The Coulter hoax

| 12 Comments

This post’s sole author is Peter Olofsson. I am posting it as a courtesy to Peter and have not contributed a single word to it. Here starts Peter’s text:

When confronted with Ms. Ann Coulter’s diatribe against evolutionary biology in her 2006 book Godless, many educated readers will be upset, annoyed, outraged. However, if one instead assumes that Ms. Coulter is only joking, in fact providing a faux criticism of evolution in order to expose the ID movement in a Sokalian fashion, her writing suddenly becomes a brilliant satire.

Continue reading The Coulter Hoax at Talk Reason

12 Comments

Before everyone jumps in with “no way it’s a hoax, she really believes that nonsense,” let me remind everyone that she does not necessarily have to believe a word of it to promote it, as satire or otherwise.

An intersting tidbit is that, after writing it, Coulter admitted on the Michael Medved radio show that she was an “idiot” about science. Which means that she would not be able to tell whether Dembski et. al. (who practically wrote the chapters) were just feeding her nonsense that just “felt good”?

That’s a great article! Seriously, sometimes the most appropriate response to creationist arguments seems to be: “Is this a joke?” Sadly, creationists spout their arguments with such conviction and veracity that unless one steps away and thinks about the argument logically, they may not realize just how silly it is! Which can be a problem, considering how many people like to avoid thinking.

Doug

Gawd, I am beyond caring about what Ann Coulter personally believes. You know what I think? I think that, as women (except me, because I prefer to yak about this stuff) bond by kvetching about their weight, men bond by talking about Ann Coulter.

And you know what, maybe she realizes this, too. Maybe that’s what’s she satirizing, if anything.

I like the tack this piece takes, but really, it’s way too long and too dry to be considered a piece of good satire.

trust me, the creationists will quote mine this as if it were supportive of Coulter somehow.

No, its pretty good satire. Olofsson captures the silliness of academic post-modernist criticism nicely. Its simultaneously a good critique of Coulter and a send up of post-modernist garbage. Its defects are that Olofsson doesn’t use terms narrative, discourse, trope, or Foucaultian. Another give away is that he is too clear a writer to be a real post-modernist critic.

Ann Coulter did write some pretty good, witty satire several years ago. She started loosing her touch somewhere around 2005, and since then seems to have lost some of her sanity. My guess is that with her speaches now filled with sophomoric vulgarities and epithets, few right wing groups will be willing to invite her any more. I doubt she’ll speek at CPAC ever again.

Admirably clever!

Coulter’s signficance is as a measure of the bare minimum of barebones crazy people out there, because that is what someone would have to be to support what she says these days.

Ann Coulter did write some pretty good, witty satire several years ago.

Yeah, I imagine that you found that bit about killing their leaders and converting them to Christianity quite amusing, Adam.

My guess is that with her speaches now filled with sophomoric vulgarities and epithets, few right wing groups will be willing to invite her any more.

Her speech was filled with that BEFORE she spoke at CPAC, but that didn’t stop them from inviting her, now did it? Spare us your ludicrous attempts to distance conservatives from Coulter, Adam.

Her speech was filled with that BEFORE she spoke at CPAC

And, her speech was filled with that when she spoke at CPAC before:

Coulter on Muslims:

“I think our motto should be post-9-11, ‘raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.’” (This declaration prompted a boisterous ovation.)

Coulter on killing Bill Clinton:

(Responding to a question from a Catholic University student about her biggest moral or ethical dilemma) “There was one time I had a shot at Clinton. I thought ‘Ann, that’s not going to help your career.’”

Coulter on moderate Republicans:

“There is more dissent on a slave plantation then amongst moderates in the Republican party.”

Coulter on the Holocaust:

“Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and the NY Times have made submissions.”

Coulter on the Supreme Court:

“If we find out someone [referring to a terrorist] is going to attack the Supreme Court next week, can’t we tell Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalito?”

CPAC knew what to expect – that’s why they invited her, and that’s why they cheered her. Coulter is scum, CPAC is scum, and Adam and his ilk are scum.

Even more pathetic than Coulter, are her fans. First they defend her as a serious commentator/pundit saying important things that we all have to take seriously. Then, the minute they are faced with criticism of her statements, they turn around and call her a comedienne, and say it was all a joke. They don’t have the guts, either to stand by their princess, or to admit that she – and the hatreds to which she panders – are wrong.

And, of course, they can’t learn courage from their princess, because she has none herself.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Mark Perakh published on March 14, 2007 9:12 AM.

Luskin and the New Mexico creationists was the previous entry in this blog.

Casey Luskin and the Inappropriate Scare Quotes is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter