dear wanda sykes: go fuck yourself

[rone]

brendan_nyhan accurately sums up my feelings regarding Wanda Sykes's repulsive humor.

Comments

[tskirvin.livejournal.com]

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.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

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.

[dr-memory.livejournal.com]

She's a terrible comedian. Bring back Colbert.

This is much more the issue for me. I wasn't offended (cf. facebook), but jesus she's terminally unfunny.

[tskirvin.livejournal.com]

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.

Colbert is, of course, better in every way.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

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.

[tskirvin.livejournal.com]

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.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

That's a pretty accurate distinction.

[kodi]

I'd not seen the second paragraph quoted there until now - I think I've read three news articles and one blog post describing her routine, and not one mentioned the "I hope his kidneys fail..." part, which I find at least equally objectionable. The whole bit was stupid and uncalled for.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

Well, I think Nyhan can go fuck himself. He's just playing his old Very Very Reasonable Centrist act.

Do I approve of accusing Rush Limbaugh of treason and hoping his kidneys fail? Not really, I guess. But demanding that my fellow liberals all go ritually denounce Wanda Sykes after having to take this same kind of crap from the people controlling the country for eight years? Oh my stars and garters! Bah, life is short, Rush Limbaugh is a loathsome, racist, lying carbuncle of a man and I'm sick of bending over backwards.

[tomscud.livejournal.com]

Cf: Will-you-condemn-a-thon (http://decentpedia.blogspot.com/2007/08/will-you-condemn-thon.html).

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Hey, if these media wanks had said, "Limbaugh is a disgusting excuse for a human being and he deserved it," i'd be fine with that. But they tried to downplay it, which is exactly the same bullshit the wingnuts have been doing for similar trangressions on their side.

but is it tit for tat?

[drieuxster.livejournal.com]

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...

thank you for the reference

[drieuxster.livejournal.com]

but you really have to make a stand somewhere against the growing threat that liberals actually believe that the civilian president should take precedence over a war president....