printJames Huggins writes:
Ann Coulter usually calls a spade a spade. In this case she called it a bloody shovel. Sometimes she’s over the top but at least we know where she stands. At least, also, she doesn’t genuflect to the gay/lesbian idol like the rest of us are forced to do. These alleged conservatives who jump up on chairs and pull up their skirts like Gracie Allen seeing a mouse give me a pain. Maybe Coulter is over the top, but I’ll take her “hemline-short” arguments any day as opposed to the never ending gutless pandering to the left done by supposed conservative spokesmen. By the way, what’s wrong with being homophobic? As long as a homophobe isn’t shooting or rock throwing then said homophobe should be allowed his own opinion. It’s a free country. Isn’t it? Or anyway, it used to be.
James, there’s nothing wrong per se with being homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.. Of course, if hatred motivates you to aggress against others, then it’s a bad thing, but it is the action itself which is wrong, not the hatred. (OTOH, Jesus would council you against hatred itself, not just hateful action.)
There is a longstanding trend in the West to include people politically, and as a part of society and the community, if their condition, whatever it is, was inborn.
In many people’s opinions, and also IMO in the fast-encroaching scientific concensus, being gay (at least), and also probably lesbian, is established in people in utero. It, too, is inborn, similar to being black.
If you find racism, or sexism, offensive, then perhaps you might consider why that is, then see if the same reasoning does not apply to homophobia.
I always considered Ann an entertainer, not a philosopher. I disagree with her on many basic premises, but I do occasionally find her witticisms very funny.
I think she is doing the politically correct Republicrats a huge favor — she runs out front and makes a target of herself, giving the sanctimonious group-think groupies an instant island of high ground to leap to, so that they can make an ostentatious display of their rectitude by joining in the obligatory denunciation, making proclamations of their own lock-step adherence to the politically correct dictates of the day (“Look at me, I’m a compassionate conservitude too!).
Some of us understand that people don’t get to choose their fetishes, but at the same time we understand that fetishes are not a rational basis for a philosophy of family structure or politics. And no amount of conditioning will make the details of any fetish any less disgusting to those who are not similarly afflicted with it.
The fact that a disgust factor exists that is not polite to mention invites conformists to ludicrous extremes of hypocrisy. This opens an irresistible opportunity for humor. Of jokes that are tasteful, and jokes that are tasteless, the latter seem to get more mileage. If we must tolerate the likes of Al Franken, then this comedic orgy of idiocy should also include an Ann Coulter.
A salute to Mr. Huggins for bringing his perspective to the argument. The Gracie Allen visual made me snort into my coffee. Thanks for that!
–John Danforth–
Leonard, some interesting insights. I don’t hate people. I hate what they do. I resent the prevailing attitude that we are honor bound to accept, excuse and even abet anything or anybody we don’t like even if we hate what they do and they openly hate us. I think we are a society of cowards and we cover our cowardice by feigning “toleration”. I will never fit in because I refuse to tolerate the intolerable. I also claim the right to decide what is or is not tolerable to me. You sound to me like a very reasonable person. I try to be reasonable but sometimes reason runs out and the gloves have to come off.
There’s also the fact that one would expect something a little more classy at a national conservative convention. Really, if she had called Edwards an asshole (excuse me, Ilana), would you defend her?
People are free to be as homophobic, sexist or racist as they like. They are also free to make all the homophobic, ethnic, religious or racial slurs they like. But if I am at a national convention, I expect a certain decorum from the guests of honor. I don’t want to hear them talking like someone I met at a bar.
James, there’s “tolerance”, a code word of the left meaning “acceptance”, and then there’s “tolerance”, with its traditional meaning: “indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own” (m-w.com).
I don’t expect anyone to accept things they don’t like. But I don’t see tolerance in the abstract as cowardice, or weakness. Rather I see it as a mark of moral strength: only someone secure in his own beliefs can tolerate. Tolerance is an important form of civility; indeed, tolerance is why the West is powerful and most other parts of the world are weak. Their differences really do divide them. Ours, generally, don’t. Or at least they did not back when we had the good sense to keep the state small.
In the modern era of big government, tolerance has become more difficult because people don’t being forced to give money to people they would otherwise tolerate.
You’re right that there are some things we should not tolerate, and to tolerate these them is the mark of a coward. The question is how we determine those things. In any case I don’t think homosexuality is one of them.
Leonard, you are being reasonable again. I agree with your definition of tolerance. The bone I have to pick is the insistence by our culture that we must tolerate everything or be considered out of step. As you can probably tell, I’m pretty much out of step most of the time.
Sorry, I don’t consider refraining from calling someone a faggot in public the same as “genuflecting at the gay/lesbian idol.” You can oppose same-sex marriage, gays in the military, employment non-discrimination legislation or even hate gays and lesbians, but when you call someone a faggot or nigger or spic or kike for that matter, in public, there may be social consequences. It’s boorish, that’s all, and someone with breeding and dignity would never use those terms. Incidentally, I think Coulter being a shill for Bush and the neocon warmongers is far worse than her using some derogatory term like this. Her attempt at humor fell flat anyway.
Mr. Booth. Good points all. Coulter was indeed boorish. My point is that the other side leads the league in boorishness. Doesn’t mean we should necessarily stoop to their level, but if we do once in a while they can lump it. They hate us. They cuss us. They say anything they want about us with impunity. I don’t like the way our side wrings their hands and begs the pardon of the left while the left is going for our throats. Believe it or not there is nobody who would like to see civility in public discourse than I would. I am seldom civil because the other side is seldom civil.
What I don’t understand is why people who object to what Ann said don’t keep playing that clip over and over, promoting it as what “conservatives” believe. Surely the American public would shudder in revulsion at such intolerance, right? Or is it that those on the left fear that Ann shares the opinion of the majority, and so try to paint her outburst as morally wrong..?