In which Steve is very puzzled...
...by exactly to whom Strother is responding.
You could, but apparently you don't plan to.
Feel better? Nothing in there is even remotely a response to what I posted. You asked if I ever admit to being wrong, I responded with a request that you identify anything I posted that might be wrong, you rebut with a screed on Coulter. Hello?
I'm still here, waiting for something to admit to.
And now you're not even reading what you post, Strother. Are you using a ghost writer?
Of course there is a dichotomy there. You asserted at first that she had no other reason for her remarks than to get her name in print (personal gratification/glorification). Then you assert that it was that, and a desire to generate buzz in the blogosphere. The first is rank self-interest, the second is the generally accepted role of the pundit. I suspect your personal contempt for Coulter has given you a blind spot.
So what? How does that even remotely relate to my logical demonstration that you were defending homosexual PC? Are you saying that slander and non-PC speech are mutually exclusive? I hope not, because that is silly.
You're still no closer to a rebuttal of my logic. Underlying all this puffed-up outrage is still the fact that she used the word, "faggot," a word not officially approved by the thought police. In her defense, she says that her use of the term was in reference to a weakling, a "wuss." You have cast the homosexual aspersion on what she said and have created the offense at the use of the un-PC word. Your defense of PC continues.
So you say, but your assertion is not supported by reality. That is unless you are saying that the people who make up the vast marketplace for "shocking" speech are all unreasonable. Be careful with that, Strother, you are hip deep in that marketplace, by the way.
Not as a general rule. It depends on the context. Words only have the power over you that you permit them. The speaker may well intend to give offense, whether you take it or not is your choice.
As I said, that side road is closed.
Do I have to break this down for you, Steve? (sigh)
You could, but apparently you don't plan to.
Ann...[clipped much ranting]...Ask Andy.
Feel better? Nothing in there is even remotely a response to what I posted. You asked if I ever admit to being wrong, I responded with a request that you identify anything I posted that might be wrong, you rebut with a screed on Coulter. Hello?
I'm still here, waiting for something to admit to.
No matter how much you'd like it, nothing I said in my original statement above is contradictory. I didn't even mention personal glorification/gratification (nice try... I guess), although Ann probably does enjoy the attention.
And now you're not even reading what you post, Strother. Are you using a ghost writer?
Of course there is a dichotomy there. You asserted at first that she had no other reason for her remarks than to get her name in print (personal gratification/glorification). Then you assert that it was that, and a desire to generate buzz in the blogosphere. The first is rank self-interest, the second is the generally accepted role of the pundit. I suspect your personal contempt for Coulter has given you a blind spot.
While I do find what she said to be crude, my main problem with her statement is that it is essentially slander.
So what? How does that even remotely relate to my logical demonstration that you were defending homosexual PC? Are you saying that slander and non-PC speech are mutually exclusive? I hope not, because that is silly.
She insinuates a 'hot-button' falsehood as an attempt to fuel her conservative audiences' dislike of John Edwards, a married man with children. It's fine to dislike him and/or his political leanings, but let it be fueled by reality, not prejudice-based fantasy.
You're still no closer to a rebuttal of my logic. Underlying all this puffed-up outrage is still the fact that she used the word, "faggot," a word not officially approved by the thought police. In her defense, she says that her use of the term was in reference to a weakling, a "wuss." You have cast the homosexual aspersion on what she said and have created the offense at the use of the un-PC word. Your defense of PC continues.
Reasonable people of all political stripes would agree with me here, as reasonable people generally prefer that others tune in rather than tune out after being shocked, offended, or whatever.
So you say, but your assertion is not supported by reality. That is unless you are saying that the people who make up the vast marketplace for "shocking" speech are all unreasonable. Be careful with that, Strother, you are hip deep in that marketplace, by the way.
And besides, do you not find some words and 'names' to be inappropriate and crude for use in public speaking?
Not as a general rule. It depends on the context. Words only have the power over you that you permit them. The speaker may well intend to give offense, whether you take it or not is your choice.
What else, Mr. Blackwell? Don't leave us hanging!
As I said, that side road is closed.
posted by Anonymous | 12:24 PM
1 Comments:
OK, I'm done; I'll leave it to BP readers (those that even care anyway) to read and understand what I've actually said on this topic of Coulter at CPAC. Steve's continued obfuscation (to borrow a fave Steve word) of what I've written on the subject is getting a bit boring, methinks. And if Steve's "puzzlement" is puzzling, what I wrote the first time around should make perfect sense by itself to any reasonable reader.
Post a Comment
<< Home