En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism/post/2009/05/22/1656

May 22, 2009 4:56 PM - Woozle
Woozle said...

"I think Coulter is talking about the people in Hollywood and their private lives more than the movies."If it's not entirely clear what she's talking about, how can you tell if it's true? In any case, my objection to the original interpretation stands: show me people in Hollywood saying things like "it's so great that she decided not to get married when having her baby". "Clinton has admitted himself that he caused part of the problem, in hindsight." If that's true (sources?), he's being much too gracious -- considering that the majority of the loans involved in the crash were not CRA loans, that CRA lenders have tended to engage in less dangerous lending than others -- and that Clinton and the dems fought to reduce levels of predatory lending, to investigate fraud, and to try and reduce the deleterious effects of the eventual crash, while conservatives blocked them at every turn. The Tyler Cowen quote is totally irrelevant to your point; why do you even bring it up? "Let's try to remember to be polite, shall we?"I didn't forget; that was the polite version of what I started to type. The reason why it's important to be polite in a conversation is to prevent it from decaying into personal attacks, angry rhetoric, and general shouting -- in other words, to keep the conversation focused on reason, logic, and common sense. When someone answers a reasonable argument by changing the subject, throws in distracting irrelevancies, and generally evades responsibility for admitting their mistakes, I'd say they're violating the spirit of polite conversation. Worse, when someone seems completely oblivious to the horrendous implications of their claims -- or, worse, is aware of them but apparently doesn't give a flying feghoot -- a little verbal intensity seems entirely appropriate in order to draw their attention to the gravity of their error. Which would you rather deal with: the occasional expleted deletive, or someone who unapologetically incites their followers to riot against you, or talks about torturing and killing those who agree with you? However, perhaps I could be a bit more eloquent and thoughtful in examining the... shall we say "dissonance"... between your claim that "overcrowding is really just a problem of resource allocation" and the typical republican/conservative attitude towards those who would be on the receiving end of such reallocation, i.e. "tough luck, losers" and (to paraphrase only slightly) "STFU, liberal bitches" (aka Republican bipartisanship). Go on, tell me Palin was "just kidding". Tell me that Limbaugh doesn't mean it literally, that Coulter is only joking when she talks about torturing and killing liberals. McCain at least was decent enough to say, when he realized his crowd were taking the anti-Obama "terrorist" rhetoric wayyy too seriously, that Obama's not a terrorist, he's a good and decent guy, we just disagree -- and he was BOOed for saying this (by people who, coincidentally, claim the same ideological affiliation as you). Were they just kidding too? Why the frack aren't you horrified? "Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

source

May 22, 2009 5:03 PM - Woozle
Woozle said...

More on Coulter (wouldn't fit into the original post... I swear this 4096-character limit must be a new thing.): I'd also like to know what conclusion she drew from her assertion, as on the face of it "celebrating out-of-wedlock births" doesn't seem like a terrible thing if the kids grow up prosperous and healthy. I imagine Coulter has occasionally thrown in the occasional true fact to give her writing that delicate frisson of truthiness (e.g. "the sun rose as usual that morning, casting its cheerful beams on Obama's usual liberally-healthy breakfast of partial-birth-aborted fetuses, sauteed stem cells, and filet of recalcitrant heterosexual"), but what matters, ultimately, is where she goes with them. "Hollywood celebrates out-of-wedlock childbirth" -- therefore "Hollywood takes an admirably positive attitude towards adversity"? -- or therefore "liberals are out to destroy the family and America"? The devil is in the conclusions.

source