The Volokh Conspiracy
[David Kopel, March 24, 2007 at 1:01pm] Trackbacks
Internet Improves Criminal Trial Coverage:

At least when there's a trial that draws a lot of media attention. My latest media column for the Rocky Mountain News suggests that the media are using the web effectively in order to supply high-quality, up-to-the-minutes news and analysis about the insider trading trial of former Qwest chief Joe Nacchio.

My column from a couple weeks ago noted how University of Colorado law professor and Rocky Mountain News columnist seems to be acting more like Ann Coulter these days. The column suggests that both Campos and Coulter ought to return to the more adult level of discourse that marked, for example, their 1998 debate on CNN.

neurodoc:
"They would do better to aim their writing and speeches at the adult, accurate level which they have each achieved many times in the past."

If Coulter were to do what you call upon her to do, that is "aim (her) writing and speeches at the adult," she wouldn't enjoy the fame and fortune that her trademark outrageousness has gained her. So, I would tell you not to hold you breath waiting for her do a volte-face.
3.24.2007 5:08pm
neurodoc:
BTW, I would be curious to know how the professor explained use of that word which rhymes with "stunt" and, unlike "faggot," has no non-vulgar meaning that I know of. Didn't anyone in the audience object? No outcry on campus? Are you the only one to take him to task for the remarkable coarseness?

I would not excuse Coulter, nor fault Edwards, but didn't they engage in something of a two-sided game? Coulter pleased her crowd, albeit not everyone on the Right, while Edwards got the chance to fire up his supporters and potential supporters. Thus, both gained. (If they were publicly traded stocks, each would have seen their value go up afterwards.) Neither Coulter, nor Edwards are looking to win converts within the other's camp. And no one loses save for us, who suffer the consequences of ugly, stupid campaigning. (Again, to be clear, Couter deserves the opprobrium, Edwards none.)
3.24.2007 5:27pm
__:
You cant really believe using those two words is the same, can you? One is merely vulgar, the other attacks a large group of people
3.24.2007 5:54pm
Random Commenter:
"You cant really believe using those two words is the same, can you? One is merely vulgar, the other attacks a large group of people"

Were you perhaps unaware that the infamous "c" word often used as a put-down of women generally? I find it hard to believe.
3.24.2007 6:20pm
logicnazi (mail) (www):
Random Commenter: I agree with your comment in spirit. People seem to think of the word cunt as relating to women the same way faggot relates to gays. I also think this association gives good reason not to use these words as attacks in public discourse (they are just words so I think it's silly to avoid mentioning them to talk ABOUT the words or other people's use of them) as they gain you little while creating the perception you are mean spiritedly attacking the entire group.

However, while I have certainly heard faggot used to denograte gays in general I can't say I have heard cunt used in the same way. Sure maybe I've heard it once or twice in a sentence like "Women are cunts" but it is not being really used any differently in that sentence than asshole is being used in the sentence "Men are dicks."

Frankly I'm open to the idea that cunt was so used at an earlier time. However, at the moment I don't see how it operates as anything but a 'real' swear word (while things like motherfucker become less verboten) plus perhaps demonstrating a lack of sensitivity to those people who do someone view it as anti-woman.

In other words is the only reason that it is assumed to be anti-woman because many people have bought into this theory that women are being suppressed by viewing their genitals as dirty? And if so doesn't this argue for using the word cunt more like the word dick not making it more off limits?
3.24.2007 8:19pm
Paddy O. (mail):
Among my women friends, that word is by far the most offensive thing a person can say. Completely off limits, even if they aren't bothered by other words. It is so because it reduces women to being nothing other than their genitals, which is a significant and constant part of oppression in history.
3.25.2007 2:19pm
canusa44 (mail) (www):
It would be lovely to see the old Ann but, as you hinted, she has put selling books ahead of rational debate. There is no money to be made appearing on PBS, which if you read the transcript, is actually referenced. Oh, the irony.

At this point, respectable journalism will not touch her with a ten foot pole and, as such, there is no hope that we’ll ever see anything other than the persona she created. In that sense, she is the ultimate victim of her own “success”.
3.25.2007 9:15pm
glangston (mail):
I remember a column by Campos where he accused Rep. Virgil Goode of racism for Goode's warning about Muslims in public office. I've since become increasingly bothered by Campos's fuzzy thinking. Goode was possibly a religious bigot but Campos feels, or felt in that instance, the need to refer to the incident as racist. I think he is drifting away from making clear arguments and succumbing to the politics of personal destruction.
3.25.2007 11:45pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
BTW, I would be curious to know how the professor explained use of that word which rhymes with "stunt" and, unlike "faggot," has no non-vulgar meaning that I know of.

While "faggot" does indeed have a non-vulgar meaning, I don't think anyone has seriously (or even jokingly) argued that Coulter meant to compare Edwards to a bundle of sticks.
3.26.2007 4:39pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
Among my women friends, that word is by far the most offensive thing a person can say.

I agree, I have had this discussion several time with both women and men. Inevitably, the general agreement is that "cunt" is the most offensive word in the English language.
3.26.2007 4:42pm

PicoSearch
Help
Lijit Search