Comments on: But nobody’s talking too much about the finer points of Miss Coulter’s argument … http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 27 May 2012 00:43:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Scroop Moth http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/comment-page-2/#comment-170354 Scroop Moth Wed, 30 Aug 2006 06:02:17 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/#comment-170354 The fundamentalist temperament believes it is learned and reformed to regard every aspect of life as depraved and beyond the cure of religion on this earth, although, in the meantime, the fundamentalist takes it as sanctification to subject every aspect of everyone else’s life to the punishing arm of the religiously-directed state. Lest you doubt the fundamentalist’s pieties are now a form of religion-loathing transferrence and hypocracy, try this experiment. Go up to a fundamentalist activist and say, “Hey, how about that investigation closing in on you and your future in the slammer?” or “Wow! Bush’s approval peaked in 2001 and it’s been sinking for his entire term. Isn’t that great?” and then look at the faces. As with all millenarian doomsday cults, good news is a bummer. The fundamentalist temperament believes it is learned and reformed to regard every aspect of life as depraved and beyond the cure of religion on this earth, although, in the meantime, the fundamentalist takes it as sanctification to subject every aspect of everyone else’s life to the punishing arm of the religiously-directed state. Lest you doubt the fundamentalist’s pieties are now a form of religion-loathing transferrence and hypocracy, try this experiment. Go up to a fundamentalist activist and say, “Hey, how about that investigation closing in on you and your future in the slammer?” or “Wow! Bush’s approval peaked in 2001 and it’s been sinking for his entire term. Isn’t that great?” and then look at the faces. As with all millenarian doomsday cults, good news is a bummer.

]]> By: bi http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/comment-page-2/#comment-170227 bi Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:18:43 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/#comment-170227 Steve: There's still a little snag. The "comments above" -- most of them at least -- try to make some "anthropological points" by bringing up some real facts which are actually true in this world we live in. Steyn's comments try to make "anthropological points" by pulling hypotheticals out of his butt and running thought experiments. rich: Um... the point of contention is whether "blonde" can be used as an adjective. Personally, I find it interesting that Steyn addresses Coulter as "Miss Coulter", and Bush just as (!) Bush. Hmm, brad the impaler, maybe Steyn and Coulter really have a top-secret plan to...? Steve: There’s still a little snag. The “comments above”—most of them at least—try to make some “anthropological points” by bringing up some real facts which are actually true in this world we live in. Steyn’s comments try to make “anthropological points” by pulling hypotheticals out of his butt and running thought experiments.

rich: Um… the point of contention is whether “blonde” can be used as an adjective.

Personally, I find it interesting that Steyn addresses Coulter as “Miss Coulter”, and Bush just as (!) Bush. Hmm, brad the impaler, maybe Steyn and Coulter really have a top-secret plan to…?

]]> By: rich http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/comment-page-2/#comment-170221 rich Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:28:35 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/#comment-170221 <i>Even the OED has: ‘blonde: A person with blond hair’ so the distinction is clear.</i> That's somewhat selective quoting. The OED entry I have reads: "A person with blond hair; one with light or ‘fair’ hair and the corresponding complexion; esp. a woman, in which case spelt <i>blonde</i>." Even the OED has: ‘blonde: A person with blond hair’ so the distinction is clear.

That’s somewhat selective quoting. The OED entry I have reads: “A person with blond hair; one with light or ‘fair’ hair and the corresponding complexion; esp. a woman, in which case spelt blonde.”

]]> By: Steve http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/comment-page-2/#comment-170219 Steve Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:58:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/#comment-170219 I hate to break up the fun, but I read these comments after reading the post on homosexual marriage below where someone suggests looking at Mary Douglas' great book "Purity and Danger". Steyn is obviously an idiot (as is Coulter). However, here's a genuine question (suggested by the debate on offer here) which ocurred to me: imagine Steyn's facts were true, would the environmental lobby accept them? If Douglas is right, then groups like the environmental lobby maintain their identity precisely by taking various sorts of positions which are (broadly) evidence-proof. The case of nuclear power mentioned somewhere above being a nice example of a totmeic issue which seems evidence-proof. (I'm paraphrasing badly here as my Douglas books are elsewhere, but you see the point.) Douglas' analysis of the Sierra Club and other environmentalist groups sets out nicely how such movements require a kind of evidence-denial. So, maybe Steyn is right? Before someone kills me, two points: a. Global warming is happening and it's bad and we ought to stop it. However, holding this view as a part of a web of political commitments in which it is a fact, but not central to the entire web, seems very different to holding it is a central part of one's world-view. I'm assuming that it's the latter kind of position Steyn is talking about (which, I know, is hyper-charitable). b. All of the comments above could be rewritten to make the same kinds of anthropological points about US right-wingers, who really do seem to need to view themselves as on "the border", defined by opposition to the liberalism of "the centre", in the face of all of the facts. So, we can all agree: Steyn is a loser. A real loser. But his predictions might, in some sense, be right. The problem is that the same underlying theories which would explain why his claims are right would also show that he is involved in an extremely similar pattern of denial. (Try telling him that the NY Times has printed lots of pro-administration articles recently). Surely the name-calling of this thread - fun as it is - simply helps reinforce his clique? I hate to break up the fun, but I read these comments after reading the post on homosexual marriage below where someone suggests looking at Mary Douglas’ great book “Purity and Danger”. Steyn is obviously an idiot (as is Coulter). However, here’s a genuine question (suggested by the debate on offer here) which ocurred to me: imagine Steyn’s facts were true, would the environmental lobby accept them?

If Douglas is right, then groups like the environmental lobby maintain their identity precisely by taking various sorts of positions which are (broadly) evidence-proof. The case of nuclear power mentioned somewhere above being a nice example of a totmeic issue which seems evidence-proof. (I’m paraphrasing badly here as my Douglas books are elsewhere, but you see the point.) Douglas’ analysis of the Sierra Club and other environmentalist groups sets out nicely how such movements require a kind of evidence-denial. So, maybe Steyn is right?

Before someone kills me, two points:
a. Global warming is happening and it’s bad and we ought to stop it. However, holding this view as a part of a web of political commitments in which it is a fact, but not central to the entire web, seems very different to holding it is a central part of one’s world-view. I’m assuming that it’s the latter kind of position Steyn is talking about (which, I know, is hyper-charitable).
b. All of the comments above could be rewritten to make the same kinds of anthropological points about US right-wingers, who really do seem to need to view themselves as on “the border”, defined by opposition to the liberalism of “the centre”, in the face of all of the facts.

So, we can all agree: Steyn is a loser. A real loser. But his predictions might, in some sense, be right. The problem is that the same underlying theories which would explain why his claims are right would also show that he is involved in an extremely similar pattern of denial. (Try telling him that the NY Times has printed lots of pro-administration articles recently). Surely the name-calling of this thread – fun as it is – simply helps reinforce his clique?

]]> By: rupes http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/comment-page-2/#comment-170181 rupes Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/#comment-170181 The best description I've heard of Ms Coulter: "Goebbels with tits" The best description I’ve heard of Ms Coulter: “Goebbels with tits”

]]> By: yagisencho http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/comment-page-2/#comment-170176 yagisencho Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:00:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/#comment-170176 Thanks ann philly, I just threw up a little in my mouth. Thanks ann philly, I just threw up a little in my mouth.

]]> By: clone12 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/comment-page-2/#comment-170153 clone12 Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:19:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/#comment-170153 So according to Mark Steyn, *ALL* religions involve a yearning for massive apocalyptic catastrophes and public exhibition of pious schadenfreude over the prospects thereof? Methinks someone is projecting. So according to Mark Steyn, ALL religions involve a yearning for massive apocalyptic catastrophes and public exhibition of pious schadenfreude over the prospects thereof?

Methinks someone is projecting.

]]> By: nick s http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/comment-page-2/#comment-170137 nick s Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:31:55 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/#comment-170137 <i>According to Harvard standards, its suggestive that Franklin plagarised from FAIR</i> Wow, stretch that one any further and you'll be part of the Fantastic Four. According to Harvard standards, its suggestive that Franklin plagarised from FAIR

Wow, stretch that one any further and you’ll be part of the Fantastic Four.

]]> By: brad the impaler http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/comment-page-2/#comment-170133 brad the impaler Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:19:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/#comment-170133 what do you call a person who advocates an armed foreign incursion against his own country (a western democracy no less)? i believe the english language has a word for that, though it escapes me at the moment. here is mark steyn, joyously spending the morning of 9-13 milking the 9-11 nightmare for all he can: "Or perhaps -- and, just for the record, I mean this entirely seriously -- the U.S. should exercise an admittedly broad definition of the international right of hot pursuit and send forces across the border to track down the terrorist cells that operate out of Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and elsewhere." (National Compost, 13 Sept 01) in fairness to steyn, who had no way of knowing at the time that the 911 hijackers had no connection with either canada or papua-new guinea, he was probably referring to "liberal coffee clatches" or "tree-hugging hippies" when he said "terrorist cells". what do you call a person who advocates an armed foreign incursion against his own country (a western democracy no less)? i believe the english language has a word for that, though it escapes me at the moment.
here is mark steyn, joyously spending the morning of 9-13 milking the 9-11 nightmare for all he can:

“Or perhaps—and, just for the record, I mean this entirely seriously—the U.S. should exercise an admittedly broad definition of the international right of hot pursuit and send forces across the border to track down the terrorist cells that operate out of Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and elsewhere.” (National Compost, 13 Sept 01)
in fairness to steyn, who had no way of knowing at the time that the 911 hijackers had no connection with either canada or papua-new guinea, he was probably referring to “liberal coffee clatches” or “tree-hugging hippies” when he said “terrorist cells”.

]]> By: james http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/comment-page-2/#comment-170120 james Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:57:35 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/#comment-170120 So many the commentors on this site agree on so many of the issues. I find Coulter to be poorly reasoned. The premiss that many topics of legitimate debate trigger an automatic agressive response from both liberals and conservatives is true. Since most of the posters are liberal on many issues, you have not seen this response from the liberal side. James Wimberley: According to Harvard standards, its suggestive that Franklin plagarised from FAIR when writing 'Lies and the Lying Liars'. Example: FAIR, July/August 2001: "The Most Biased Name in News" by Seth Ackerman, writing about Hannity & Colmes: Even Fox's "left-right" debate show, Hannity & Colmes--whose Crossfire-style format virtually imposes numerical equality between conservatives and "liberals"--can't shake the impression of resembling a Harlem Globetrotters game ... FRANKEN, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Dutton, 2003, hardcover 1st edition), page 63: For those of you unfamiliar with the Hannity and Colmes dynamic, it's a conservative-versus-liberal talking head show, kind of a combination between Crossfire and a Harlem Globetrotters game. So many the commentors on this site agree on so many of the issues. I find Coulter to be poorly reasoned. The premiss that many topics of legitimate debate trigger an automatic agressive response from both liberals and conservatives is true. Since most of the posters are liberal on many issues, you have not seen this response from the liberal side.

James Wimberley: According to Harvard standards, its suggestive that Franklin plagarised from FAIR when writing ‘Lies and the Lying Liars’. Example:

FAIR, July/August 2001: “The Most Biased Name in News” by Seth Ackerman, writing about Hannity & Colmes:

Even Fox’s “left-right” debate show, Hannity & Colmes—whose Crossfire-style format virtually imposes numerical equality between conservatives and “liberals”—can’t shake the impression of resembling a Harlem Globetrotters game …

FRANKEN, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Dutton, 2003, hardcover 1st edition), page 63:

For those of you unfamiliar with the Hannity and Colmes dynamic, it’s a conservative-versus-liberal talking head show, kind of a combination between Crossfire and a Harlem Globetrotters game.

]]> By: Tim Lambert http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/comment-page-2/#comment-170113 Tim Lambert Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:12:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/#comment-170113 The "global warming peaked in 1998" claim is by selective use of statistics. <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/04/a_picture_is_worth_a_thousand.php" rel="nofollow">See here</a>. The “global warming peaked in 1998” claim is by selective use of statistics. See here.

]]> By: Harald Korneliussen http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/comment-page-2/#comment-170112 Harald Korneliussen Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:11:35 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/#comment-170112 James Wimberley, the source for this particular denialist meme is Bob Carter, more specifically a paper he wrote in 2005. <a href="http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bobcarter3/" rel="nofollow">Here</a>'s the scoop at deltoid at the time. Notice how quicly the denialist memes get picked up and trumpeted, how quickly they are exposed, and how long they stay in circulation. It's worse than creationism, it's like creationism with billion-dollar companies supporting them. James Wimberley, the source for this particular denialist meme is Bob Carter, more specifically a paper he wrote in 2005. Here’s the scoop at deltoid at the time.

Notice how quicly the denialist memes get picked up and trumpeted, how quickly they are exposed, and how long they stay in circulation. It’s worse than creationism, it’s like creationism with billion-dollar companies supporting them.

]]> By: James Wimberley http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/comment-page-2/#comment-170103 James Wimberley Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:13:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/#comment-170103 "The global warming peaked in 1998 and it’s been getting cooler for almost a decade." Where did Mark Steyn get this from? Is it a straight lie o fhi sor Couler's, or just selective reading of statistics? “The global warming peaked in 1998 and it’s been getting cooler for almost a decade.” Where did Mark Steyn get this from? Is it a straight lie o fhi sor Couler’s, or just selective reading of statistics?

]]> By: Harald Korneliussen http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/comment-page-2/#comment-170098 Harald Korneliussen Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:39:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/#comment-170098 "go up to an environmental activist and say “Hey, how about that ozone hole closing up?” or “Wow! The global warming peaked in 1998 and it’s been getting cooler for almost a decade. Isn’t that great?” and then look at the faces." In my face, he would indeed see a somewhat disappointed expression - for meeting someone who actually believes those old punchlines. “go up to an environmental activist and say “Hey, how about that ozone hole closing up?” or “Wow! The global warming peaked in 1998 and it’s been getting cooler for almost a decade. Isn’t that great?” and then look at the faces.”

In my face, he would indeed see a somewhat disappointed expression – for meeting someone who actually believes those old punchlines.

]]> By: nick s http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/comment-page-2/#comment-170079 nick s Mon, 28 Aug 2006 05:15:11 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/26/but-nobodys-talking-too-much-about-the-finer-points-of-miss-coulters-argument/#comment-170079 <i>Shh! I think Brett Bellmore also has a crush on “Miss Coulter”.</i> It's the gun thing. With Brett, it's always the gun thing. Sad, really. Shh! I think Brett Bellmore also has a crush on “Miss Coulter”.

It’s the gun thing. With Brett, it’s always the gun thing. Sad, really.

]]>