StAnndards
The blogosphere is abuzz re Ann Coulter's idiotic joke about John Edwards (she used the word "faggot"). It was made all the worse by the fact she was speaking at a conservative gathering.
Republicans candidates have condemned her, as have many conservative bloggers (I didn't know that was their job, but I guess they feared if they didn't some might think they thought what she said was acceptable).
It got me thinking, just what are the standards of acceptable speech? Are they based on ideas or particular words? Actions? Does it differ depending on who the speaker is?
Just as tricky, what do you when people go over the line? Do you freeze them out permanently? Do you boycott them until they apologize? Do you give them another chance?
What if you agree with someone a lot of the time but then this person says or does something deeply stupid or offensive. Does that mean it's time to cut him off? What if you know of others who are far more offensive, but still get treated with respect? Should you care about what seems to be a double standard?
Sorry this post is so abstract. (Okay, here's a specific example--a lot of people would like us to negotiate with Holocaust deniers. Should we understand it's a cultural thing, and we don't have much choice?)
Anyway, no answers today, just questions.
posted by LAGuy @ 1:30 AM
5 Comments:
It was made all the worse by the fact she was speaking at a conservative gathering.
Well, that's one way of putting it. Another would be that it was made worse by the fact that the conservative gathering where she spoke laughed uncomfortably, then applauded and cheered.
Some clearly cheered, but obviously plenty did not. I would not assume that those who cheered were the same as those who reacted in awkward surprise. As to st-ann-dards: it is obviously wrong to offend another person purposefully. Ann was wrong. Wronger than a drunk Mel Gibson. And he was wrong.
The reaction I heard was some laughter and clapping, but mostly a shocked "woah."
Her stupid joke (mocking Edwards' preening and Grey's Anatomy) is Ann, as usual, trying to be outrageous, and succeeding. As such, I don't consider it anywhere near as offensive as Mel Gibson's hatred bubbling up from deep inside. (The content was much uglier, too.)
Another difference from Mel is that her line actually did have some humor potential, if used in another context.
I mean, I could see using a version of that line with a friend. Something along the lines of "what do I think of your outfit? Well, I'd tell you but . . . ." Zing!
She looked uncomfortable with the reaction of the crowd, and I thought the main reaction was shocked gasps. They did applaud immediately afterward, because she wrapped up the speech. They probably were not applauding the joke, but expressing more their approval of the speech as a whole and trying to relieve the extreme awkwardness of the situation. But that does seem to say that the joke was not that awful to them.
How to react to Ann Coulter seems to be a specific case, since she thrives on getting the media riled up. Seems like demonstrating that the opposition can raise $1 for every time she has had premarital sex is the best approach.
Post a Comment
<< Home