tico said:
Quote:You hate her, don't you Bernie? Why don't you refer to her Adam's Apple, or say something about her resembling a horse, or something, like so many of the rest of her leftist critics?
As I said, I find her despicable. Is that term insufficient? Personal insults towards her are acceptable insofar as she herself plays that game. And she does, often. Thus, after she suggested that Clinton was gay and had the "smell of the bathhouse about him" I suggested in an earlier post that she was a coprophiliac with the smell of the shithouse about her. Neither are either truthful nor interested in relevance. Both are despicable character slurs.
I said
Quote:But it's interesting to watch what she does.
First, disregard facts ("Afghanistan is going swimingly"). As her goals are entirely and extremely partisan, she can't acknowledge any fact which might work against such partisan goals.
tico responded
Quote:As opposed to leftists, who are competely open to the possibility that they might be wrong?
"Left/right" is irrelevant here. What is relevant is truthfulness, care for accuracy and avoidance of logical fallacies, and fullness of detail. Whoever engages in "discourse" of the sort she constantly engages in would be equally despicable. To the degree that Carville does it, to that degree he's despicable. Jon Stewart's indictment of both Begala and Carlson and the Crossfire format ought to point you approximately in the right direction.
Is it possible you have no better model for political discourse than this person? Maybe you assume the oppositional/confrontational winner/loser mode of courtroom argument? Maybe you've not seen a more intellectually valuable (and less civicly irresponsible) model? If you turn to PBS news on Friday evening, you'll find Richard Brooks and Mark Sheilds with Lehrer. Archives might carry earlier discussions between Shields and Paul Gigot, or even earlier, David Guergen.
None of the characteristics I noted above for Coulter are present. You'll see frequent acknowledgements by either participant of what the other fellow has just gotten correct. They care about truth and accuracy and their partisan positions fall junior to that.
I said
Quote:Second, disruption through over-talking or changing subject. An orderly and clear discussion moving logically must be thwarted whenever it gets near a fact or logical conclusion which might jeopardize the propaganda point she's pushing.
tico responded
Quote:Absolutely hilarious that you say this. If you watch the clip again, you will note that the persons talking over her are the leftists on the panel. She couldn't get a word in edge-wise, which is why she reacted the way she did.
Yes, that is precisely what happened (along with the "Afghanistan is going swimmingly" untruth and her seeking assistance from Hannity and her walking off).
Thus the headline above the story that held the video..."Coulter meets her match". She was outplayed at one of the tricks in her own game.
I said
Quote:Third, use of logical fallacies, most obviously the ad hominem. This too works in the service of disruption.
tico responded
Quote:You mean like referring to people as "Amsterdam redlight whores sitting, legs descended, in their windows"? Is that kind of ad hominem you are complaining of?
It is precisely what I am indicting her for, along with those other characteristics above. Irrelevant and inaccurate character slurs are ubiquitous in her speech and columns. For everything that I consider wrong with Krauthammer's discourse, he doesn't play this game like Coulter, and so I would not make nor condone some remark derogating his legs or mobility. She is absolutely fair game though because of what she herself does.
I said
Quote:Four, always attack and do it loudly. The effect is to disrupt and intimidate
.
tico responded
Quote:Again, the only effort at loud intimidation on the clip in question was made by the leftists, of whom it's clear you have no complaint.
I have no complaint only insofar as Coulter was the person they were in discourse with. If it had been Brooks or Guergen or Gigot or any other person holding conservative views who behaved with regard for truth and accuracy and who avoided the despicable tricks Coulter plays, then they'd deserve equal condemnation. Do you fathom this? Discussion with Gerald Ford or Bill Buckley has different rules than discussion with Joe McCarthy or Ann Coulter.
tico concluded
Quote:The most amusing thing about this is your continued hypocrisy, blatham. You are completely oblivious, one must assume, to the fact that you are so often guilty of what you criticize others for.
