Ann Coulter, commentator and author, is famous not only for her opinions, but for the way she expresses them. She has stirred up controversy once again, and for that very reason - not the position that she took, necessarily, but the way she stated it when she referred to presidential candidate John Edwards as a “faggot”. It created a firestorm of media coverage, including CNN and FOX News as but two examples.Ann is not the only commentator known for a brash and uncivil tone. People with similar styles are found on both sides of the political aisle. One commentator pointed out that while Ann is frequently sited by Democrats for her uncivil tone, Republicans could charge Bill Maher with many of the same kind of uncivil comments.
While some people may think that those who are concerned about language that labels and taunts are simply too uptight - and need to just get over it - we are among those who believe that words are formative, and we all need to be careful how they are used. What one person understands merely as free and strong expression of opinion, never to be acted on outside of a voting booth, others may take to be permission or rationale for more than mere verbal attack.
And one wonders - on both sides of the aisle - does being outrageous increase credibility, or merely drown out the sound of reasoned discussion? Maybe drowning out the voice of reasoned discussion is the whole point. Either way, it is cause for concern.
Let me preface this by saying I have never read nor have Read Anne Coulter tracks. The only point that I actually heard something from her mouth was when she was one a talk show. What Coulter said wasn’t as interesting as one of the her fans. the fan said that she was challenged by one other friend why she read Coulter books and she responded that that the fan’s mother use to said eat the meat and spit out the bone. this is what the fan what did with Anne’s writing.
Why I found this interesting was because some reasons. First it was far form a ringing endorsement. Admitting that there was bone you had to admit a some point what Anne said was unusable. As I though about this I can maybe incorrectly but still came to troubling insight. This ability to accept some of argument, the meat, and not the total is foundational principle to civility . Without understanding we have to accept or reject in total. However sadly the market place of Ideas,the media dose not accept this nuanced understand. A book seller, and i rightly think so should not concern him or herself with the Idea in the book more his or her aim ought to be to sell as many books, as possible. It falls a on the reader or the writer to reject the the idea. The reader won’t because he or she should get as much information as possible before making a judgment an idea ergo bye and read the book. The writer won’treject the idea because the more earthy the language the more it sells.
This is some way is iteration of the Paradox of civility: To have a civil culture you must have a free speech and thought. To have free though and speech and though you must be willing to some uncivil speech and though.
March 27th, 2007, at 4:36 pm #Rob, you are right in saying that differences enrich a conversation, but wouldn’t you agree that if the uncivil speech degrades another, that crosses a boundary line that is unproductive for the conversation? I think disagreements and different points of view should be mandatory because it helps all sides to stretch our minds a bit. But I can’t see how uncivil speech helps when it degrades somebody else. That causes the other to hit right back and it’s not helpful. Let’s work together to develop better ways to state our differences and then we all learn from each other.
April 7th, 2007, at 5:36 pm #