quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Sam is an idiot. Ok, thread is even, no one gets yelled at by a moderator (I hope.)
But nice of you to link to one of my more magnificent posts -from a year and a half ago, no less.
The fact you think it is one of your best posts, and magnificent, proves Sam's point, actually.
It MAY be one fo your best, but that doesn't mean it's correct, or even well thought out.....it just means that being one of your best is setting the bar fairly low in the first place.
He probably doesn't have any of your posts saved, he could pretty much choose ANY of them and make his point.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I first read Blinded by the Right, I was especially intrigued by Brock's portrayal of Coulter, with whom he had worked for years (even back in their college days). He depicts her as a woman of no real political agenda, but with a strong sense of personal privilege that drives a deep, visceral, and very real disgust. He suggests that she doesn't actually have any political principles, but is motivated to some extent by a genuine sense of disgust and disdain; she learned early on to exaggerate her expressions of disgust to a near-comical extent, and this has proven profitable for her with people who, like her, are disgusted by things but can't articulate why or even necessarily in what way. She says what such people are thinking: "X should just go away, just die, because they make me sick to my stomach." And her audience perceives this relatively unsophisticated response as bravery, as truth-telling, because they are intuitively aware that such comments would not be well-received in polite society and resent having to submerge their baser impulses.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I would agree with that just based on what I have read and seen on the shows she has been on. I also think that she has a keen sense of marketability, and is very good at using some of the tactics of the left.
For years, maybe even decades, the left has claimed (with different levels of truthfulness) that the right wing conservatives are trying to interfere with people's freedom of speech.
So Ann comes along, and deliberately says things that rile people up (to put it mildly) and when the left attacks her for it she screams "Look! They don't want freedom, they want to shut me up!".
It isn't particularly effective if you HAVE an agenda, but it sells books.
posted
I think on a more basic level, Ann Coulter is probably pitiable in some awful way. She seems to e like the victim of some pretty awful abuse as a young person. It isn't normal or healthy to want to evoke the kind of animosity she does from other people. Also, just listening to her voice (after many years of also tuning into loveline) she has what Drew refers to as a "restricted affect," that stilted, restrained and oddly hard mouthed unnatural speaking voice that often denotes a history of emotional detachment that can be caused by trauma.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those of you who have, thank you for bringing it back to discussion instead of personal attacks. I'm still catching up on all that went on while I was gone.
All the things that came to mind regarding the personal attacks were snide and sarcastic, so I'm holding those back. Just please stop.
quote:Of course you know how to use the search function, Sam. Only, I think it's the search function found in the Windows Start Menu, allowing you to search your hard drive. Probably your specially dedicated back-up drive as well, the one with "I Hate Reshpeckobiggle" etched into one side (and I imagine a Hello Kitty sticker on the other.)
So, you're basically complimenting my memory vs. yours. I can recall things you've said and .. you proclaim that this couldn't possibly be because of anything short of having a dedicated hard drive.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: So... In summation, she appeals to people who are tired of feeling guilty about hating?
More like, she appeals to the naughty part of some people's brains that tell them it's fun to listen to someone talk an enormous storm of ****. Every cross section of our society has somebody like this- it isn't exactly surprising. She's kind of like Bill O'Reilly, except he appeals to the part of people's brains that remembers what it felt like to be a bully on the school yard, and like to see a way in which that type of behavior is still permitted in public by an adult.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Flattered... quite a stretch of an interpretation there to find a way to be flattered. Narcissism has strange ways of exhibiting itself. I am obviously amazed at how well you recall my posts when I can't remember what you even said on the previous page of this thread. But trust me, in no way is my amazement the product of your memory being excellent and mine poor.
Orincoro, Coulter actually appeals more to the memory of being bullied, because she makes all the smart-ass remarks that I wish I'd had the courage and wit to say when I was small.
She is not nearly as awful to those who, if not exactly enamored with her tactics or envious of the attention she gets, are yet sympathetic to her opinions. When I read her books, I laugh out loud at her offensive jokes while getting my ego stroked for being shown how much smarter I am than all those brainwashed liberals. And then I put the book down and come back into reality. It's like listening to a comedian like Joe Norton or Louie CK.
She does not take herself nearly so seriously as some of you do, but you know that the last thing she wants is for you to stop doing so because your visceral reaction to her is part of why she sells books. If she had broken her jaw and we didn't hear all the utterly predictable reactions (so clever by the way... "she's has no choice but to keep her mouth shut now lol!" Give yourselves a pat on the back) then you know that would be a sign that she was irrelevant.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Flattered... quite a stretch of an interpretation there to find a way to be flattered. Narcissism has strange ways of exhibiting itself. I am obviously amazed at how well you recall my posts when I can't remember what you even said on the previous page of this thread.
Heh. You know, if I go to some length to talk about how I think you have a problem with reading and logical comprehension, it doesn't exactly make it witty repartee to immediately then talk about how you don't even remember posts relevant to the snit you're making now.
More embarrasing to you is when the issue is that I or anyone else can remember your public record better than you do, and that allows me to press you on these issues. An example:
quote: And then I put the book down and come back into reality. It's like listening to a comedian like Joe Norton or Louie CK.
Given the praise you've given Coulter for being a relevant and effective persuasive commentator on values you believe in, aren't you really just now saying that your values are comedy divorced from reality?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, are you just checking the forum every 5 minutes waiting for me to post? Stalk someone else!!!
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And her audience perceives this relatively unsophisticated response as bravery, as truth-telling, because they are intuitively aware that such comments would not be well-received in polite society and resent having to submerge their baser impulses.
Which, by the way, works very well in the context of the PC backlash.
quote:Her books are actually a clever mix. She doesn't care if her haters are too dense to be able to tell when she switches from satire to serious,
I've never read anything by Ann Coulter and haven't seen her speak either, but based on what you say I very clearly have met her type before: The sort of demagogues who call for mass genocide, and then pretend it was humour or poetic hyperbole or "merely making a point by analogy" if anyone objects, while winking at those fans of theirs who very clearly don't object that they really do mean it.
It's a cowardly but VERY common technique for the far-right, all over the world.
Thank you, Resh. Up to now I had no opinion on Ann Coulter (since I'd never heard or read anything by her) but your comment very clearly illustrated to me that she almost certainly represents everything that I despise in the Cowardly Far-right.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam, That usage of Jesus Christ is highly offensive. You have now seriously overstepped the bounds of this forum.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: oh, daisies. it was a typo, I meant to type 'holy effervescent Xenu'
the letters are like right next to each other
Then edit it out.
I am not particularly sensitive to most curse words, you could post almost anything else and it wouldn't phase me in the least. But I worship Jesus Christ. He is not only my lord and savior but epitomizes to me the great virtues of love, kindness and mercy. Using his name as an expletive is offensive in the extreme. Edit it out now before Papa does it for you.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh, snap. I honestly didn't even realize you were being serious, in part because I've said things like that tons of times here.
Am I honestly not allowed to say something like 'jesus, that's crazy' on this forum? Is that actually something that I am not allowed to do?Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam, I have no idea whether its official forbidden on this forum or not. I'm telling you that this expression is EXTREMELY offensive to me. I'm explaining why and asking you not to do it.
Your exasperation at my request shows disrespect for me and my profoundly held religious beliefs. I can understand that you didn't know that I and many others found such expressions to be deeply offensive, but now you do so stop it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:oh, snap. I honestly didn't even realize you were being serious, in part because I've said things like that tons of times here
Evidently, those times haven't been in threads I've been following or I would have objected then. It is languange which is very deeply offensive to me and many other devout Christians. I'm actually shocked that this comes as a surprise to you. Out of respect for me and my beliefs, please don't use that language around me, which means here.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sam, I have no idea whether its official forbidden on this forum or not. I'm telling you that this expression is EXTREMELY offensive to me. I'm explaining why and asking you not to do it.
Your exasperation at my request shows disrespect for me and my profoundly held religious beliefs. I can understand that you didn't know that I and many others found such expressions to be deeply offensive, but now you do so stop it.
...
Then in all seriousness you should not have framed your post in the form of "you have seriously overstepped the bounds of this forum" and instead told me that it was a personal distaste that you were personally requesting that I amend.
I 'distastefully' hold the view that its incredibly silly that the situation present requires me to cease using jesus christ, especially what with me being in a form of the faith that holds no distaste for the use of Jesus' name in that manner and would not consider it an insult to His name. In my own personal opinion, I find it as silly as being offended when someone says God as a, as you put it, 'expletive.'
That's noted as a matter of course. my exasperation at your request has to do with that, not a disrespect for you. it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I would abide by a request by you to not say jesus christ because you find it deeply offensive, because I would. I would have pretty much instantly done so. You just confused the crap out of me because you were posing it as though it were a forum rule, a specific censorship, that I would be reprimanded for officially, something which came off so ridiculous to me that I literally thought you were joking.
That's a different issue, because I'd just leave if that were the case.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is languange which is very deeply offensive to me and many other devout Christians. I'm actually shocked that this comes as a surprise to you.
It's not a surprise at all. Practically everything is offensive to someone, and there's only so far I or anyone can go to accommodate these distastes, no matter if these distastes are founded in their religious beliefs.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then in all seriousness you should not have framed your post in the form of "you have seriously overstepped the bounds of this forum" and instead told me that it was a personal distaste that you were personally requesting that I amend.
I have just checked rules and regulations for this board they read
quote:You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law
.
The OED defines "profane" as
quote:Of persons, behaviour, etc.: characterized by, exhibiting, or expressive of a disregard or contempt for sacred things (esp., in later use, by the taking of God's name in vain); not respectful of religious practice; irreverent, blasphemous, impious; (hence, more generally) ribald, coarse, indecent. Now the most common sense.
Based on this data, I presumed that your language was not only offensive to me personally but violated the site rules.
If the moderator and site owners do not see that language as profane, then I suppose I was presumptuous.
You seem to be excusing your behavior based on the claim that "Practically everything is offensive to someone." That is hyperbole that is unjustified and actually the sort of thing used by people like Anne Coulter to justify their boorishness.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to take this opportunity to announce that I find the word "Belgium" to be the rudest word in existence according to my religion and thus I am giving notice that it is no longer to be used by any member of this forum.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see many differences including the fact that one is a satirical restriction created by Douglas Adams and the other is a serious restriction created by parties that are unknown to me. Also the two are spelled differently.
I have no knowledge of what specific difference you find relevant.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
I don't know about "most" but I see the difference.
I'm an agnostic, but I am very aware that there are many people on this board - including the owners of the list - who are more than offended by profane comments.
I've never found it difficult to make slight modifications to my language in order to respect those other participants. And, heck, it's nothing compared to the modifications I make in my spoken communication at work (much harder to edit than typing).
To me, it's not so much a matter of self-censoring as respect for others. Not to mention common courtesy.
It's come up here before, just not in a long time.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Orincoro, Coulter actually appeals more to the memory of being bullied, because she makes all the smart-ass remarks that I wish I'd had the courage and wit to say when I was small.
Do you get paid to be a party hack? Or are you doing it for free?
quote: Her books are actually a clever mix. She doesn't care if her haters are too dense to be able to tell when she switches from satire to serious,
Whenever I see the words, "so and so doesn't care... if so and so doesn't get it..." I know we're talking about bad writing. You may agree with it, and not want it to be bad writing, but unfortunately that's what it is. If a writer has trouble tracking, for any large group of readers, between seriousness and irony or satire, then the book is missing the mark. I'm kind of amazed you actually think Ann Coulter has a sense of humor at all. I find her dreadfully dull.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: Dag (and Rabbit),
I don't know about "most" but I see the difference.
I'm an agnostic, but I am very aware that there are many people on this board - including the owners of the list - who are more than offended by profane comments.
I've never found it difficult to make slight modifications to my language in order to respect those other participants. And, heck, it's nothing compared to the modifications I make in my spoken communication at work (much harder to edit than typing).
To me, it's not so much a matter of self-censoring as respect for others. Not to mention common courtesy.
It's come up here before, just not in a long time.
Thank you sndrake. Your courtesy is appreciated.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Resh, she is irrelevant. I have yet to see any of her suggestions being taken seriously, and any person of influence who said they were taking her seriously would promptly lose the next election 90% of the time. She COULD have been influential, but she chose the easy way out.
I do see what you mean about her snap remarks though. I remember many times where I held back from saying something offensive only to be pushed around verbally by people who were less intelligent that I was, merely because I had tact and cared about other people and they didn't.
I am glad I didn't sink to their level most of the time, but sometimes there is a moment where I did in my mind, and I clearly would have gotten the better of them. We have all done that.
But that doesn't excuse her being a complete ass who is far too impressed with herself for little to no reason.
We had the conversation about using Jesus' name here before, many moons ago. It is NOT a violation f the forum rules. However, while I do say that IRL at times, I personally try to limit it because it does offend other people. Not many, at least IMO, but some, and offending people intentionally is rarely a good thing.
If I offend someone I prefer it to be intentional. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Sam, I have no idea whether its official forbidden on this forum or not. I'm telling you that this expression is EXTREMELY offensive to me. I'm explaining why and asking you not to do it.
Your exasperation at my request shows disrespect for me and my profoundly held religious beliefs. I can understand that you didn't know that I and many others found such expressions to be deeply offensive, but now you do so stop it.
Oh, Jesus Tap Dancing Christ. Get a grip.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Sam, I have no idea whether its official forbidden on this forum or not. I'm telling you that this expression is EXTREMELY offensive to me. I'm explaining why and asking you not to do it.
Your exasperation at my request shows disrespect for me and my profoundly held religious beliefs. I can understand that you didn't know that I and many others found such expressions to be deeply offensive, but now you do so stop it.
Oh, Jesus Tap Dancing Christ. Get a grip.
Enough already. The fact that I hold somethings sacred does not mean I've lost my grip or that I'm a hypersensitive individual.
If the name is no different to you than "John Smith", then why not say "John Tap Dancing Smith"? You don't because even to those of you who don't hold treat the name of Jesus with reverence know that it isn't just any other name. You don't need a Ph.D. to see that.
Since this has degenerated clearly to the point where people are using profanity just to push my buttons, its time for me to leave.
Good Bye and Good Riddance. I'll return to hatrack when the the juvenile practice of deliberately provoking people for amusement has gone out of fashion.
[ November 27, 2008, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Based on this data, I presumed that your language was not only offensive to me personally but violated the site rules.
If I were to base the TOS on your reading, I'm profane, and violating the forum's rules, for talking about working on the sabbath day.
And I'm surprised to realize that the TOS for Hatrack is actually that default lump of text. It's obviously not the rules that this forum is governed by.
quote:You seem to be excusing your behavior based on the claim that "Practically everything is offensive to someone."
That's not my central excuse. My central 'excuse' is that I do not buy into the notion whatsoever that I am automatically required to modify any behaviors so as to prevent my chosen behaviors from greatly offending some people's religious sensitivities, any more so than I'm going to stop buying and eating meat because my (now former) roommate finds that dreadfully offensive. Some people dreadfully offend other people's religions just by not wearing a burqa and speaking even when not spoken to. Doesn't mean they have to care.
It's a matter of compromise and respect, of finding middle ground. I don't post much in terms of open disrespect of other religions, yet at the same time I don't expect to be allowed to dictate the terms of what encompasses open disrespect of other religions, regardless of intent.
quote:We had the conversation about using Jesus' name here before, many moons ago. It is NOT a violation f the forum rules.
posted
Sorry, Kwea, but it is a violation of the forum rules. Just because people break it regularly and it doesn't always get prosecuted doesn't mean it's not a violation (much like speeding, really). I and the Cards just don't have the time to police every post, and so we trust the members here to be considerate of one another and at least for the most part staying within the TOS all on their own.
When it was brought up before, I had to step in despite not wishing to, hoping that people could instead simply figure out how to be courteous for themselves without a law having to be laid down. This continues not to be the case, apparently.
quote:One more thought. I think it's obvious that people have forgotten what the word "profanity" means. If you asked anybody on Hatrack "Is profanity allowed?" I'm sure the answer would be a big "No". But they have forgotten that the original and overwhelming meaning of of the word is anything that is blasphemy, sacrilegious, or involves taking the name of God in vain. Later we've added to that definition things of a sexual or scatalogical nature. But that did not delete the original meaning. Profanity is not allowed on Hatrack. People who persist will be asked to leave.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Sam, I have no idea whether its official forbidden on this forum or not. I'm telling you that this expression is EXTREMELY offensive to me. I'm explaining why and asking you not to do it.
Your exasperation at my request shows disrespect for me and my profoundly held religious beliefs. I can understand that you didn't know that I and many others found such expressions to be deeply offensive, but now you do so stop it.
Oh, (Deleted for tact above that of a 2 year old, which Blayne doesn't have). Get a grip.
'
You are an idiot, and most of the time you are the reason I wish this forum had an ignore function.
Papa, I disagree with that. I am NOT saying you're wrong, but we have had several conversations about it here (including one I remember from before you were a mod), and in none of those have any steps ever been taken to prevent it. I must have missed the one you are talking about. Sorry about taht.
I don't agree with it because half the things posted here are far more offensive to a large number of people on a regular basis. And quite often religion is used to protect those views as being above reproach, and somehow protected.
Keep in mind that I don't use phrases like that here out of respect of others beliefs myself. I think it shows a lack of good faith in conversations most of the time.
I use it IRL, and if it was mentioned to me as offensive politely, as Rabbit did in here, I would (and have in the past) corrected myself and went on with the conversation. However, I have also had people get in my face about it....to which I answer they can always walk away, as I have a right to say it if I feel like it. The person who yells about it is just as offensive to me as a person who ignores the feelings of others when the subject is approached respectfully. (once again, as I feel Rabbit did here)
That being said, I stand corrected. Apparently it is more correct to insult entire categories of people based on their sexual orientation that to use someone else's god's name in vain.
posted
This is really stupid. Whose definition of profane are we using? If you want to say "Christians'", and leave it at that, fine, but be upfront about this being a Christain forum. If it's not just Christians' definition of profane that we're using than I'm going to start flagging about every third post here for not respecting strict Muslim or Hindu or Parsi or Pagan or <blank> beliefs. Heck, Scientology alone will probably rule out most discussion about psychology.
If you want to make an argument on common curtsy, that's one thing. Saying that it's against the rules of this forum to say anything profane makes the rules meaningless.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
But seriously, you're right. It speaks to some unspoken assumptions about this forum that some say stuff like "original and overwhelming meaning" of profane having anything to do with the Christian god.
For my part, I grew up in a relatively secular neighborhood and the overriding meaning of profanity to me is not anything to do with this alien concept of a deity, but to do with the very real world concepts of a family.
It is reflective of this fact that I can't think of any common religious-based Cantonese swearing despite its rather broad vocabulary. I think Mandarin would be even worse off.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're free to decide what they want the forum to be about, but they should be honest & upfront about it.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: This is really stupid. Whose definition of profane are we using? If you want to say "Christians'", and leave it at that, fine, but be upfront about this being a Christain forum. If it's not just Christians' definition of profane that we're using than I'm going to start flagging about every third post here for not respecting strict Muslim or Hindu or Parsi or Pagan or <blank> beliefs. Heck, Scientology alone will probably rule out most discussion about psychology.
If you want to make an argument on common curtsy, that's one thing. Saying that it's against the rules of this forum to say anything profane makes the rules meaningless.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: This is really stupid. Whose definition of profane are we using? If you want to say "Christians'", and leave it at that, fine, but be upfront about this being a Christain forum. If it's not just Christians' definition of profane that we're using than I'm going to start flagging about every third post here for not respecting strict Muslim or Hindu or Parsi or Pagan or <blank> beliefs. Heck, Scientology alone will probably rule out most discussion about psychology.
If you want to make an argument on common curtsy, that's one thing. Saying that it's against the rules of this forum to say anything profane makes the rules meaningless.
Jhai, You are being ridiculously hyperbolic. I live in a country where there are nearly equal numbers of Christians and Hindus and a significant Muslim population. Behaving and speaking in a manner that is respectful to what other people hold sacred is not difficult even in a very diverse multicultural population.
Furthermore, I have many Hindu friends and neighbors and have yet to hear one of them express concern that any expression commonly used in the English language profanes the things they hold sacred.
Face it, the only sacred names and words which have become commonly used profanely in the English language, are Christian words. I've never heard anyone exclaim "Holy Vishnu", or "F**in' Mohammed". "By Buddha". If I did hear such expression and they were offensive to adherents of those religions, I would express the same concern I expressed here.
There is no reason to think this is unduly restrictive on civil discourse.
[ November 28, 2008, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They're free to decide what they want the forum to be about, but they should be honest & upfront about it.
And you have yet to cite ANY evidence that they limit this rule to only things Christians find profane.
quote:Heck, Scientology alone will probably rule out most discussion about psychology.
quote:If I were to base the TOS on your reading, I'm profane, and violating the forum's rules, for talking about working on the sabbath day.
I have a hard time believing either of you actually think this. The counterexamples are so numerous on this board that you simply must know that your statements are nothing but the most shallow form of strawman.
For example, homosexual marriage is regularly discussed here. This is something that we know the board's owners feel to be against their religious precepts as much as Scientologists oppose psychology or Orthodox Jews oppose working on the Sabbath.
So clearly the rule doesn't ban discussion of things merely because those things are opposed by a religion.
The definition speaks of respect and regard. Not agreement. Not being contrary to religious precepts. And you both know this.
quote:I see many differences including the fact that one is a satirical restriction created by Douglas Adams and the other is a serious restriction created by parties that are unknown to me. Also the two are spelled differently.
I have no knowledge of what specific difference you find relevant.
On the off chance you don't honestly see any difference between something avowedly made up and something deeply believed by millions of people, I commend to you sndrake's post for an explanation.
*********
It's amazing to me how much energy people put into wanting to be offensive to others.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
