Many of my Aussie readers may be unaware of the reactionary conservative playground that is Little Green Footballs. Well, it appears I’ve had a handful of LGF visitors via Digg since David Jackmanson brought this post of mine to their attention, as they were busy congratulating themselves that via observing various lefty sexists blending asinine misogyny into their anti-Ann-Coulter sentiments they had proved that the entire (we’re so monumentally unified!) Left was just a bunch of hypocrites (watch us vanish in that puff of logic!).
Of course, although I mock (because I love) above, not all LGF habitues are so frivolously illogical. One LGFer, George Felis, was kind enough to leave a reasoned (though wrongitty-wrong in so many ways) comment. I started to respond on the other thread, but it got too long, so I’ve made it a separate post.
Came here from the LGF site too, its nice to see that there is at least one thoughtful post on the subject, even though I had to look half-way around the world to find it.
One of the problems we have hit is the introduction of Political Correctness into what used to be called Edgy Comedy. Just take a listen to any comedy album (not TV, which was heavily censored) produced back in the 60s or before and guess how long it would stay on the shelves today. Presently there are certain things you can call a Republican and be perfectly safe: Bigot, Homophobe, Sexist, Racist, etc”¦ Heck, for the modern Liberal comedian, I’ve just described their act. But should you dare touch on any one of the rapidly growing class of “Protected Words” when used to describe a Democrat”¦
Coulter, Limbaugh and a few others on the Right are doing what the Shock Jocks like Stern are doing, only with a lot less vulgarity, and a lot more useful information. They use controversy to make a point, sometimes holding a mirror up to current events and making us think what it would look like if the tables were turned. I downloaded and watched her whole bit in front of CPAC and I thought she was fairly entertaining, although I would only give her a 7 for her performance. (Newt gets a 9.5)
Thanks for commenting George, although I imagine you’re not surpr that I disagree with much you say (given that I’m probably one of those Aussies infected with BDS)!
Firstly, let’s just agree that there are plenty of men battling their ingrained sexism on the Left, and sometimes they backslide when they get bogged down in negativity. But at least most of the time they are battling the ingrained sexism, which is more than social conservatives are willing to do, and occasionally falling back into lifelong bad habits one is trying to shake is not enough to make one a hypocrite in my book (although denial of backsliding may be).
Now, on to Coulter qua Coulter: agreed that she does her smirkbot schtick slickly, and that this latest CPAC routine was just more of the usual smirky hate-mongering to keep her public profile high, but describing naked hatemongering as mere controversiality is frankly disingenuous. Still, I’m more concerned with the large portion of the audience who clapped and cheered her hate. Why do so many people happily go to CPAC at all, knowing that this perennial hatemonger is going to speak and spew hate? Don’t they see how insensitive and uncaring it makes them look?
As to “thoughtful posts” about misogynistic insults towards Coulter, there’s currently several ongoing flame wars between feminist websites and progblogs mostly inhabited by sexist “liberal” men, at blogs much larger than mine. The posts are mostly thoughtful, even if the comments get heated, and there are many thoughtful comments as well. Try thoughtful without flamewars here, some blatant radfem criticism of misogynist anti-Coulterism here (which flamewar continued here), and the Thread That Would Not Die here (which started being about fat-jokes on Sadly No! directed at Dafyd ab Hugh and morphed into a Coulter-faggot thread after that story broke – 681 comments so far).
Now, the Political Correctness blight: you do realise that “Political Correctness” was originally an ironic in-joke for lefties before some nuance-challenged op-edders decided that expecting reasonable adults to not use words that actually cause people pain was a violation of the inherent right of arseholes everywhere to continue being arseholes? That said op-edders pretended that PC was a set of rigid rules instead of simply an ethic encouraging empathy and manners (aka not being an unthinking arsehole)? Don’t you?
Glenn Greenwald writes regarding the hate-entitlement attitude here.
As to your classifying “Bigot, Homophobe, Sexist, Racist, etc” as safe things to call a Republican compared to the “Protected Words” that non-Republicans (and decent Republicans) generally get outraged over, can you point to the throngs who have been bashed by a gang of thugs simply for being a Bigot, Homophobe, Sexist, Racist, etc? Compared to the many, many people who’ve been bashed and/or raped by Bigots, Homophobes, Sexists, Racists, etc simply for being gay, or transexual, or black or female?
Cheering acceptance of bigoted hatemongering merely encourages the bashers and rapists to believe that they’re only doing what most others wish to do but are too oppressed by the restrictions of polite society to actually do. Insisting on being hateful arseholes on the grounds of “free speech” enables bashers and rapists, giving them grounds for self-justification. Surely you can agree that enabling bashers and rapists is a wrong thing for anyone, especially anyone pretending to civility, to do?
Perhaps that’s why, although you don’t like people on “your side” being described as such, I have to say that the Bigots, Homophobes, Sexists, Racists, etc – as evidenced by their very own words – can cry me a fucking river of boohoohoo about how they are being oppressed by being accurately described as Bigots, Homophobes, Sexists, Racists, etc.
By the way, George, I have to salute you for your skill in packing your post so densely with loaded premises underlying your various statements. Just to pick one, I particularly don’t accept your embedded premise that mere lack of vulgarity is enough evidence to classify arsehole hatemongering within the realms of civility.
Still, at least we can agree that calling Coulter names based on her looks sucks, eh?