances where I deliberately allow myself to be inconsistent with some of my values, including that I value moral consistency in myself a great deal. Ann Coulter is, to me, such a blight upon American civil discourse, so hateful in her rhetoric, that I allow and encourage any and all hateful rhetoric against her in response. Whether it be misogynist, homophobic, illiberal, or deranged—it's all good as far I'm concerned. Few things would make me happier than to see Ann Coulter sodomized with large knives.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:53:41 -0800

So if I said

You can say whatever you like, if you think Coulter really is a "confused" lesbian, if such a person exists. I don't agree that this hypothetical applies here, but you're more than welcome to level that insult at her.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:01:34 -0800

(And I think it odd that blazecock pileon would seem to equate dios and bugbread and imply that bugbread is a conservative.)

I'm implying that bugbread is playing devil's advocate for whatever reason. Which is fine, because he usually has good intentions when doing so. I'm happy to have a friendly conversation about the matter, but ultimately I have no sympathy for Ann Coulter and various rationalizations and inconsistent moral views in her defense have not changed my opinion. By word and act she seems an irredeemable monster.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:15:46 -0800

Blazecock Pileon writes "I do not agree with this statement and on some level believe it to be patronizing, since it requires agreeing with several stereotypes to believe any insults directed at Coulter are really directed at other groups in a hateful context."

I'm not following what you're saying here. For example, in the "dyke who just needs a hard cock" example, as far as I can tell, that's insulting to lesbians even though I don't agree with that stereotype at all. But I suspect that I'm just misparsing what you meant here. Can you give a little more explanation?

In the end, I guess, my platonic ideal would be for someone to express their hatred of her without any collateral damage. You can compare her to the vomit of a maggot who got sick eating the putrid pus-filled remains of a dog carcass floating in a puddle of chunky diarrhea. That's pretty insulting. There's no special reason to insult women, transexuals, lesbians, people with eating disorders, or the like.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:21:07 -0800

“By word and act she seems an irredeemable monster.”

Obviously, I agree. But I think you're sensitive to the implications of the phrase "you folks" in other contexts and so I'd think you'd be aware that saying something like "but I don't see you folks ever making that argument" has, I think, a subtext.

Also, I don't think that bugbread is playing devil's advocate here or that he has a tendency to do so. "Playing devil's advocate" is a lot closer to contrarianism and I think that, for example, jonmc or davy are better examples of this.

Bugbread, in contrast, usually is mostly an advocate of rationalism and consistency, which leads him to often speak up when he believes that people aren't being quite rational and consistent. This can seem like playing devil's advocate when it's in the service of making an unpopular point or defending an unpopular opinion, but it's not the same thing. In my opinion—and I know this is contestable and perhaps provocative to some—contrarianism and playing devil's advocate are both more social affectations than they are in the service of productive discourse. While trying to be the voice of reason and consistency is often accused of being an affectation, I think it only rarely is and is more often simply the result of the belief that productive discourse requires that people try to be rational and consistent. In short, bugbread is improving the converation while, more often than not, the contrarians are degrading it¹.

1. Though they don't think so. Contrarians, for whatever reason, seem to believe that productive discourse requires something like a contest of competing views. They believe in a conflict-based view of productive discourse. I'm not sure where they get this—the one friend I know who is most reliably contrian in serious discourse was heavily involved on the debate team in high school.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:25:14 -0800

Blazecock Pileon writes "You can say whatever you like, if you think Coulter really is a 'confused' lesbian, if such a person exists. I don't agree that this hypothetical applies here, but you're more than welcome to level that insult at her."

I don't think there are "confused lesbians" either (well, there's probably a few, because there are confused everything, but you get my drift). That's why I don't use insults like that. And that's why I'm always surprised when I see insults like that levelled at her. It always seems like she becomes an excuse for people to let out various little prejudices they have. Maybe that's not the case, but it just seems really odd to me to insult her (or anyone) while simultaneously insulting some other group.

Blazecock Pileon writes "ultimately I have no sympathy for Ann Coulter and various rationalizations and inconsistent moral views in her defense have not changed my opinion. By word and act she seems an irredeemable monster."

Totally agreed. Read what I wrote again, and you'll see that I have no problem with insulting Coulter. Nothing I wrote is in her defense. I'm just not keen on the other people peripherally insulted. Rephrased: if you insult Coulter by calling her a dyke, you either 1) think being a dyke is a bad thing, or 2) don't think being a dyke is a bad thing, but are accidentally insulting lesbians by comparing them to Ann Coulter.

If someone said "Ann Coulter is as stupid as bugbread", I'd be offended. Not because somebody's insulting Ann Coulter. Go to it. But because I'm getting hit by the insult shrapnel.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:31:29 -0800

I too agree with everything bugbread has said, and I think it's a mistake to justify tactics one finds repugnant in general because one dislikes a particular person so very much. Misogynist rhetoric poisons discourse wherever it's used. Surely with a monster like Coulter there are a million other, and better, ways to express one's disapproval.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:32:27 -0800

I'm not really a devil's advocate, but I'm anal. If someone is right in the whole, but I disagree with an argument used to get there, I disagree with that argument. That's often seen as disagreeing with the conclusion, but that's not what I intend, it's just my lack of ability to express that part well.

Like, if someone says "The earth revolves around the sun. This is because it's connected by a giant rope", I might get into an excessively verbose argument about the rope. People see that as me taking the devil's advocate position that the earth doesn't really revolve around the sun. That's not what I'm trying to get at. I totally agree that the earth revolves around the sun. I just disagree with the rope argument. But I don't express the first part well, so people think I'm disagreeing with the whole thing.

I used to be a devil's advocate type, but that was mainly in high school and uni, far before MeFi existed.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:34:07 -0800

Blazecock Pileon writes "Which is fine, because he usually has good intentions when doing so. I'm happy to have a friendly conversation about the matter"

Oh, and thanks a lot for both of these statements. The first because, hey, it's a compliment! Thanks! And the second, because I was worried that the discussion was getting heated or angry, so I'm glad that it's still on a friendly conversational level.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:34:47 -0800

Nothing I wrote is in her defense

Except that you claim that the rhetoric she uses is not acceptable in criticism of her. This is a defense of her behavior, giving her privileges others do not have, whereas I see no problem in using her own rhetoric against her absurd and hateful notions.

In reality, your hypothetical cases are designed to offend Ann Coulter and anyone else. I do not believe the rhetoric in your hypotheticals apply in those cases where she does get criticized, but if I did, I would defend your right to trash her this way.

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:37:52 -0800

I'm glad that it's still on a friendly conversational level

bugbread is a confused lesbian and a buttface

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:38:39 -0800

whereas I see no problem in using her own rhetoric against her absurd and hateful notions

That should read, "whereas I see no problem in using her own rhetoric against her to highlight her absurd and hateful notions."

By: languagehat

languagehat — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:40:32 -0800

Except that you claim that the rhetoric she uses is not acceptable in criticism of her. This is a defense of her behavior, giving her privileges others do not have

Huh? So if I say "Timmy shouldn't have done that, and you shouldn't either," that's somehow a defense of Timmy? Where do you see anyone defending Ann Coulter or giving her privileges?

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:46:35 -0800

Blazecock Pileon writes "Except that you claim that the rhetoric she uses is not acceptable in criticism of her. This is a defense of her behavior, giving her privileges others do not have, whereas I see no problem in using her own rhetoric against her absurd and hateful notions."

Well, I guess we have a fundamental disagreement here. I find evil things evil, and I don't think they should be done, because they're evil. Avoiding doing them yourselves is not a defense, if anything, it's an indictment. If someone threatened my son's life, I wouldn't threaten his son's life. That's not a defence of him threatening my son's life. It's more that I don't want to be evil, so I don't do the evil things he does.

As far as "giving privileges", yeah, that's true. It sucks. If you become as evil as your enemy, then you're both evil, and you both deserve to lose. It's the classical superhero conundrum. An evil villain can threaten to kill millions of innocent people in order to beat the superhero. The superhero can't threaten to kill millions of innocent people in response.

If some Samuel Jackson went Mel Gibson crazy and started ranting about the goddamn Spics, Samuel Jackson would suck. If Benicio del Toro countered him by saying "What the fuck does that stupid nigger know?", I wouldn't think, "Yeah, you tell him, Benicio! Use that rhetoric against him!" Instead, I'd probably think "Huh. They're both racist assholes." And if Cheech Marin didn't call Samuel Jackson a stupid nigger, but called him a stupid waste of flesh, I wouldn't think "Cheech, you're defending his behaviour by refusing to use his rhetoric against him". If anything, I'd think the opposite.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:48:24 -0800

“This is a defense of her behavior, giving her privileges others do not have...”

All people willing to do wrong have "privileges" those of us who are not so willing lack. I don't really think there's avoiding this.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:55:14 -0800

I find evil things evil

I like to believe that evil people weaken when a mirror is held up to them. I don't believe holding the mirror is necessarily evil in this specific case, and I wouldn't, in this case, begrudge anyone who did. As with all epithets, context is everything. Coulter lives in her own contextual world and deserves to be treated accordingly, consistently.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:06:35 -0800

Blazecock Pileon writes "As with all epithets, context is everything. Coulter lives in her own contextual world and deserves to be treated accordingly, consistently."

I guess I see where you're coming from. I suppose I wouldn't be so bothered by someone making a misogynist comment directly to Coulter, where only she would be hearing it, and uninvolved third parties wouldn't be around to hear and be shrapnelled by it. Perhaps it's just that when the insults are in MetaFilter, I realize that she'll never hear them, and yet other people will be insulted by proxy.

I guess I think of a direct homophobic, misogynist, racist, classist, ageist, etc.ist insult on Coulter as a sniper rifle hit. A homophobic, misogynist, racist, classist, ageist, etc.ist insult on Coulter on MeFi feels more like bombing a city block where Coulter never visits, but which is full of children and puppies.

Yeah, ok, that was overstated, but I like the analogy, and if you water it down a bit, you get what I'm trying to say.

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:14:50 -0800

Every time someone talks about how much they hate Ann Coulter, an evil bell rings, she sells another book to someone who wants to believe that liberals are hateful, and she's proven right. Every time she provokes some left-leaning person to describe her the same way she would describe many other groups of people, she wins in a profoundly disturbing way.

Ignore her. Don't ignore homophobia, bigotry, sexism, and the other things she represents-- fight them hard. But ignore her. She is not just using spin, she is entirely made of spin. She is a con artist, and the people who dislike her most are her most powerful tool in creating that spin.

By: Nabubrush

Nabubrush — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:17:15 -0800

Not the puppies, bugbread!

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:28:13 -0800

A homophobic, misogynist, racist, classist, ageist, etc.ist insult on Coulter on MeFi feels more like bombing a city block where Coulter never visits, but which is full of children and puppies.

I cannot honestly believe any rational person who understands the intent of saying such an insult in that specific case also believes that said insult is directed at anyone but Coulter.

Do you really, honestly feel the intent, the purpose of the person making that hypothetical insult is to trash gay, old, poor women, as well as Ann Coulter, in such an indiscriminate (sorry) manner?

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:31:29 -0800

I cannot honestly believe any rational person who understands the intent of saying such an insult in that specific case also believes that said insult is directed at anyone but Coulter.

Directed at Coulter in the sense that she is the referent of the invective, sure; but pragmatically it is directed solely to the attention of the (presumed to be agreeable) audience, and Coulter none the wiser. Why do mefites deserve to hear the things that you would never say except to tell off the one person not around to hear them?

By: afu

afu — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:32:23 -0800

2) don't think being a dyke is a bad thing, but are accidentally insulting lesbians by comparing them to Ann Coulter.

You are misunderstanding where the humor is coming from. If Ann Coulter did in fact turn out to be a lesbian or a transsexual it would be funny not because being a lesbian or transsexual is a bad thing, but because she herself thinks it is a bad thing. The reason why Ted Haggards outing was wonderful was not that being gay proved he was a "bad" person, but because of the delicious irony in respect to his position on gays.

Coulter jokes that make fun of her sexuality are only funny in the context of her views on sexuality as an extremely conservative mouthpiece, not because there is anything inherently funny about any random persons sexuality.

That said. Coulter does have one honking big Adam's apple and that is just weird.

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:37:03 -0800

Insult shrapnel is my new favorite term. Google shows it on three pages-- I believe you can still claim it as your own, bugbread. (Are you by any chance a trucker?)

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:53:51 -0800

Blazecock Pileon writes "Do you really, honestly feel the intent, the purpose of the person making that hypothetical insult is to trash gay, old, poor women, as well as Ann Coulter, in such an indiscriminate (sorry) manner?"

Not necessarily. That's what I was referring to here:

Rephrased: if you insult Coulter by calling her a dyke, you either 1) think being a dyke is a bad thing, or 2) don't think being a dyke is a bad thing, but are accidentally insulting lesbians by comparing them to Ann Coulter.

So for some it's the former, for some it's the latter. Like saying "Halo 3 is totally gay". Some people say it because they dislike gays and they dislike Halo 3. Some say it just because the dislike Halo 3, and don't really mean to insult gays, but it comes out that way nonetheless.

cortex writes "Directed at Coulter in the sense that she is the referent of the invective, sure; but pragmatically it is directed solely to the attention of the (presumed to be agreeable) audience, and Coulter none the wiser."

Exactly. Sure, it's directed at Coulter. But it's up in public where the commenter knows that hundreds of people will see it, even though they're not Coulter, and Coulter will never see it.

Unless she's a lurker. I've got $5 saying she's ParisParamus.

Tehanu writes "Are you by any chance a trucker?"

Nope. Now we have to googlebomb this thread so it becomes the #1 hit for "insult shrapnel"!

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:03:02 -0800

Now we have to googlebomb this thread so it becomes the #1 hit for "insult shrapnel"!

A rare phrase appearing in a mefi thread is often enough to make that happen. Check back in a couple days!

Unless she's a lurker. I've got $5 saying she's ParisParamus.

No, their accounts are on totally different IP blocks and I've said too much again, haven't I

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:07:47 -0800

Ann Coulter's posse ate my balls.

/nostalgiaFilter

By: The Deej

The Deej — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:34:16 -0800

How do we googlebomb so this thread becomes a #1 hit for insult shrapnel? I've never heard the term insult shrapnel before. I don't even know what insult shrapnel means. So I'm not sure how to googlebomb insult shrapnel when I don't know the meaning of insult shrapnel and what insult shrapnel being on google would accomplish. It's weird that cortex wants insult shrapnel to be found here when googled, but I don't think insult shrapnel will be found here by looking on google for insult shrapnel.

/insult shrapnel

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:46:43 -0800

Yes, we must knock truckingboards.com out of the top position. 10-4.

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:49:37 -0800

Daddy needs a new pair of insult shrapnel!

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:32:20 -0800

"Ann Coulter is for me one of the few people/circumstances where I deliberately allow myself to be inconsistent with some of my values"

Then she has already won. Enjoy your undermined values, and remember who gave them to you (hint: it's not Ann Coulter!).

By: Rock Steady

Rock Steady — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:49:41 -0800

Eideteker: ""Ann Coulter is for me one of the few people/circumstances where I deliberately allow myself to be inconsistent with some of my values"

Then she has already won. Enjoy your undermined values, and remember who gave them to you (hint: it's not Ann Coulter!)."

Is it so bad to acknowledge your own inconsistencies? I'm one of the kindest, most even-tempered people I know, but there are certain things (Ann Coulter, the NY Yankees, cilantro, stepping on Lego) that make me so insane that I can't always contain my anger in socially-acceptable ways. If there is really nothing in life that makes you deviate from your carefully considered beliefs, then bravo, sir. Just don't tell me I am somehow helping Ann Coulter "win" when I call a piece of Lego some seriously offensive shit in the middle of the night.

By: Nabubrush

Nabubrush — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:51:29 -0800

I'm just as big a fan of insult shrapnel as the next guy.

Wait . . . no . . . just as big an enemy of insult shrapnel.

That's got it.

By: The Deej

The Deej — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:54:48 -0800

What's funny is: I don't think I've ever heard or read a single thing she has said! The only way I would even know about her is due the all the I-hate-Coulter-ness.

So, she doesn't stress me at all!

Ignorance for the win!!!!!

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 17:28:47 -0800

"Is it so bad to acknowledge your own inconsistencies?"

There's nothing wrong with admitting inconsistencies. Just don't admit defeat.

By: The Deej

The Deej — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:00:47 -0800

I don't have any inconsistencies. On the other hand, sometimes I do.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:12:35 -0800

“There's nothing wrong with admitting inconsistencies. Just don't admit defeat.”

I don't admit defeat. I'm more consistent than most, I think, and will continue to be. And this inconsistency isn't involuntary, as perhaps Rock Steady's are, they are quite deliberate and voluntary.

You may have noticed that while it's the case that I have very strong personal values and care a great deal about right and wrong and doing the right thing, unlike many of my peers here on MeFi and elsewhere, I don't think that violence is universally wrong, I'm willing to commit it and advocate it, and while in general and in most situations I strongly agree with the "engaging in the same loathsome tactics makes you like your enemy" caution, there are exceptions where either a) I don't think that's true, or (more likely and in this case) b) I don't care whether it's true. I don't care if it makes me similar to Coulter if I advocate brutal violence against her and when I demonize her. I don't care if that enables her in some way.

Mostly what I care about is that she is among a select few commentators active in American civil society that so badly undermines the process, is so egregiously an evil and revolting presence, that I sincerely hope that the vituperative rhetoric like mine and so many others plays a role in inciting someone to eventually shoot her in the back of the head with a .45 handgun. That's what I care about. Not mamby-pamby concerns like "she wins when we sink to her level".

By: solotoro

solotoro — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 19:06:06 -0800

BP, if you don't think there's anything morally wrong with using Coulter's rhetoric against her, I propose that from the standpoint of practicality it's still bad form: her isolationist, supremacist, sexist agenda is well served by divisive and hate-filled rhetoric. The agenda of her idealogical opponents is not.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 20:27:05 -0800

I like to believe that evil people weaken when a mirror is held up to them.

They're usually too busy enjoying the view to care.

afu, I won't assume to know everyone's reason for laughing at a joke, but I find it hard to believe that the Coulter/Tranny remarks have any sort of depth beyond associating her with 'unnatural freaks'.

I enjoy seeing hypocrites hoisted on their own petards as much as the next guy and I agree with your point about Haggard. But I don't think that's comparable to the Coulter situation; if anything, the Mark Foley scandal, when people were calling him a pedophile, is a better fit. The man was a hypocrite, a creep, and a disgrace, but AFAIK all of the guys involved were above the age of consent. He was a shitty, unethical man; calling him a pedophile was completely gratuitous and more than a little homophobic, IMO, and slagged innocent people who have healthy relationships, gay or straight, with partners far younger than themselves. It's that same sort of gratuitousness I see and dislike in the Coulter comments.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:31:54 -0800

So for some it's the former, for some it's the latter.

Okay, so you grant that some kind of inconsistency in how people decide to deal with Coulter-types is allowed, or at least the possibility exists in an imperfect, non-bugbread world that insults really are, at least sometimes, directed at their targets.

In general, I agree that stooping to the level of gaytastic bigots like Coulter and her ilk usually reduces you to their level. In her case, however, I think she is so inhuman that she deserves an exception, and people should let the vitriol fly at her and her mindless brood, just as she and her friends do to anyone they don't like.

And while I don't expect anyone else to follow along, I do think that giving her a taste of her own medicine is a perfectly moral and rational response to her garbage, for the very same reason it is a morally justified and socially responsible act, for example, to out closeted Republicans.

By: afu

afu — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 23:08:24 -0800

afu, I won't assume to know everyone's reason for laughing at a joke

Well of course there are people will laugh anytime you mention anal sex, but i'm talking about us enlightened mefites. We are better than every one else aren't we?

By: peacay

peacay — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 23:47:58 -0800

FWIW, as much as I admire your attempts to argue your case here Blazecock Pileon (I do, seriously), I also don't agree with any of your justifications and rationalisations.
dios is right. (also 'shrill'!? wtf!?) {and yes, the dude has his own brand of twisted humour I'll admit}
Bugbread is right.

The whole outrageous over the top sexualizing of Coulter is disturbing in that it is the basest end of the continuum of male attitudes towards women. It's a symptom. Exert power through objectifying and sexualizing.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 23:59:46 -0800

'shrill'!? wtf!?

Shrill, because it's the same tired, ironic defense of Coulter and the same tired, ironic attack on anonymous accounts — one of which dios' real life persona uses here.

By: peacay

peacay — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 00:13:53 -0800

But shrill means screaming at high pitch and in no way whatsoever can it be read as being screamed at high pitch. I think you want another word.
You're also wrong that it's got anything to do with anonymous accounts, except as an aside to underline just how strong is the desire of people to sexually abuse Coulter. It's a blanket inditement of the usual barrage of comments. He's said it in a sickly humorous way (albeit very slightly, but that's actually why it comes off as funny) in so far as he says he likes when the topic of Coulter comes up here.
You think you are reading words, but you're seeing d.i.o.s.

"I love when Coulter is mentioned. Because without fail, the same old sexually-frustrated and misogynistic comments come out about her gender and sexual activities. I guess she causes castration fear in men or something. Whatever the reason, there has never been a mention of Coulter here without some reference to sex. And it's so powerful that we even have people paying $5 to make jokes about sexual acts involving Ann Coulter. It's awesome because it is so blatant and obvious. And I love things that involve prurient interests, and Coulter always brings those out. There should be some term derived from ad hominem called "ad sexualem" or something that refers to making sexual attacks on the speaker."

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 01:56:40 -0800

Honestly, I'm as appalled as the next feminist and gay rights activist when people on the left use misogynist and homophobic rhetoric to attack noxious people on the right.

But the clichéd-but-nevertheless-true response to dios's criticism is that Ann Coulter is exploiting her sex and (to many) attractiveness to get away with a public persona that would simply be repugnant coming from most men and most unattractive women. That she's able to do this reflects sexism in our society, that's true, but the irony here, also, is that she's a loud advocate of a movement that is regressive with regard to women's rights, anyway. Conservatives think she's "cute" and "hot". It's not weird and telling that sex comes up when people criticize Coulter—it's part of her public persona, whether intentionally or by default.

Put simply, she gets away with saying the most outrageous and hateful things the same way a little kid might: she gets a bit of a pass because she's that "hot blonde".

I don't worship freedom of speech the way that many Americans do—where they turn it from a utilitarian political principle into some simpleminded idea that speech occupies some weird always "mostly harmless" category and that it's not an "action". It most certainly is an action, and it most certainly can be very harmful, in some cases, in some venues, much more harmful than any single violent act. Coulter and some people similar to her are doing actual damage to both the nation and discourse in the abstract realm, and, more importantly, actual damage to individual people and their lives in the practical, real-world realm. What's particularly repugnant to me is that to her it's all a game. She has no sense that her speech has consequences (not unlike many people here). That's why I find so compelling the idea that she'll experience, someday, the consequences firsthand in the form of violence to her person.

I think the same about many people who run their mouths off in a toxic fashion in a state of perpetual self-delight and apparently unaware of consequences. But Coulter is one of the worst—she has a large national stage, an audience of tens, maybe hundreds of millions. The worst imaginable public shaming would be too good for her.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 04:38:29 -0800

Speaking of Coulter, Roger Ebert published yesterday a nice little satire about her. Here's an excerpt:

Following is the transcript of Chris Curveball’s televised interview last night with Ann Coultist, held before a group of high school students.

CHRIS: We’re here to talk about the new book by right-wing commentator Ann Coultist, but first, Ann, we have a woman on the line who wants to ask you something.

ANN (uses fingers to comb back long blonde hair): Right wing! That’s a new one.

CALLER: Hello, Ann? I’m calling to ask why you were so mean to my mother.

ANN (runs fingers through hair): I don’t suppose your mother has a name?

CALLER: Mildred Quaker. And you said she was mean and ugly, but you never even met her, because she died years ago.

ANN (tosses back blonde hair): I happen to know that, darling, because I tripped over her tombstone in a cemetery and got grass stains all over myself. Was that my fault? When these Quakers insist on being pacifists who can be buried anywhere they want to be?

CALLER: We’re not Quakers. We’re SDA.

ANN (shakes out hair): FDA? Are they inspecting cemeteries now? The Chinese commies have been making our corpses into toothpaste.

CALLER: No, SDA stands for Seventh Day Adventist.

ANN (braids hair): Vegetarians. Enough said.

CHRIS: So what do you want to ask Ann, caller?

CALLER: Did you notice my mother’s death date? Because it was the same day as your birthday?

ANN: Is that my fault?

CALLER: It has been a family secret that my mother died giving birth to you, and you were put up for adoption.

ANN (unbraids hair): Orphanages are part of the whole socialist agenda. Begging in the streets has traditionally been good enough for orphans…

CALLER: That’s so mean…

ANN: …and people love to adopt pretty little blonde girls.

It's not much longer than that, but I think it's pretty good.

By: watsondog

watsondog — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 05:17:25 -0800

I love when Coulter is mentioned. Because without fail, the same old sexually-frustrated and misogynistic comments come out about her gender and sexual activities. I guess she causes castration fear in men or something.

There's a subset of men (I hope a small one) who, although they'll use reason and logic to explain why they don't like a man, must always and without fail insult any woman they don't like by insulting her sexual attractiveness or appearance. That's because to them a woman's only reason for existence is to personally give them (and them alone) an erection. If a woman fails that, she is worse than a mass murderer. She is a waste of flesh. She is dirt. (Of course, they never judge themselves by the same rules and would be enraged if a woman did.)

It's amusing in a way, because it's so self-centered. It's as if they don't hate Ann Coulter for what she says; they hate her because what she says gets in the way of their getting a hard-on when they look at her.

By: peacay

peacay — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:19:55 -0800

watsondog, I respectfully (partially, I suspect) disagree. I don't doubt that many guys who wish barbed wire dildo penetration etc on Ann Coulter are quite capable at the same time of finding her attractive. I recall reading years ago that only males are capable of having an orgasm when angry (even if that's not a universal truth, it's probably slanted towards that balance).

I rather see these extremist misogynistic comments as being part of that same psychology that reduce all women down to their sexuality, from the wolf whistling building site workers to a group of guys chatting about how ugly and unfuckable some woman they each know is. It's all about the reduction of the complete woman to their sexual form and judging them according to their sexual power.

In Coulter's case, rhetorical calls for the most horrible sexual depravities are both at once acknowledging her existence (well, value really) as nothing more than a sex object and also extinguish her importance by destroying her sex. In a world view that only accords importance according to fuckability and sexual power, it's the ultimate slapdown to wish harm to her sexuality.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:20:27 -0800

Blazecock Pileon writes "Okay, so you grant that some kind of inconsistency in how people decide to deal with Coulter-types is allowed, or at least the possibility exists in an imperfect, non-bugbread world that insults really are, at least sometimes, directed at their targets."

Er...I'm not following again. The example was two people using "gay" as an insult. One does it because he dislikes gays, and the other does it just because it's the term in vogue, so it's offensive, but doesn't represent some sort of latent homophobia in the speaker. Both of those are examples of a type of insulting which is "bad". The reasons for them are different, but they're both "bad". So it's saying "some sort of inconsistency is not allowed."

(And, note, for accuracy, I'm not actually talking about "allowing" things at all, that was just the word you used. I'm talking about whether I like a certain type of rhetorical attack or not. I dislike homophobic and sexist attacks regardless of the target. That doesn't mean I don't "allow" them. I dislike Maroon 5, but that doesn't mean I don't allow my wife to play their CDs.)

I don't know if the problem is in the way I'm expressing myself, or the way you're reading me, but a lot of the time you're interpreting me as saying the exact opposite of what I'm trying to say.

Blazecock Pileon writes "In her case, however, I think she is so inhuman that she deserves an exception, and people should let the vitriol fly at her and her mindless brood, just as she and her friends do to anyone they don't like. "

I agree. Again, my whole problem is with the collateral damage part, not the vitriol of the attacks. Vitriolic attacks without collateral damage are totally fine with me. Saying you hope she gets ebola and suffers prolonged and painful death after bleeding from her eyes and ass is fine with me.

Blazecock Pileon writes "Shrill, because it's the same tired, ironic defense of Coulter"

It's not a defense of Coulter, it's a criticism of her attackers. The two are NOT equivalent. Stalin fought Hitler. Criticising Stalin is not the same as defending Hitler. Criticising Hitler is not the same as defending Stalin. (Note: Stalin and Hitler are not intended to represent bugbread, Blazecock, Coulter, dios, mathowie, snoopie, or any other figures, real or fictional. They're just used as an example of the principle that "attacking an attacker is not the equivalent of defending someone").

After all, I'm living proof: I'm criticizing people who attack Coulter in a certain way. Yet I'm not defending her in the least.

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:35:10 -0800

"I sincerely hope that the vituperative rhetoric like mine and so many others plays a role in inciting someone to eventually shoot her in the back of the head with a .45 handgun."

I'm so glad Hitler's death ended Nazism. You know and I know that Coulter is just a mouthpiece. She is just spouting the rhetoric she is because it is profitable. In her absence, someone will rise to fill the vacuum. Especially if she's a martyr. Your viewpoint doesn't sound rational; it sounds like a violent, wishful lashing out. In which case, like I said, she's won. Because she's made you forego your rationality, which is your strongest defense against her irrationality.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:55:33 -0800

Jesus Christ, EB. What are you, eight? As far as I'm concerned, you're just as much a blight (No pun intended) as she is.

By: Lentrohamsanin

Lentrohamsanin — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:47:47 -0800

I recall reading years ago that only males are capable of having an orgasm when angry

Wait, so that one time, it wasn't only anger fueled hate sex, but she was faking it as well?

Women.

By: davy

davy — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:48:08 -0800

"Lunatics really shouldn't be given consideration when it comes to public discourse."

Yeah, we should take 'em out and string 'em up, with duct tape on their mouths so we won't have to hear 'em gurgle.

By the way, I was kidding about supressing Coulter's ads here; if it were MY site I'd block as many scripted external ads as I could and still make the money, regardless of the sources. And I think it's cute that people take my offhanded twtitticisms seriously but ignore, misunderstand and/or deride those serious suggestions I've thought long and hard about, especially when I get to pop up later and gloat "Toldja so!"

But then what do I know? My strongest defense of Coulter's irrationality is to refuse to take her seriously enough to give a damn what she's spouting now. Just think, she's supported by advertisers too: if nobody paid attention she'd have to do something else.

By: davy

davy — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:54:26 -0800

That came out "my strongest defense of Coulter's irrationality" when I meant "my strongest defense AGAINST..." Damn. At least what I meant to say should be clear from the context.

By: davy

davy — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:57:13 -0800

Bligh decried "many people who run their mouths off in a toxic fashion in a state of perpetual self-delight."

I prefer unintended irony to goofy finger-waving, don't you?

By: davy

davy — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 08:11:56 -0800

Anyway, when I log in, which I can do because spent $5, I don't see any ads; even the one for the Metafilter T-shirt is gone. For all I know the Nazis and NAMBLA are advertising here now.

By: cribcage

cribcage — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 08:52:26 -0800

I do think that giving her a taste of her own medicine...

You seriously think that Ann Coulter reads MetaFilter?

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 10:40:00 -0800

You seriously think that Ann Coulter reads MetaFilter?

Do you think Coulter only gets criticized on MetaFilter?

By: languagehat

languagehat — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 10:45:03 -0800

Do you think Coulter only gets criticized on MetaFilter?

That's not the point. We're talking about discourse on MetaFilter. Spewing violent, misogynistic comments at Ann Coulter on MeFi does not affect her in the least; all it does is lower the level of discourse on MeFi.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:08:17 -0800

It's not a defense of Coulter, it's a criticism of her attackers

Again: It defends her ability to level the kind of rhetoric the rest of us are apparently not allowed to use, in order to show how ridiculous her views are, and those of her followers.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:11:20 -0800

Saying you hope she gets ebola and suffers prolonged and painful death after bleeding from her eyes and ass is fine with me.

This is a virusist comment. Won't someone think of the RNA viruses?

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:36:58 -0800

Wow, cortex. Ok, now make it rain. My plants are getting wilty.

By: cortex

cortex — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:45:30 -0800

Ha! Beating mefi to the punch on reindexing makes a man feel right about the world.

By: brain cloud

brain cloud — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:04:40 -0800

1) Use proceeds of Ann Coulter ad to buy caseloads of Anal-Eze
2) Mail said cases of Anal-Eze to Ann Coulter
3) ???
4) Profit!

By: cribcage

cribcage — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:46:41 -0800

Do you think Coulter only gets criticized on MetaFilter?

At first I read that as a non sequitur, but then I realized: Are you saying that you post hateful comments about Coulter on lots of websites, hoping that she'll be reading one of them? Because that's pretty crazy.

Otherwise, what LanguageHat said.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:53:35 -0800

Blazecock Pileon : "Again: It defends her ability to level the kind of rhetoric the rest of us are apparently not allowed to use, in order to show how ridiculous her views are, and those of her followers."

No, it doesn't. If someone kills my son (uses a racist epithet), I'm not "defending" that action if I don't kill his kid (use a racist epithet), but instead advocate taking him to court (comparing him to maggot-ridden-dog-shit), putting him in jail (wishing ebola on him), etc.

Blazecock Pileon : "This is a virusist comment. Won't someone think of the RNA viruses?"

Heehee.

No.

Fuck those viruses right in their ears.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 17:40:17 -0800

Are you saying that you post hateful comments about Coulter on lots of websites, hoping that she'll be reading one of them?

Your original comment was a non sequitor (perhaps not intentionally so, but it has no relation to this discussion) since people were clearly talking about comments about Coulter without regard for those comments being specifically on MetaFilter, or anywhere else.

Fuck those viruses right in their ears.

This is an ad viridaem, bugbread. If I was to use your broken reasoning, you've now somehow reduced yourself to the level of a virus.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 18:03:49 -0800

Blazecock Pileon : "If I was to use your broken reasoning, you've now somehow reduced yourself to the level of a virus."

Nah. Coulter uses homophobia in attacking people. Using homophobia in attacking her is doing the same bad thing she does. Viruses attack the body and cause organ damage. If I attacked her body, causing organ damage, that would be equivalent. Instead, I'm just wishing it on her. Totally different level. Like the difference between saying "I hope you die" and actually shooting someone. Pretty big gulf.

On the other hand, if you really think that by saying "She uses homophobia. That's bad. I wish she didn't use it. People at MeFi use homophobia. That's bad. I wish they didn't use it." that I'm defending her, you should take heart, because by the same token I'm defending all the folks at MeFi using her rhetoric.

Though it still puzzles me that "A is bad. A shouldn't be done. A is icky. Avoid A." is being seen as a defense of people who do A.

By: cortex

cortex — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 18:13:45 -0800

Your original comment was a non sequitor (perhaps not intentionally so, but it has no relation to this discussion) since people were clearly talking about comments about Coulter without regard for those comments being specifically on MetaFilter, or anywhere else.

But in any venue other than a personal conversation with Coulter herself, it's equivilant: someone speaking in this way or that to an audience of third-party listeners. Whether that happens on Metafilter or at a town hall meeting doesn't much change things.

By: cribcage

cribcage — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 18:55:13 -0800

people were clearly talking about comments about Coulter without regard for those comments being specifically on MetaFilter...

No, they weren't. This thread began with an advertisement that appeared on MetaFilter and derailed onto its current tack when Dios commented, "Whatever the reason, there has never been a mention of Coulter here without some reference to sex. And it's so powerful that we even have people paying $5 to make jokes about sexual acts involving Ann Coulter." [Emphasis added.] You replied (quoting Dios) and Bugbread countered and here we are.

If there are 2 distinct questions — (1) Are sexual insults about Coulter, directed to Coulter, justified? and (2) Are sexual insults about Coulter, posted on MetaFilter, justified? — then your bit about "giving her a taste of her own medicine" seems relevant to the first and irrelevant to the second. Let's assume nobody in this thread cares much what you say to Coulter's face, so justify that however you like — but as LanguageHat and several others have pointed out, those comments' sole effect, when posted on MetaFilter, is to debase this site.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:47:04 -0800

“those comments' sole effect, when posted on MetaFilter, is to debase this site.”

*makes Brandow face* Good God, we wouldn't want to debase this site!

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:12:41 -0800

those comments' sole effect, when posted on MetaFilter, is to debase this site

Or they just debase Coulter. Any other real effect is in the reader's imagination.

By: cortex

cortex — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:23:18 -0800

But that 'or' is the whole argument, at least as far as it applies to discourse on Metafilter or in any other semi-public venue, isn't it? And your position is that saying awful, horrible shit has no effect on the site, while the other position is that saying awful, horrible shit might actually have a negative effect on things.

I have a hard time discounting that second position, and though I can't speak for them I get the impression that languagehat, bugbread, and a few other folks arguing this are in the pretty much the same place on it. Obviously, fundamental disagreement is likely to remain just that, but it's sincerely weird to me that you would see no harmful or debasing value in unchecked-vitriol-as-norm where a conversation among peers (rather than a shouting match in a closed room with the object of your scorn) is concerned.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:24:34 -0800

Or they just debase Coulter.

How? If I said something bad about you to a bunch of people who didn't much care for you anyway, and you had no knowledge of it, would I be debasing you, or just looking like a coals to Newcastle dork who was just trying to start a petty ideological circle jerk?

Any other real effect is in the reader's imagination.

Any real effect your comments make on Ann Coulter is in your own imagination.

By: cribcage

cribcage — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:43:45 -0800

Ditto Alvy.

Any other real effect is in the reader's imagination.

I don't follow your point. I mean, I suppose all impressions about anything in life exist in the imagination...but that doesn't seem like a particularly useful comment. It doesn't sound like a response to anything I wrote.

You defended "giving her a taste of her own medicine." I don't understand how posting comments on MetaFilter constitutes "giving her a taste of her own medicine" unless you believe that Ann Coulter reads MetaFilter — which was my original question. Do you?

By: solotoro

solotoro — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 21:39:43 -0800

Any other real effect is in the reader's imagination.

Wait, so your theory is that the value of this site is independent of its readers' feelings about the site?

By: The Deej

The Deej — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:04:38 -0800

Sorry. *sigh* Can't resist.

MetaFilter: a petty ideological circle jerk

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:05:48 -0800

If I said something bad about you to a bunch of people who didn't much care for you anyway, and you had no knowledge of it, would I be debasing you

Yes.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:27:45 -0800

I don't understand how posting comments on MetaFilter constitutes "giving her a taste of her own medicine" unless you believe that Ann Coulter reads MetaFilter — which was my original question. Do you?

Whether Ann Coulter reads or does not read MetaFilter is entirely irrelevant with respect to whether people should be allowed to use her rhetoric to criticize her.

Dios' original complaint regarding the use of her rhetoric against her is a common defense for Coulter — common in that it is not at all a defense that is restricted to MetaFilter — in that said complaint aims to restrict the ways in which Coulter is discussed critically and her ideas dismantled (not just on MetaFilter).

Much as the same rationalization argues that outing closeted gay Republicans IRL is "wrong" (and is therefore a defense for those people, as it allows them to continue in their hateful ideological activities without the scrutiny they deserve), it is — in my opinion — perfectly acceptable for people (whether here on MetaFilter or out in the real world) to use Coulter's language against her, as a means for dismantling her "arguments" (such as they are) and discrediting her personally, to curtail her influence.

Coulter does use her sexuality in promoting her views — this is not in dispute, even by her. She sells her glamorous appearance and allure along with her "satire". In a "marketplace of ideas" what's good for the goose is good for the gander, in my view.

MetaFilter is hardly the leftist groupthink commune that a handful of shrill objectors claim. In any case, it is not at all necessary for Ann Coulter to be a member of the site for any discussion of her activities to take place; any influence on people who read the site, and who take Coulter seriously, can happen from said discussion without the administrators taking her attendance record and reporting it to you or the rest of the user community.

Ultimately, it is distasteful to me that people are so happy to preemptively squash legitimate criticism of someone like Coulter. Nonetheless, the disagreement lies in whether that kind of criticism is legitimate — not whether she reads it or not.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:36:39 -0800

it's sincerely weird to me that you would see no harmful or debasing value in unchecked-vitriol-as-norm where a conversation among peers (rather than a shouting match in a closed room with the object of your scorn) is concerned.

Cortex: "[I]t entirely justifies using her "satire" against her and her only. It doesn't justify using her "satire" against anyone at all: just her, in this very specific and consistent context."

By: fleacircus

fleacircus — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:06:01 -0800

Oh for Christ's sake it's just a plate of beans.

By: taz

taz — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:49:02 -0800

If one group of people, "A", is practicing genocide against another group of people, "B", it's not okay to nuke every man, woman and child in group "A" out of existence in retribution. Because genocide is wrong.

If person "A" uses violent, sexist, racist, and/or homophobic rhetoric, it's not okay for person "B" to use violent, sexist, racist, and/or homophobic rhetoric against "A", because violence, sexism, racism, and homophobia are wrong.

Nothing ever makes genocide or bigotry right, even if the other person used it first. It's tempting, because we want to say, "there! Let's see how you like it!" - but, still, wrong. If the original action is wrong, the same action used in vengeance remains wrong.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 00:58:00 -0800

If the original action is wrong, the same action used in vengeance remains wrong.

Why is that response wrong if it succinctly highlights the absurd, hateful and hypocritical behaviors of the original perpetrator, better than, say, ignoring said perp (which clearly does not work in this specific case)? I'll throw out a wildly bugbreadesque analogy and state categorically that Chamberlain did the world a great disservice by ignoring Hitler.

By: taz

taz — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 02:02:25 -0800

There are more than two options, though - refusing to use the same morally repugnant themes and tactics as the offender doesn't leave ignoring them as the only other response. But you already know this.

In the end, it may be that the zealots and the "dirty fighters" on either side are as necessary as the idealists, the educators, the strategists, the policymakers and the propagandists to push a given philosphy: in the real world, that's how the machinery works. If you feel comfortable in that role, then, go ahead and occupy it. But intellectually you will understand that it is also the occupation that engenders scorn in those it serves, so, if you do it, you should try to make it count for as much as possible - and whatever you do, be careful it doesn't ultimately serve the opposing side, which is an occupational hazard of zealotry.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 05:57:53 -0800

Good God, we wouldn't want to debase this site!

EB, it's one thing for you to confess that you're willing to ignore your usual standards of discourse because you hate Ann Coulter so fucking much (which is childish and self-indulgent of you, but we all have our childish, self-indulgent sides, so no big deal); it's quite another to leverage that into a dismissal of everyone who upholds your usual standards in this context. Next time I see you bloviating about how some development is Bad for MetaFilter, I'll quote this asinine snark right back at you.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:29:24 -0800

i look forward to the day that we can say "ann who?"

you are putting off that day further in the future with every word you type

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:35:29 -0800

Blazecock Pileon : "I'll throw out a wildly bugbreadesque analogy and state categorically that Chamberlain did the world a great disservice by ignoring Hitler."

And I'll throw out an equally bugbreadesque analogy and say that if he decided to counter Hitler by finding any German families in the UK and putting them in gas ovens, that would be worse, even though from what I can tell of your argument, it would be justified because Hitler did it first, and failing to use Hitler's approach against him is somehow a defense of Hitler.

I should make clear that, unlike some folks here, none of this is really based on a "stoop to the level" argument. I'm not opposed to using homophobia as a tool against Coulter because it's her level, but because it's offensive to non-Coulter parties. It's not a "level" thing. If Coulter says somebody smells like shit, I'd have no problem with someone saying she smells like shit, because that isn't offensive to non-Coulter parties. So it's not about "stooping to her level", it's about avoiding perpetuating problems like bigotry, sexism, and the like. If you can stoop to her level without also insulting other races, genders, sexualities, etc., then have at it.

Also, I'm not arguing that it should be avoided because it brings MetaFilter down. If we used this whole "I hope maggots burrow through her eyeballs" against any random person, yeah, I'd say we should skip it for the sake of the level of argument here. But Coulter is a bit of an exception, so while I understand that some people think vitriol against her should be avoided in order to avoid debasing MeFi, I'm not one of those people.

Again, to make it clear: My only opposition is to certain forms of insults directed at Coulter which also insult innocent folks in the process. It is not to all vitriolic attacks on her. My opposition to this certain subset of insults are not because they are "stooping to Coulter's level". My opposition is not because of debasing MeFi discourse. My opposition is not a defense of Coulter making the arguments. My opposition is purely based on the fact that I think what she does is bad, and doing bad things makes one bad. If I were to do those things, I would be bad. I would be like Coulter. I don't want to be like Coulter. Especially because that wouldn't change Coulter; she wouldn't ever even see it. So I'd be turning myself into a piece of dogshit for absolutely no reason.

By: cortex

cortex — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:01:46 -0800

Cortex: "[I]t entirely justifies using her "satire" against her and her only. It doesn't justify using her "satire" against anyone at all: just her, in this very specific and consistent context."

No, I hear and understand your point, I just disagree with your analysis of who is and isn't getting this rhetoric used against them.

- You say that a person is simply giving Coulter a does of her medicine by way of some public performance (that, perhaps, will sway public opinion of her?)

- I say that a person is, in a much more concrete sense than any supposed indirect attack on Coulter herself, using this rhetoric to the detriment of the actual audience. The person you'd like to think is getting pwn3d by your reverse-satire is the one person who doesn't actually have to listen to it.

Again, I think this may just be the fundamental point of disagreement. I don't think the site will melt from this sort of thing, but I do think it's a circuitous and self-satisfying end-run around the straightforward notion of not saying really lousy things just because one is upset. There's a reason we delete lazy Coulter posts at this point, and it's got not one damned thing to do with wanting to defend the woman.

By: dios

dios — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:33:31 -0800

Reading this thread is very odd to me given that large portions of it are blocked out to me, but from what I can gather, some of you are wasting your time. Here is my guess as to what is going on: BlazecockPileon--in his continuing crusade against me--probably shot off his mouth in reaction to what I said solely because I said something. I'm sure he didn't think his point through. The guy just can't possibly stand anything I say so he felt compelled to snipe at me. When other's pointed out the silliness of his position, he then turned to desperately trying to justify after the fact. That's just my guess, but I could be wrong. If I am correct, then several of y'all are engaged in an act of rhetorical futility.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:56:34 -0800

Jesus, dios, don't stir the shit. When you pull stuff like that, you lose the right to complain that people pick on you for no reason.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:00:07 -0800

Oh dear god, not this again. please please please let's not have another one of these.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:02:02 -0800

and what languagehat said. dios, since you can't read his arguments I will say categorically that blazecock seems to be arguing against what you said, but not against you. The discussion has moved away from you and toward ann coulter and discussions of her. It would be just peachy and swell if it was left at that.

By: cortex

cortex — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:02:11 -0800

Not sounds like a really good plan, shmegegge. And dios, if you're going to kill-file, don't fucking talk about it, and definitely don't talk about it to spite the person you're kill-filing in a thread in which they're participating in good faith. Ech.

By: and hosted from Uranus

and hosted from Uranus — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:02:36 -0800

I didn't read a lot of this thread either but I agree with dios, you guys are wasting your time arguing about me. I'm beyond your feeble "discussions".

By: Aloysius Bear

Aloysius Bear — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:02:47 -0800

What languagehat said.

Yes, dios, you get dumped on for no good reason by plenty of people, but you really aren't helping yourself here by making a comment along the lines of, "I have no idea what BP said but it was probably stupid." And reading the site with a killfile to remove certain comments just isn't cool.

By: Nabubrush

Nabubrush — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:05:27 -0800

"Ann, this hurts me more than it does you."

By: dios

dios — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:11:12 -0800

Pull stuff like what? Like pointing out that this guy has a long history of feeling compelled to snipe at everything I say? Like pointing out his long history of being absolutely obsessed with me on this site? Like pointing out how I repeatedly asked him to just ignore me on the site--as I have done by putting him on ignore, an action he was unwilling or unable to do to me? You are suggesting that by pointing out how desperately he trolls me, I "lose the right to complain that people pick on me for no reason?" I don't get it. Like I said, I may be wrong on his motivations, but I doubt it given his long history.

For the sake of the site and everyone's enjoyment, I have consistently and repeatedly made clear my desire to not pursue grudges with him. He has consistently rejected any form of detente because he is unable to do so. This should be clear to any reader of Metafilter. So when I make a fairly innocuous comment in this thread, and he feels it necessary to immediately jump on it (and even apparently call it shrill), it should be blindingly obvious to everyone what was going on. To see 100 subsequent comments from fair-minded people trying to rationally discuss the behavior seemed like wasted energy. I respect you enough that I cannot accept the fact that you honestly asserting that such a comment from me somehow justifies shit treatment directed towards me.

By: dios

dios — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:13:09 -0800

dios, since you can't read his arguments I will say categorically that blazecock seems to be arguing against what you said, but not against you.
posted by shmegegge at 10:02 AM on July 5

Fair enough. As I said, I could be wrong. And I may well be. I just saw the comment from bugbread where my original comment was called "shrill" which seemed to suggest to me that the original comment was probably not offered in good faith. But if I am wrong about that, then mea culpa.

By: dios

dios — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:15:29 -0800

By the way, if it is not obvious contextually, my longer comment right after Nabubrush was in response to languagehat. Sorry for not making that clear and not previewing.

By: and hosted from Uranus

and hosted from Uranus — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:15:35 -0800

I respect the decision of the jury which is why I'm commuting Scooty's sentence.

By: cortex

cortex — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:16:27 -0800

You are suggesting that by pointing out how desperately he trolls me, I "lose the right to complain that people pick on me for no reason?" I don't get it.

By your own admission, you have the dude kill-filed. It is basically impossible for him to bait you. You're doing a pretty piss-poor job of ignorning him at the moment.

If you want to not interact with someone on the site, do that. But don't pull this Please Tell Blazecock That I'm Not Speaking To Him bullshit on the rest of us.

You two having grand arguments about and around one another is pretty tired. You've both said as much on more than one occasion. Modify your own behavior and leave the rest of us out of it.

By: dios

dios — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:25:57 -0800

If you want to not interact with someone on the site, do that. But don't pull this Please Tell Blazecock That I'm Not Speaking To Him bullshit on the rest of us.

That wasn't my point. And I concede I shouldn't have mentioned having him on ignore. I could of made my point without mentioning that. I have been ignoring because it gets messy. The point I was trying to make here--which I admit I did so clumsily--was that the guy has a major issue with me that he can't resist pursuing. When people take issue with something he directs at me, they ought to consider that context as it probably informs the comment. I could have admittedly made that point without mentioning the killfile. I could also not have made it at all, which would have been the wiser thing. But, having said it, I guess I should explain my thought process on it.

By: dios

dios — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:29:14 -0800

I forgot this:

You two having grand arguments about and around one another is pretty tired. You've both said as much on more than one occasion. Modify your own behavior and leave the rest of us out of it.
posted by cortex at 10:16 AM on July 5

I agree 100%. But to be clear: I have said that it is tired and sucks and hurts the site and have expressed my desire to not ever engage each other on the site. I proposed that agreement to him. He has rejected that. He has been clear that he wants to continue his pursue his grudge with me. I nevertheless ignore him anyhow.

But I think you are right. I wish he thought so too.

By: cortex

cortex — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:36:57 -0800

Then for fuck's sake ignore him. Coming back to this thread to talk about how you're ignoring him and you wish he'd ignore you like you're ignoring him and here's another thing you want to reiterate about the guy who you're ignoring [rhetorical, third-person wave to guy you're ignoring] yadda yadda yadda...

Every goddam salvo you add here defeats the ostensible purpose being defended therein, and you're still doing it right now. Write him an(other) email, or don't, but let this poor horse-corpse alone. You aren't automatically not in the wrong for recycling this crap just because he didn't sign your contract, and you need to take into account the ~56K people on this site who care about this so much less than either of you.

Please. Drop it.

By: dios

dios — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:40:41 -0800

Please. Drop it.
posted by cortex at 10:36 AM on July 5

Done. I was just explaining the reason for my ill-advised comment lest someone come in and suggest different motivations. But I'll drop it.

By: cortex

cortex — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:45:12 -0800

I can dig the instinct. Thank you.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 09:08:50 -0800

failing to use Hitler's approach against him is somehow a defense of Hitler

That's quite a tortured analogy, to say the least, which is why I hate it when hypotheticals are invoked with no real connection to the subject at hand. Inaction in the face of evil was my point and I'll leave it at that.

In the end, my concern is about pundits on the right using a common, false and tired argument to dictate what may or may not be discussed, to dictate how evil is confronted, and in the process aiding in letting the original perpetrator get away with his or her behavior.

I'd say that automatically or thoughtlessly restricting one's response just to conform to vague and shifting "politeness" standards (whether here on Metafilter or out IRL) in the face of evil probably does a lot more significant damage to society than a well-earned epithet or other action that I suspect most reasoning adults understand is very clearly directed at its target only. On the other hand, that shouldn't be interpreted as saying that everyone here is indirectly enacting a knee-jerk defense of Coulter, just that the danger remains from doing nothing at all.

My opposition is purely based on the fact that I think what she does is bad, and doing bad things makes one bad.

I fundamentally disagree that using her language against her and her ilk is "doing bad" — rather, it clarifies the damage she does by shining light on her absurd views and behaviors. Since we can't agree on what is a moral calculation, I'm not sure there's much to discuss on this point.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 09:14:49 -0800

There's a reason we delete lazy Coulter posts at this point, and it's got not one damned thing to do with wanting to defend the woman.

Delete away, cortex. My concerns have nothing to do with the quality of FPPs.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 09:42:47 -0800

you know who else had a killfile?

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 09:43:40 -0800

That's right: The Terminator!

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 10:48:30 -0800

“I'll quote this asinine snark right back at you.”

Dude, I was trying to be just funny, not snide. I can see why you thought otherwise, but I've not been arguing in this thread and have given no indication (that I can recall) that I feel snarky towards anyone in this thread except Ann Coulter.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 11:22:37 -0800

OK, fair enough. This thread is perhaps not the best environment for light-hearted humor, I'm afraid. I'm starting to feel like eyeballkid.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:38:55 -0800

Blazecock Pileon : "That's quite a tortured analogy, to say the least, which is why I hate it when hypotheticals are invoked with no real connection to the subject at hand. Inaction in the face of evil was my point and I'll leave it at that."

Yeah. That's the rub, though: I never advocated inaction, I just advocated avoiding a certain type of action, not all types of action. So we may disagree, but I don't think we disagree as much as you think we disagree.

Blazecock Pileon : "I'd say that automatically or thoughtlessly restricting one's response just to conform to vague and shifting 'politeness' standards"

Agreed. My restrictions are neither automatic nor thoughtless. I mean, if they were, we wouldn't exactly be having a big involved discussion about them, would we? ^_^

Blazecock Pileon : "Since we can't agree on what is a moral calculation, I'm not sure there's much to discuss on this point."

Ok, that's reasonable.