Since Anonymous mentioned the hatred of Ann Coulter's recent Blog post, I couldn't resist to mention it here. Now having grown up in Boston, I find her humor very funny. But I can see why her humor is missed by many on the Political Left. For it uses the very tactic Saturday Night Live would use on the Right, or perhaps even a Lewis Black (although he is by far funnier).More importantly is the fact she points out what should be obvious to all. She concludes her post,
If a university official's letter accusing a speaker of having a proclivity to commit speech crimes before she's given the speech -- which then leads to Facebook postings demanding that Ann Coulter be hurt, a massive riot and a police-ordered cancellation of the speech -- is not hate speech, then there is no such thing as hate speech.The definition of hate speech is that anyone who says things that causes one group of people or individuals to act in a violent manner against another group of people or individuals.
So she points out what should be obvious to all. A university official's letter causes a massive amount of violence towards Ann Coulter. Therefore, by definition, the letter is hate speech. Funny how these things only work one way.
3 comments:
I understand sarcasm. But I look at the more leftist sarcasm and I see a trend of doing so as comedians. Jon Stewart, Lewis Black, Bill Maher-- all of these people score political points and engage in the discussion while doing so as clowns. Glenn Beck is on a "news" network. Ann Coulter is a political commentator-- not a satirist.
A lot of society is arguing about labels. Let's argue about the meaning of marriage in society! Let's argue about the semantics of socialism! With all the focus on these labels, I find it indicative of the problem that the people on the right want to be taken seriously until they've stepped way over the line whereas the people on the left want to be taken with a laugh until things get too serious.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html?
I think there is a rage thing going on. I think you look at all the passion poured into anti-Bush sentiment, while much if it was angry, it never reached this sort of LOATHING.
A lot of society is arguing about labels. Let's argue about the meaning of marriage in society! Let's argue about the semantics of socialism! With all the focus on these labels, I find it indicative of the problem that the people on the right want to be taken seriously until they've stepped way over the line whereas the people on the left want to be taken with a laugh until things get too serious.
Although labels have never bothered me (in fact, I think the whining over not wanting to be labeled is just that), yet there is much that I can agree with here.
We watch a lot of Mash episodes in my house. Although I think Alan Alda's character is just plain wrong in so many ways and they simply mock the "conservative" guy, Frank Burns, it is the fact that he points out so many things that Americans agree with, including me.
So yes, we should argue the definition of marriage, but even more importantly, we need to do so from a more foundational method. With Americans, such as the atheist that recently commented on this Blog, being so diverse as to where morality comes from, this is becoming more and more difficult.
The culture wars will not go away, not because of labels, but because the more secular humanism marches on, the wider the divide at a foundational level we become. Is there a created order by a Creator who determines the meaning of marriage, or is man the measure of all things?
So I would argue even further than marriage. What is the purpose of government and who actually institutes it. If we believe man is the measure, then we will repeat the 20th century. If we believe that there is a Creator and men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and governments are instituted to secure those rights, and as long as people disagree on this fundamental level, then this country will have a great difficulty in uniting in any meaningful way. I agree with Tim Keller that we will become more and more divided.
What bothers me is that when I read how previous wars including the Civil War were started, I pray that people do not eventually rise to that point. I suppose it depends on how the Fundamentalists and what may be considered the Far Right (from my perspective anyway) respond to the recent politically Left advances. I just don't see average "Center-Right" Americans sitting still while Radical Leftists policies are advanced.
If you remember the Patriot movement back in the early 90s, they were infiltrating conservative churches. Conservative theologians such as the Christian Research Institute were pointing out this problem and they took a lot of heat for it. Cults tend to use the common language of the people while fooling them into doing things they would not normally do. If it were not for the Oklahoma City bombing, I am afraid things may have gotten worse. Hopefully, that doesn't happen again.
I should say that the reason I am against Obama and am so willing to call him a Radical Leftist is because he has described himself as such. There is no secret that he wanted all of this health care legislation in order to get to the Single Payer model.
In my opinion, I think the Left wing leadership use the culture wars as a vehicle to accomplish their desires. For instance I don't believe they really care at all for the homosexual cause. I think it is just another vehicle to advance the division within this country.
I don't think the leadership of the Left really cares about Global Warming. I think it is a matter of gaining power of citizens.
I also don't think they really care about your health. They just want power via the government over your life. Taking over 1/6 of the economy by definition does exactly that.
In the same way, I don't think the cult-like leaders of the Patriot movement really care about liberty. Both use center-right language of Americans in order to gain the power they desire.
I agree with Robert Bork that the U.S. entered its 2nd civil war in the 60s. The difference between us is that I don't think it is over. Perhaps he doesn't either?
Post a Comment