Quick notes to deter straw-men in the comments:
- I'm NOT SAYING Ann Coulter's joke is okay, nor that it should go unanswered. My point is that we should respond with brief derision and dismissal to marginalize Coulter, rather than with exaggerated wishy-washy claims of hurt feelings which boost her perceived importance.
- I'm talking about Ann Coulter's comments here, not the problem of bigotry at large. I'm not saying people aren't hurt by the actions and words of bigots. I'm saying the words of Ann Coulter shouldn't be taken seriously enough to hurt anyone.
This whole show of demanding phony apologies for stupid comments because of phony hurt feelings just makes everyone look bad, and it turns people grounded in down-to-earth common sense away from the political arena altogether.
Furthermore, the extremely melodramatic responses just reinforce that stereotype that liberals are prone to extremely melodramatic responses. Everybody's running around with their hair on fire demanding apologies and denunciations and reparations and who knows what else. This gives Coulter more attention and book sales and I guarantee it warms her shriveled black heart. She's probably reading the press releases and cackling with glee as she pops a couple more newt eyes and rat tails into her cauldron. Her tasteless cheap shot didn't merit any more attention than a quick, "yep, she's an idiot," but the overreaction has made her day.
Here's what I mean:
From the Edwards campaign email:
I can't bring myself to even repeat her comments. Her shameless display of bigotry is so outrageous you actually have to see for yourself to believe.
Come on, is copying and pasting it into a blockquote really something you "can't bring yourself to" do? Maybe you "would rather not" repeat them, but the words "can't bring myself to" really belong in front of something more impressive, like "cut out my tongue with a piece of broken glass."
And you don't have to "see it for yourself to believe." If someone walked up to you and said, "hey, Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot," would you doubt them for a second? It's exactly the kind of stupidity we expect from Coulter. Heck, it's not even the first time she's used that word to describe a presidential candidate. How is this news?
From Elizabeth Edwards:
Although her words did not hurt us, they may have hurt some in the gay community. We are all sick and tired of anyone supporting or applauding or introducing hate words into the national dialogue, tired of people thinking that words that cause others pain are fair game. And we are sick and tired of people like Miss Coulter thinking that her use of loaded words about the homosexual community in this country is remotely humorous or appropriate.
Come on, nobody was hurt by Ann Coulter's words. She's ANN COULTER. You get hurt when somebody you respect says something bad about you, not when Ann Coulter or David Duke or Osama bin Laden says it. Who gives a shit if these people don't like you? If that actually hurts your personal feelings, you need to toughen up.
Now, I'm not denying that there's a problem with bigotry on the right. But that's just the point -- we already know there's a big problem. It's worth fighting against the existence of bigotry in meaningful ways. But acting outraged that a little piece of it spilled off Ann Coulter's forked tongue isn't going to reduce bigotry.
Have we liberals completely forgotten the old "sticks and stones may break my bones..." rhyme?
----------
I'm glad I'm not alone here; there's another diary here which makes several good related points.
----------
Update: Several people in the comments have pointed out that the problem is that Coulter's brand of speech is "the norm" in some circles, and that sometimes it leads to even worse actions. That certainly is a problem, but giving these people exactly the reaction they're hoping for only encourages them.
Proper response to Coulter: "You're an idiot, screw off."
Response encouraging her: "Blah blah offensive hurtful demand apology feelings blah blah sensitivity training blah."
People complaining about the "bullying" nature of this speech must never have had to deal with bullies in school. They want to see you whine and cry, and if you do it they'll keep coming back for more. You deal with them by taking away their ability to hurt you, by acting like they don't exist and you don't care what they do (unless they're physically violent, in which case you have them arrested, but that's a different situation). When they're just looking to get a rise out of you, the best strategy is not to give it to them. They'll get bored and go looking for attention elsewhere. That's how it works.
-----------
Another update: Someone asked, "Why isn't the diarist outraged?" I thought that's clear.
If you want to be outraged, be outraged that there are tens of millions of people in this country who would think Coulter's comment was pretty funny. That IS outrageous. But those people felt that way before Coulter's comment, and the situation will be the same after Coulter's comment is forgotten. One shock-pundit's attention grab is just a grain of sand in the desert of bigotry, and it doesn't deserve special attention.
Why aren't you outrage fans posting as many diaries, and with equal outrage, about each one of the millions of other bigots in the world? And not just on days they make bigoted comments, either. Shouldn't you be outraged that they feel that way even on days when they keep it to themselves? If so, why don't you voice your outrage every day with the same intensity you have for Coulter's comment?
Coulter is one bigot among millions. Why give her special attention? Why is her comment more outrageous than the thoughts of millions of others?