NationStates Jolt Archive

You have to say one thing about Ann Coulter; She makes people talk. And this is yet another thread inspired by her recent comment, but more so with a debate some of us tuched upon in in one of the threads:

When should one just ignore someone who publicly speaks about views and ideas that you disagree strongly with, and when should one speak out against them?

Be it Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Fred Phelps, or any other person that holds what you believe to be completely irrational, crazy and/or dangerous views, where would you draw the line? When would you start saying something?

Take Ann Coulter... (Please!! :p)
I would like to just ignore her and her angry rants, but the fact is that she has too many listeners and supporters. She's on talkshows all the time, and she's writing columns and books - people are listening to her! The things she's saying can't go unchallanged... Or can they? Should they?

Any thoughts?

There certainly does come a time to speak out about people whose utterances offend one. That's been done here, again and again. In real life, I find I need to force myself off my ass and into gear to express a public opinion on these matters. That's my own problem / impediment, though. But yes, when people in the public forum are as outrageous as she has been, they need to be called on it.

The title of the other thread, "Ann Coulter Didn't Mean it ..." is appropriate, because you know she really did mean it, and I bet she said it with a smirk.

Hehe, yay you for making the thread. :) I almost did last night but I was all argued out on the topic. Even more so today, so I'll just shamelessly quote from my own posts yesterday from my Ann Coulter thread. It's not like I am any clearer on the subject than I was yesterday...:

Yeah, we can ignore her and maybe it would be the best thing to do, but to be honest I think she has a bit too high of a profile for the sane half of the people to sit back and say "Eh, let's not give her any attention and she'll go away".
If nobody (apart from a tiny minority) gave her any attention, that would work. But as it is right now? Not so much.

I was going to mention Fred Phelps & his Crazy Bunch as nutcases we should ignore so they'll go away - after all, most everybody actually thinks they're nutcases, as opposed to Coulter, incredibly enough.

But even fucking Fred Phelps isn't just a lonely nutcase out in the prairie anymore as soon as the fucking media keeps giving him and his delusional sister airtime to spew their deranged hatred.

So, basically, as soon as people like that get regular national media exposure, is it really the best answer to say "Let's ignore them so they go away"? Because in a way I agree, of course, but at the same time, who says they'll go away?

And just imagine every left-wing commentator would decide to ignore Coulter - hell, she could go on lying and defiling without anybody even pointing out her lies.

We would live in a better world if Ann Coulter had died and Anna Nicole lived. We could then safely ignore both :eek:

There certainly does come a time to speak out about people whose utterances offend one. That's been done here, again and again. In real life, I find I need to force myself off my ass and into gear to express a public opinion on these matters. That's my own problem / impediment, though. But yes, when people in the public forum are as outrageous as she has been, they need to be called on it.Too true. :/

The title of the other thread, "Ann Coulter Didn't Mean it ..." is appropriate, because you know she really did mean it, and I bet she said it with a smirk.Yay. And she sure did (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/02/coulter-edwards/). Watching the video is even worse than just reading about it. [not to derail the thread, Gravlen, sorry.]

Bah to Ann Coulter. She makes puppies cry.

Too true. :/

Yay. And she sure did (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/02/coulter-edwards/). Watching the video is even worse than just reading about it. [not to derail the thread, Gravlen, sorry.]

just bomb the room an save us all

It's not that Ann Coulter needs to be spoken about so much as the reaction to her needs to be spoken about. I mean, it's one thing to have the Republican frontrunners eventually say that what she said was outrageous, it's another to actually watch the video and hear the reaction from the CPAC crowd. (Hint: there was a slight gasp followed with laughter and clapping). So the real outrage needs to be directed at those people--the ones who keep having her on their tv shows and keep publishing her columns and most of all, those who apparently think that this is civil discourse.

But they're not going to apologize, because they agree with her, and hey, let them do it. It'll be Kansas nationwide--moderates will eventually get tired of being represented by people like Coulter and will come over to our side and the Coulters will be marginalized, just as they should be.

But in the case of Fred Phelps, people seem to feel that it's OK to drown out the noise he and his followers make at the funerals of soldiers. Now that man is a true nutcase, but I doubt the same tactic would be widely accepted if used against Michael Moore or Ann Coulter - so why is it accepted in the case of Phelps? Is it because he's more of a loon, or is it because the others are willing to engage in a (sort of) rational debate?

It's not that Ann Coulter needs to be spoken about so much as the reaction to her needs to be spoken about. I mean, it's one thing to have the Republican frontrunners eventually say that what she said was outrageous, it's another to actually watch the video and hear the reaction from the CPAC crowd. (Hint: there was a slight gasp followed with laughter and clapping). So the real outrage needs to be directed at those people--the ones who keep having her on their tv shows and keep publishing her columns and most of all, those who apparently think that this is civil discourse.

But they're not going to apologize, because they agree with her, and hey, let them do it. It'll be Kansas nationwide--moderates will eventually get tired of being represented by people like Coulter and will come over to our side and the Coulters will be marginalized, just as they should be.

I hope so, Nazz, truly, I do. Perhaps they will get tired of devoting their lives to the GOP, only to be called RINOs and find themselves pushed out of the "big tent" because they don't hate fags and dykes and don't think teaching the controversy is a real good idea. One can only hope. Perhaps the spectacle of John McCain prostituting himself to the extreme wing of the party for the next couple of years will be the final straw.

Attention-whoring twats on both sides of the aisle -- e.g., Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, etc. -- should just be ignored. Deprive them of the attention they crave, and they'll likely wither away and die, which, of course will take longer in Moore's case than in Coulter's. She's got a headstart in the withering department.

Why do you mind her so?

I would like to just ignore her and her angry rants, but the fact is that she has too many listeners and supporters. She's on talkshows all the time, and she's writing columns and books - people are listening to her!
But how many people are listening to her to actually absorb what she's saying, and how many people simply like listening to her so that they can immediately go on a rant about how evil she and everyone who listens to her is?
I used to like her a bit, back in the day, because she just spouted off whatever was on her mind, without thinking about how other people would react.
These days, however, she seems to say whatever she believes will maximize offense reducing her to the level of Howard Stern or Carlos Mencia, and rendering her just as irrelevant.

Yay. And she sure did (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/02/coulter-edwards/). Watching the video is even worse than just reading about it. [not to derail the thread, Gravlen, sorry.]
No worries, I was kinda glad you linked to the video, because it serves as a good illustration.
It's not that Ann Coulter needs to be spoken about so much as the reaction to her needs to be spoken about. I mean, it's one thing to have the Republican frontrunners eventually say that what she said was outrageous, it's another to actually watch the video and hear the reaction from the CPAC crowd. (Hint: there was a slight gasp followed with laughter and clapping). So the real outrage needs to be directed at those people--the ones who keep having her on their tv shows and keep publishing her columns and most of all, those who apparently think that this is civil discourse.

But they're not going to apologize, because they agree with her, and hey, let them do it. It'll be Kansas nationwide--moderates will eventually get tired of being represented by people like Coulter and will come over to our side and the Coulters will be marginalized, just as they should be.
You've certainly got a point. But would that mean that you should stop ignoring and start speaking out when they've got an audience that listens and agrees? Hmm... Maybe it's when they've got a more mainstream audience - there will always be fringe lunatics that agrees with something that's said...
Attention-whoring twats on both sides of the aisle -- e.g., Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, etc. -- should just be ignored. Deprive them of the attention they crave, and they'll likely wither away and die, which, of course will take longer in Moore's case than in Coulter's. She's got a headstart in the withering department.
The problem is when their side of the aisle start listening and fanning the flames - once they've got a listening audience and a following, they'll never go away by simply being ignored.

'course, I wish the media wouldn't interpret "both sides of a debate" to mean "the most extreme views we can find on either side", and stop inviting them to every single talkshow known to man!
Why do you mind her so?
I think she's a badly informed person with hateful views who lowers the standards of debates and reduces them to simple mud-slinging competitions and contests where the winner is the one who says the most outrageous thing. For starters. But this thread isn't supposed to be purely about her, so :)

Bah to Ann Coulter. She makes puppies cry.

Why do you mind her so?

Answered? :)

'course, I wish the media wouldn't interpret "both sides of a debate" to mean "the most extreme views we can find on either side", and stop inviting them to every single talkshow known to man!

Trouble is, the most extreme views on either side are also the most simplistic and fit better into short soundbytes that are understandable to those with simple minds.

Trouble is, the most extreme views on either side are also the most simplistic and fit better into short soundbytes that are understandable to those with simple minds.

I know, and I greatly lament the fact :(

Mann Coulter and others who behave like her are pollution. You can pretend they're not there, but they'll still be there and probably impact your health over time. Plus they're trolls who have gotten their wet dreams of publicity, prestige and money just by doing what they love.

Ignoring them is never going to happen, unfortunately.

So I go for constant pies to the face in public.

I've always been of the opinion that when a radical person says something radical- it is not and should never be considered news. Of course, if people want to make it news, I cant stop them.

We would live in a better world if Ann Coulter had died and Anna Nicole lived. We could then safely ignore both :eek:You can already safely ignore both. And this Coulter thing is not an international phenomenon, anyways.

Ignoring them is never going to happen, unfortunately.

So I go for constant pies to the face in public.

Physically or verbally?

Physically or verbally?

Physically I would hope. Verbally would be just so...dull.

You can already safely ignore both. And this Coulter thing is not an international phenomenon, anyways.

We all have our crazies. It would be nice though if people would actually ignore these nutjobs. But I think people like to hear others say outrageous shit. Why else would shows like Jerry Springer be popular?

You have to say one thing about Ann Coulter; She makes people talk. And this is yet another thread inspired by her recent comment, but more so with a debate some of us tuched upon in in one of the threads:

When should one just ignore someone who publicly speaks about views and ideas that you disagree strongly with, and when should one speak out against them?

Be it Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Fred Phelps, or any other person that holds what you believe to be completely irrational, crazy and/or dangerous views, where would you draw the line? When would you start saying something?

Take Ann Coulter... (Please!! :p)
I would like to just ignore her and her angry rants, but the fact is that she has too many listeners and supporters. She's on talkshows all the time, and she's writing columns and books - people are listening to her! The things she's saying can't go unchallanged... Or can they? Should they?

Any thoughts?

Ann Coulter is better than your kids.

Ann Coulter is better than your kids.You were saying?