Ann Coulter's final solution the Occupy problem: Shoot them

[shira]

And successfully made yourself look like someone without any true intelligence or a proper upbringing. Prior to that, you appeared to have a rational view of things. I do not know which appearence matches reality, but that is part of the point.

On the contrary, your constipated view of language underscores your own lack of intellect, depth, and judgement. You're the equivalent of a prudish, priggish "patron of the arts" who - when viewing, for example

NSFW http://www.parisbestlodge.com/modigliani.jpg

gets hung up on the bare breasts and pubic hair. I'm betting that you think this exquisite Modigliani nude runs afoul of forum rules for appropriate content. I'm also betting that the Mods will have a very different opinion.

Embedding the image isn't appropriate.
admin allisolm

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

On the contrary, your constipated view of language underscores your own lack of intellect, depth, and judgement. You're the equivalent of a prudish, priggish "patron of the arts" who - when viewing, for example

http://www.parisbestlodge.com/modigliani.jpg

gets hung up on the bare breasts and pubic hair. I'm betting that you think this exquisite Modigliani nude runs afoul of forum rules for appropriate content. I'm also betting that the Mods will have a very different opinion.

Interestingly in this thread - http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=32658362 - he posted this:

Obama is half white? Well that explains why he cannot shoot hoops, dance, and thought Sanford's dead wife's name was Weasy!

I give him the benefit of the doubt that this is obviously a joke, but if he is going to take the attitude that nothing even colorably offensive should be posted here, I don't see how he can rationalize posting racially stereotypical comments like this either. I am not advocating censoring any of it, but he is . . .

 

[monovillage]

I'd tap that.

 

[3chordcharlie]

I'd tap that.

Dude. She's 96 years old.

Props.

 

[Jhhnn]

In dishing out the kind of abuse she favors, Coulter invites it upon herself, then she & her fanbois claim victimhood, conservatives' favorite refuge. If calling for peaceful protesters to be shot isn't abusive & deliberately provocative, I'm not sure what her fans would think it was.

Personally, I think her fanbois want a poster of her in an SS uniform, with riding crop, so they can fantasize & fap to it, imagining the sting of it on their bare buttocks & the nasty things she'd say to them... I'm pretty sure she'd love it, anyway.

Authoritarianism has its kinky side, too...

If she were an overweight 57 year old woman, I doubt she'd have nearly the appeal that she does... As it is, she's a sort of beautiful, ill tempered & dangerously venomous viper...

 

[monovillage]

In dishing out the kind of abuse she favors, Coulter invites it upon herself, then she & her fanbois claim victimhood, conservatives' favorite refuge. If calling for peaceful protesters to be shot isn't abusive & deliberately provocative, I'm not sure what her fans would think it was.

Personally, I think her fanbois want a poster of her in an SS uniform, with riding crop, so they can fantasize & fap to it, imagining the sting of it on their bare buttocks & the nasty things she'd say to them... I'm pretty sure she'd love it, anyway.

Authoritarianism has its kinky side, too...

If she were an overweight 57 year old woman, I doubt she'd have nearly the appeal that she does... As it is, she's a sort of beautiful, ill tempered & dangerously venomous viper...

I think we just got a view into your own little fantasy world. ewwww

 

[Jhhnn]

I think we just got a view into your own little fantasy world. ewwww

Not mine, but rather those who fawn over her, express the desire to lick her boots...

I'm pretty sure she'd like that, particularly if she gets to shoot the ones who displease her.

 

[Zebo]

On the contrary, your constipated view of language underscores your own lack of intellect, depth, and judgement. You're the equivalent of a prudish, priggish "patron of the arts" who - when viewing, for example

http://www.parisbestlodge.com/modigliani.jpg

gets hung up on the bare breasts and pubic hair. I'm betting that you think this exquisite Modigliani nude runs afoul of forum rules for appropriate content. I'm also betting that the Mods will have a very different opinion.

That's what you think but not reality. Look up Goya’s “Naked Maja” Penn state feminist teacher banned.

 

[cybrsage]

On the contrary, your constipated view of language underscores your own lack of intellect, depth, and judgement. You're the equivalent of a prudish, priggish "patron of the arts" who - when viewing, for example

Wow, you manage to continue to appear poorly educated even without cursing. I did not expect this.

 

[cybrsage]

However, we DO tend to frown on armchair moderating in public threads...so if you have a specific complaint, take it up with myself or another moderator in a private thread if you don't mind.

Rainsford
ATPN Moderator

🙂 I did.

Due to the lack of active moderation (which I think would be a very big burden and quite dull), the members do need to help moderate each other. All my opinion, of course.

 

[cybrsage]

How was I shown to be wrong?

You seem to me to be saying that the reason racist remarks are objectionable is not the underlying motivation but the words used. By that logic, using the N word would be objectionable, since in common parlance it's considered profanity, but saying "black people are lazy stinking apes" would not, since the latter contains no word that is even colorably profane. I think that would be an absurd position to take, since my objection to racist speech is a function of the sentiment that underlies it rather than the words being used, but that seems to me to be what you're saying. If I'm wrong, just tell me why rather than proclaiming victory without a word of explanation about how you reached that conclusion.

You claim racism is not profanity. I showed that it is. You can find it here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32655723&postcount=160

But the short form is:

The first two definitions of profanity have to do with religion, which this is not. The third is then applicable, which defines profanity as obscenity.
Obsenity is something offensive to morality or decency.

So unless you are trying to say that racist slurs are not offensive to morality or decency, then you have to agree that racialist slurs are profanity.

While you're at it, also please explain why it's fine for Ann Coulter to use the words "lovely human" and "douchebag," but not for people to call her the C word.

Never made that claim. However, just because Jeffrey Dahmer ate people does not mean it is ok for everyone to eat people. In other words, one person doing something wrong does not excuse others from doing something wrong as well.

EDIT: I am not a fan of her. The only thing I like about her is how rabid most libs become when she says anything. It is very amusing.

 

[airdata]

EDIT: I am not a fan of her. The only thing I like about her is how rabid most libs become when she says anything. It is very amusing.

It's because she's a psychotic troll... You hear her say outrageous stuff and get applause... and then you realize you're sharing the country w\ a bunch of maniacs.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

You racism is not profanity. I showed that it is. You can find it here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32655723&postcount=160

But the short form is:

The first two definitions of profanity have to do with religion, which this is not. The third is then applicable, which defines profanity as obscenity.
Obsenity is something offensive to morality or decency.

So unless you are trying to say that racist slurs are not offensive to morality or decency, then you have to agree that racialist slurs are profanity.

Never made that claim. However, just because Jeffrey Dahmer ate people does not mean it is ok for everyone to eat people. In other words, one person doing something wrong does not excuse others from doing something wrong as well.

EDIT: I am not a fan of her. The only thing I like about her is how rabid most libs become when she says anything. It is very amusing.

You've linked to something totally unrelated, regarding WMDs in Iraq.

I can't imagine I would care about dictionary definitions of "profanity" anyway, since it's fundamentally a subjective standard and, as Potter Stewart wrote in Jacobellis v. Ohio, I know it when I see it. I would certainly not disagree that the C word is, according to prevailing American standards, profane. I would not agree that that fact alone means that it needs to be censored here.

We can agree to disagree, but if you're saying (as your actions would suggest) that it's permissible to post racial sterotypes as humor, but impersmissible to post foul language, I think your priorities and internal sense of what constitutes profanity are completely misguided. In any case I continue to reject your self-appointed status as an arbiter of decency and good taste on this forum. You've been here a month. You are certainly on paste to be one of the most prolific members in the history of this or any forum, but quantity does not equal quality as a contributor, nor does pedantry.

The fact that you are so "amused" by the fact that people react angrily to Ann Coulter is telling of how sincere your objections to her being called particular words are (i.e., not at all). Her own hateful language is intended to incite just such a reaction. You don't have a problem with her saying awful things (though you say you aren't a fan, you are also not calling for her to be pulled from the airwaves), but when they inspire the precise emotion they are calculated to, the response must be censored. Are you starting to see why I don't care what you think?

 

[thraashman]

My original comment was post #81. The discussion of my comment has been ongoing to what is now post #214 (this post). I apologize for altering the topic of the thread, though it wasn't really me who chose to diverge from the monsterously evil behavior of Ann Coulter as the topic.

 

[monovillage]

My original comment was post #81. The discussion of my comment has been ongoing to what is now post #214 (this post). I apologize for altering the topic of the thread, though it wasn't really me who chose to diverge from the monsterously evil behavior of Ann Coulter as the topic.

Unintended consequences are a reality in politics, science and even in forums.

 

[dank69]

...
However, just because Jeffrey Dahmer ate people does not mean it is ok for everyone to eat people. In other words, one person doing something wrong does not excuse others from doing something wrong as well.

...

If someone murders someone else, is it okay to sentence that murderer to death?

 

[werepossum]

One of the problems with more active moderation is that it's quite difficult for humans to be even-handed between those with whom they substantially agree and those with whom they substantially disagree. Then the subject becomes the moderation itself. Pretty soon one side leaves and you're left with an echo chamber. Some people yearn for an echo chamber, but personally I'd rather hang out in a forum predominantly to the left of myself than hear my own thoughts and views echoed. That's just mental masturbation.

 

[davmat787]

One of the problems with more active moderation is that it's quite difficult for humans to be even-handed between those with whom they substantially agree and those with whom they substantially disagree. Then the subject becomes the moderation itself. Pretty soon one side leaves and you're left with an echo chamber. Some people yearn for an echo chamber, but personally I'd rather hang out in a forum predominantly to the left of myself than hear my own thoughts and views echoed. That's just mental masturbation.

Agreed, especially with your last point.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

One of the problems with more active moderation is that it's quite difficult for humans to be even-handed between those with whom they substantially agree and those with whom they substantially disagree. Then the subject becomes the moderation itself. Pretty soon one side leaves and you're left with an echo chamber. Some people yearn for an echo chamber, but personally I'd rather hang out in a forum predominantly to the left of myself than hear my own thoughts and views echoed. That's just mental masturbation.

This is unarguably a legitimate point.

 

[shira]

Wow, you manage to continue to appear poorly educated even without cursing. I did not expect this.

I'm sorry you find my intellect so intimidating. Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable in a less challenging environment.

 

[cybrsage]

I give him the benefit of the doubt that this is obviously a joke, but if he is going to take the attitude that nothing even colorably offensive should be posted here, I don't see how he can rationalize posting racially stereotypical comments like this either. I am not advocating censoring any of it, but he is . . .

Larry Byrd, Elvis, and anyone who has ever actually watched Sanford and Son (to address the three issues).

Yes, it was an obvious joke. To even say "benefit of the doubt" means you are either being purposefully stupid or have no concept of humor.


Jokes, told in a friendly manner and not in a viscious manner, are quite different than calling someone a wise and beautiful woman. We both know this, why do you pretend not to?

 

[cybrsage]

I'm sorry you find my intellect so intimidating. Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable in a less challenging environment.

😀 You DO have a sense of humor! That was funny. 🙂

Tell us more jokes, please!

 

[cybrsage]

If someone murders someone else, is it okay to sentence that murderer to death?

Murder is a subset of the set of killing.

You now have your answer.

 

[cybrsage]

...lots of words that say "lalala, I'm not listening to you because then I have to admit you are right...lalala"

Not a problem. Keep your fingers in your ears and pretend that posting racial slurs are not obscenities. It probably helps you continue to tell yourself you are a good person.

 

[shira]

😀 You DO have a sense of humor! That was funny. 🙂

Tell us more jokes, please!

Jokes are the refuge of those who lack wit. But I guess that's why you attempt to joke so much.