Bloggerheads has an entertaining 20 minute diavlog between Bob Wright (New America Foundation) and Micky Kraus (Slate blogger). The subject is one of many recent lows in U.S. politics — Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a faggot in a speech.
Micky, who has come under fire from Andrew Sullivan, argues that "faggot" is not as derogatory as "nigger" or "raghead". The issue over certain charged words is fascinating and complex. On the one hand, bigotry is unacceptable and any word associated with bigotry should not be said in polite conversation. On the other hand, sometimes folks who seek to abolish the utterance of offensive words actually give it more power.
On a side note, notice Wright’s rhetorical / argumentative strategies in the diavlog — very sophisticated.
3 comments on “Bob Wright vs. Micky Kraus on Ann Coulter”
I found the diavlog unlistenable.
I have a low tolerance for the speech of persons who say ‘umm’ too often, and the overheated tenor of this ‘conversation’ is unbearable.
I really don’t care what they think–a spat like that’s not worth twenty minutes of my time.
If I overhear some drunken moron in a bar talk about ‘faggots’, I ignore him or move to where I can’t hear.
If he called me that to my face, I might punch him.
Ann Coulter is a vile hack who will say almost anything to get the attention she craves.
Since she has a national platform from which to broadcast her hate-speech, and is given sanctuary and implied sanction by the equally vile FOX network, I consider her far more dangerous to my right to live unharassed than some ignorant moron spouting off in a bar.
Ann Coulter is evil.
so at first you cite the conversations “overheated tension” as reason to not listen yet you end your post by calling someone evil. Maybe we shouldnt listen to what you say. Stay consistent and then the liberal perspective may finally hold some real weight.
I see that the emperor of the web has made an anonymous visit.
Ann Coulter shows so little regard for human decency (vide her treatment of the 9-11 widows), that she forfeited her place in civil society long ago.
She’s built her career on a hussy approach to ‘journalism’, and exhibits a pathological craving for attention.
I think she’s mentally ill, but not so ill that her verbal assaults can be excused. She presents her hate speech as heart-felt sentiments, not satire.
Her blood-lust to injure those who don’t have her access is nothing less than evil, because it’s simply a device she uses to further her career.