I see some value in the "tit for tat" attitude here - how do *you* like it? And I generally go in for the slightly-more-offensive side of the humor pool. But I certainly see no reason not to decry what she said, and wouldn't defend it on anything more than standard free-speech grounds.
Of course, I doubt she particularly wants to be defended.
There is much more value in taking the high road, which is one very big thing i saw in Obama's presidential campaign; compared to previous presidential campaigns, it was overwhelmingly positive. We're at a time when more and more Americans are repudiating the abhorrent and hateful tenor of "entertainers" like Coulter and Limbaugh. The last thing we need is "tit for tat", especially because dogmatic right-wingers won't ever learn a lesson from an attack like this; they'll just crow about it and grow like the boil on the face of society they are.
If she wanted to say that on her dime, whatever, but this was at the WHCA dinner. Who the hell invited her, anyway? She's a terrible comedian. Bring back Colbert.
My problem with Coulter and Limbaugh is that they aren't *trying* to be funny; they're actually there to be hateful, and to spread it. I'm much more down with dark humor that clearly intends to be funny, even if it crosses the line.
I doubt very much that Coulter and Limbaugh think that they're hateful. They more likely think that their 'dark humor' is exposing the foibles of 'liberals' and is funny by dint of its offensive nature.
Based on what I've seen, read, and otherwise observed, those two do in fact believe in what they said, and while they may not believe all of their hyperbole, at heart, they really do mean it. There is not a sense of "this is my persona"; this is how they are.
Sykes is looking to offend. Limbaugh is looking to incite.
Isn't it about supporting the alledged "traditional family values" that folks like Limbaugh have been preaching for years?
As the dialog has gone on, there are the real problems that when caught out advocating the murdering of americans HanoiAnnnie Coulter has always been willing to say that she was making a funny.
So we then arrive at the moment where we need to work out what is 'polticial speach' that has clear precedence for being protected under the 1st Ammendment, and what are actually 'fighting words' which are not protected...
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
syntheid
no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 02:52 am (UTC)Of course, I doubt she particularly wants to be defended.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 03:02 am (UTC)If she wanted to say that on her dime, whatever, but this was at the WHCA dinner. Who the hell invited her, anyway? She's a terrible comedian. Bring back Colbert.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 03:43 am (UTC)This is much more the issue for me. I wasn't offended (cf. facebook), but jesus she's terminally unfunny.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 04:07 am (UTC)Colbert is, of course, better in every way.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 04:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 04:31 am (UTC)Sykes is looking to offend. Limbaugh is looking to incite.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-12 04:50 am (UTC)but is it tit for tat?
Date: 2009-05-12 10:23 pm (UTC)As the dialog has gone on, there are the real problems that when caught out advocating the murdering of americans HanoiAnnnie Coulter has always been willing to say that she was making a funny.
So we then arrive at the moment where we need to work out what is 'polticial speach' that has clear precedence for being protected under the 1st Ammendment, and what are actually 'fighting words' which are not protected...