6/16/2006

21 Comments

1. What I want to know is what happened to us as a culture? We have become such babies. When I was growing up I was taught that sticks and stones would break my bones but names would never hurt me.

   I grew up with Italian and Polish joke books. I was a wasp and mick girl…now, everyone is hypersensitive. I confess that I myself have used the term ‘raghead’ in conversations. I’ve also said ‘wop’, ’spic’ and many other things. Am I a racist? Absolutely not!

   The rules of society have just changed…what was okay 20 years ago is not okay today.

   When I lived in New York City a black girl on the subway was screaming that I was just a honky bitch because I wouldn’t give her money. Believe me, if I would have reciprocated, Al Sharpton would have had a protest march outside my house.

   Everyone needs thicker skins!!!

   Comment by Stacy — 6/16/2006 @ 10:21 pm

2. When I lived in New York City a black girl on the subway was screaming that I was just a honky bitch because I wouldn’t give her money. Believe me, if I would have reciprocated, Al Sharpton would have had a protest march outside my house.

   Using the term “honky bitch” to describe you: good thing or bad thing?

   Should I call you a whiner for complaining about it here?

   Comment by Patterico — 6/16/2006 @ 10:39 pm

3. For some reason I started trying to recall the dialogue during “Three Kings” when the dumb hick private called arabs “sand niggars” and then Ice Cubes Character got pissed. Then the hick said something along the lines of “What?” To which Mark Wahlberg’s character said “Listen! Niggar is an offensive term, and there’s no reason to use that description when there are perfectly acceptable options like ‘raghead’ or ‘camel jockey’”

   See, that’s funny. But I think even a rational Arab could laugh at it.

   Comment by Patterico — 6/16/2006 @ 10:52 pm

4. –Using the term “honky bitch” to describe you: good –thing or bad thing?

   –Should I call you a whiner for complaining about –it here?

   No Patterico, that’s my point…I just let the comments roll off of me. Sticks and stones, remember? Granted, everyone in New York is politically incorrect,though. It shocked me when I first moved there from ultra PC California.

   My point is that everyone is so quick to take offense at words….that’s all they are, words. Words have no power to hurt if you don’t let them…

   Comment by Stacy — 6/16/2006 @ 11:05 pm

5. First, I don’t think Ann was using “raghead” to refer to Arabs, but to Muslims. It was a religious epithet rather than a racial one.

   Second, the idea that racial/religious epithets are somehow worse than other sorts of epithets strikes me as an arbitrary convention. So Coulter flouted an arbitrary and somewhat perverse social convention. So what?

   Christians get all upset when people use particular words to refer to sex or genitilia; Democrats get all upset when people use particular words to refer to other races or religions. You scorn the Christian mores and embrace the Democrat ones. Why? They are both arbitrary conventions.

   Comment by Doc Rampage — 6/17/2006 @ 12:35 am

6. First, I don’t think Ann was using “raghead” to refer to Arabs, but to Muslims. It was a religious epithet rather than a racial one.

   How do you know that?

   A quick search finds a link that disagrees and says it’s a reference to Arabs.

   Not sure why it makes a huge difference . . .

   Plus, I thought this was an easy question (I really did) — yet where are the answers?

   Using the term “raghead” to describe Arabs: good thing or bad thing?

   I read your response, Doc, as: meh, not so bad, really.

   Do I misread it?

   Comment by Patterico — 6/17/2006 @ 1:04 am

7. It is a bad thing but hardly the worst thing in the world. I didn’t buy her book but not because of that.

   Calling Clinton a “bastard”, good thing or bad thing?

   Comment by James B. Shearer — 6/17/2006 @ 1:37 am

8. Calling Clinton a “bastard”, good thing or bad thing?

   I think it’s fine, given that he was indeed a rat bastard for any number of reasons.

   I know you had this comment about invective earlier, but I don’t mind invective when it’s backed up by facts.

   You complained in your earlier comment that there’s no clear line saying what invective is proper and what isn’t. Nope. That’s life. We often have to make judgment calls.

   Comment by Patterico — 6/17/2006 @ 1:40 am

9. Using a derogatory term to describe a large class of people is impolite. If the INTENTION is to be impolite, then it is a good thing, isn’t it?

   Coulter INTENDS to insult the people she insults. This makes her different from far too many Left Wing ‘Journalists’ who blandly make demeaning generalizations about Conservatives, Christians, and Republicans that are deeply insulting without having any idea how offensive they are being.

   Comment by C. S. P. Schofield — 6/17/2006 @ 3:08 am

10. Bad thing but in a way which reflects more on her than on her target. (Caution: The link is to comment I made at the time which is too nasty to post here.)

    Comment by nk — 6/17/2006 @ 5:14 am

11. In Mark Bowden’s book “Guests of the Ayatollah,” he includes a scene described by a multilingual embassy guy who came in for really bad treatment by the hostage takers because he was so fluent in Farsi and some other languages, including Turkish, that they were sure he must be a spy.

    Some of the “student” hostage takers came to him about six months into the captivity and asked him seriously if he would translate some terms for them. Among the terms they wanted translated were “raghead”, “motherf**ker”, “camel jockey” and some others I don’t recall. He told Bowden that it brought a secret smile to his heart because it told him that somewhere the hostage takers were having to deal with US Marines.

    Those terms are deliberately provocative and using them in public should be reserved for moments when the use may come with a real cost. Having a bunch of Muslim students hold you in captivity for 444 days would qualify as such a moment. Not in flogging a book.

    Comment by Mike K — 6/17/2006 @ 6:02 am

12. Patterico (in blog entry):

    Using the term “raghead” to describe Arabs: good thing or bad thing?

    Bad thing. Conversely, the fact that no one ever did that is a good thing.

    Patterico (in comment #7):

    First, I don’t think Ann was using “raghead” to refer to Arabs, but to Muslims. It was a religious epithet rather than a racial one.

    How do you know that?

    Common sense. The context of “Raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences,” was the war on terror, which as a practical matter is mostly the war on Islamic terror. Some critics may say it is really a war on Islam, but a war on Christian Arabs? I don’t think so. When Coulter uttered those infamous words, do you really think she meant “Arab talks tough, Arab faces consequences, but if some non-Arab like, say, Iran talks tough, no problem?” I don’t think you think so.

    A quick search finds a link that disagrees and says it’s a reference to Arabs.

    A link to Wikifrigginpedia, of all sources. Couldn’t you find something a little more credible, like maybe … oh, I dunno … the National Enquirer? Ironically, that entry says it is mostly a name for Muslims; it simply asserts, without any evidence whatsoever, that when Ann said it she meant Arab. Meanwhile, the article you originally quoted in your entry has this to say:

    Conservative author Michelle Malkin said she wanted young conservatives, including Muslims who attended CPAC, to know that “not everyone uses that kind of epithet.

    I don’t,” Malkin said. “Not in public. Not at home. I have no ill will towards peaceful people who happen to cover their heads for their faith.”

    I’m sure Malkin referred, of course, to the “Arab faith.” Not. Between that, her infamous “kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” bit, and her history of criticizing Islam but not any particular race, and I’d say this all adds up to you being full of crap.

    Not sure why it makes a huge difference.

    I see a huge difference between ripping on someone’s race, over which they have no control, and over their religion, which they do choose, and which is in fact the major driving force behind most of today’s terrorism.

    Malkin referred, of course, to the “Arab faith.” Right? Please.

    That said, I answered the question you should have asked - “Using the term ‘raghead’ to describe Muslims: good thing or bad thing?” - a long time ago. The answer: bad thing. Not nearly as bad as attacking a race, as you have falsely accused her of doing, but bad nevertheless.

    Patterico (returning to original entry):

    EXTRA CREDIT: If your answer was “bad thing,” did you buy her book anyway? How come?

    Not yet, but I plan to. Why? Because I’m not into boycotting everyone who, in my opinion, has ever crossed any line. If I were, I’d have to boycott South Park, Michelle Malkin, Jeff Goldstein, Matt Drudge, and probably even you. Add that all up, and it amounts to just about everything that is worth reading, except maybe a dictionary, a thesaurus and an encyclopedia. I’d also have to urge my readers to boycott me, which would really suck. So instead, I urge people to speak up and say so when they are offended, but then to get on with their lives. [Speaking of which, this is how many posts in barely over a week's time, all devoted to a single author you supposedly don't think is even worth reading?]

    Comment by Xrlq — 6/17/2006 @ 7:02 am

13. “Using the term raghead to describe Arabs: good thing or bad thing?”

    Bad thing. As is nigger, bitch, fag, etc., etc. But evidently people who are black, female, or gay can use these words with impunity, which is something I’ve never understood. If the term is pejorative and wrong, why isn’t it wrong for anyone to use it?

    “EXTRA CREDIT: If your answer was bad thing, did you buy her book anyway? How come?”

    Nope, never bought a book from Ann Coulter, although I’ve checked most of them out of the library. I have, however, decided I will buy Godless largely because of the umpteen posts you’ve insisted on. Just because I’m a contrary soul. Your original post was enough, frankly, to let all your readers know of your distaste for AC. Everything since has merely cemented my resolve to defend her.

    [What did it for you? The racist "ragheads" comment, the mocking of evolution, or the jokes about assassinating public figures? -- P]

    Comment by sharon — 6/17/2006 @ 8:05 am

14. Main question: Yes. “Muslim talks tough, Muslim faces the consequences” would have made her point just fine. Would you have had a problem with that?

    Extra credit: Yes. Patrick, you’ve said many times that you don’t like her. Therefore, for you, more instances of crossing the line are piling up more reasons for you to keep disliking her. That’s fine. But I started out liking her. Therefore, for me, more instances of crossing the line are matters to be weighed against the enjoyment (and you can read that as “pleasure derived from” AND “benefit derived from,” both! Bonus!) I get from reading her stuff.

    As frequently occurs, Xrlq said it first and better. And Michelle Malkin, whom I admire as well, can find some of her stuff deplorable and still not throw her under the bus. You find the deplorable a body of evidence sufficient to make you dislike her. Fine. I find enough good in her stuff to make me like it despite the occasionally deplorable, and I’m not changing my mind this time.

    Comment by Anwyn — 6/17/2006 @ 11:36 am

15. Man, I don’t know where my brain cells are disappearing to. Above should have read:

    Main question: Bad thing.

    Comment by Anwyn — 6/17/2006 @ 11:37 am

16. Patterico, calling anyone any perjorative is generally a bad thing, but I don’t think calling Muslims “ragheads” is even close to being as offensive as stuff that is said all the time on TV. It’s not even as bad as the stuff you recently endorsed from Jeff Goldstein. But, as Xrlq said, I’m not boycotting South Park or Goldstein, so why should I boycot Coulter?

    I’m not saying that Coulter is all sweetness and light or has never said or done anything improper; I’m saying she doesn’t stand out from the crowd in terms of offensive things she says and writes, except for the targets. The difference between Coulter and those other guys is that Coulter dliberately picks insults to offend leftists: racially tinged insults, insults against leftist fetishes like race and the Jersey Widows, and insults involving leftist boogeymen like forced conversion to Christianity.

    Coulter is doing to the left exactly what the left has been doing to the right for so many decades: deliberately and offensively flouting their conventions in order to provoke helpless outrage. And frankly, I think it’s funny.

    Of course Coulter hasn’t gone as far as the left has. She hasn’t, for example, gotten a government grant for a work of art involving pictures of the Jersey Widows in a jar of urine.

    Comment by Doc Rampage — 6/17/2006 @ 12:25 pm

17. I grew up the tallest, skinniest, first-to-wear-glasses boy, with a girl’s name, in the South. I wound up in an industry where profanity is pretty much required to make some equipment operate, where mercy is an unknown quality, showing a thin skin just gets you more razzing, and where I have some customers who know ten nouns, five verbs and one adjective — and I’m supposed to get upset that someone has called someone else an unpleasant name.

    Life is rough, people; get over it.

    Comment by Dana — 6/17/2006 @ 5:33 pm

18. The people who have no problem with Coulter’s words because, after all, they’re “just words” (even when they are racist words) — why do these same people get so upset over *my* words about her?

    And did these folks get upset over, say Dick Durbin’s comparison of Gitmo to gulags? Just words. If the people running said “gulags” choose to take offense, that’s their problem — right?

    I don’t believe that, of course. But I’m not sure how you folks can agree with me, given what you say in this thread about mere words.

    Comment by Patterico — 6/17/2006 @ 5:44 pm

19. To paraphrase xrlq,

    If you want to scream out the message “I’m a raving lunatic with nothing of value to say,” I can think of few better ways to accomplish that than to use the word “raghead”.

    Comment by nk — 6/17/2006 @ 6:56 pm

20. Patterico, I can’t help but feel you are missing the point in a major way. The people who were angry at Durbin yet defend Coulter just weren’t angry at Durbin for mere words. They were angry at what the words expressed: a moral equivalence between our defensive war on terror and the horrors committed by Stalin in the name of personal power.

    It wasn’t that Durbin was being mean, it was that this statement showed Durbin to be a totalitarian apologist. (That’s also why I didn’t agree with the demands for an apology –it was really a demand for a recantation, and recantations are seldom sincere, so it wouldn’t change my opinion of him).

    Comment by Doc Rampage — 6/18/2006 @ 5:00 pm

21. NK: touché. I would draw one exception, however, for Raghad Hussein. Her name just begs to be pronounced “raghead.” Plus, she’s evil, so who cares if she’s insulted? Then again, the loony libs at MSNBC might make a similar argument Niger Innis.

    Comment by Xrlq — 6/18/2006 @ 5:22 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.