May 06, 2005

Class. It's not just a location on campus

See, here's the thing. If you want to be taken seriously as someone who's (pick one) fighting the power, standing up for the little guy, or even presenting an alternate viewpoint, it might help if your major talking points didn't come from the Wonkette "how to work references to teh buttsex into everyday conversation" manual.

If, however, you're an immature ass who sincerely believes that only people who think exactly like you do are capable of "nuanced thinking" or goodness, and that everyone else must be stopped by any means necessary, then go ahead and disrupt a campus speaker by shrieking about anal sex. You won't change any minds, you won't win any reasonable middle-of-the-roaders over to your side, but maybe in ten years YOU can be a controversial campus speaker who is shouted down by vulgarity-spewing, immature idiots.

It's like the Circle of Life for knee-jerk, reactive idiots, and it's a beautiful thing.

Posted by Big Arm Woman at May 6, 2005 08:55 AM
Comments

The N.E.D. has finally for ``vulgar'' ``having a common and offensively mean character, coarsely common-place; lacking in refinement and good taste; uncultured, ill-bred.'' Wm. Empson continues :

``The interest of this is that, though it seems clear if you know the language already, it depends on your putting just the right shade onto ``mean,'' which will then influence ``coarse'' and ``common.'' G.K.Chesterton has an essay on the word, arguing that it means a person who tries to seem generous, or intelligent, or refined, or in fact to have almost any virtue, and thereby shows that he has a low (especially a ``mean'') idea of what that virtue may be. Chesterton therefore claims that it is not at all characteristic of the common people, and that he can regard it with disgust in spite of being a democrat. The definition is perhaps overelaborate, but the practical claim seems to be true. All shades of Left-Wing politics in England feel that they can use the word without inconsistency, because the derivation is almost completely ignored.

``This makes the word a trap for foreigners, who expect the derivation [of, characteristic of the common people] to give the head meaning, and neither the C.O.D nor the N.E.D do anything to enlighten them. For example, I remember a Chinese student who put in an essay on the Scotch ballads ``The ballad must be simple and vulgar.'' Most of the essay was spent in laborious praise of the Scotch ballads, which he felt to be required of him, but I gathered that he felt they were like popular works in China which a proud scholar would despise. That is, he knew the word had two meanings, and wanted to use it to drop an insinuation. The mistake was, therefore, an extremely marginal one; it was merely that he took ``of the common people'' to be the head sense, under which ``coarse'' could insinuate itself as an Implication (equated to the head sense, perhaps).

``But this is a definite mistake; whatever the political or literary views of the reader, he will feel that there has been a ridiculous collapse of an attempt at tact...''

What does this have to do with butt fucking.

Wonkette is popular for making vulgarity chacteristic of the political classes.

(Wm. Empson, _The Structure of Complex Words_ p.403)

Posted by: Ron Hardin at May 6, 2005 04:07 PM

I agree wholeheartedly BAW, it IS a beautiful thing. Every time some leftie makes a jackass out of hisorherself like this, the voters continue to turn their backs on the dem party in droves.

In her interview on Hannity & Colmes the other night on the subject [link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155550,00.html], Ann Coulter summed it up this way:

~~~~~begin quote~~~~~

"But I think there really is a problem on college campuses and if you want liberalism to continue in this country I don't but just to give you a little tip: Liberal students are being let down by their professors, by the world."

"I mean, they're buffeted along by a liberal media. They have liberal public school teachers. They go to college. They have liberal professors. They don't know how to argue. They can't put together a logical thought, whereas you could put a college Republican on TV right now and he can debate you..."

~~~~~~end quote~~~~~

The best part is, Ajai Raj is studying to be a *journalist*!

...you can't make this stuff up.

Posted by: snopercod at May 6, 2005 04:56 PM

Does anyone read Wonkette anymore? Just curious...

Posted by: jenno at May 7, 2005 09:58 AM

By his actions, not just a knee-jerk idiot. He seems to be one big jerk in evey way possible.

Posted by: justagal at May 7, 2005 10:06 AM

No decent person likes Ann Coulter. She advocates murder of those whose views she dislikes. She is an abomination, and as long as Republicans tout her, they are, quite literally, the party of Satan.

I prefer, however, not to speculate on her sex life. Not only is it her business, it's vomit inducing.

Posted by: Michael at May 7, 2005 10:14 AM

Oh, an -ad hominum- from Michael!

Sure, you are probably unfamiliar with the term, but maybe you'll look it up.

Regardless, can you provide any evidence to support your statement that Ann Coulter advocates murder?

And does anybody else find is strange that in a discussion of philosophy, some people (one anyway) sees the topic only in sexual terms?

Michael, do you find intelligent women threatening?

Posted by: snopercod at May 7, 2005 08:26 PM

Damn, I bet they have the best New Year's party in town if the ole Devil himself is in charge.

'Scuse me, I gotta go change my party affilication cuz I LOVE a great New Year's party.

Posted by: di at May 7, 2005 08:29 PM

Here's a link to what happened from the protestor's point of view: http://www.poormojo.org/cgi-bin/gennie.pl?Rant+225
At least he's proud to be a jackass...ya gotta give him credit for that.

Posted by: paula at May 8, 2005 09:30 PM

My impression of Coulter-as-sexpot is that she's attractive enough if you like scrawny and intense, dresses a little too young and has pretty good legs, although not Tina Turner legs.

What does this have to do with the quality of her opinions? Nothing at all, except that the Michael seems to think it's relevant ("I prefer, however, not to speculate on her sex life. Not only is it her business, it's vomit inducing.")

Paraleptic, inane, and not the comment of a gentleman.

Posted by: PersonFromPorlock at May 10, 2005 02:08 PM