coulter, diversity, insane,Normally, I avoid Ann Coulter like I avoid being on fire, but today I was angry at my brain. It wouldn't let me get to sleep last night, so I punished it with some Coulter.
I've recently noticed that it's a common tactic when arguing a bizarre point (if evolution is true, where are the blobmonkeys?) to completely redefine previously well understood words. Ann Coulter entirely redefines "diversity", and robs me of the previously enjoyable phrase "jumps the shark" in At the End of the Day, Diversity Has Jumped the Shark.
As long as the general has brought it up: Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.
Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare -- I mean the beautiful mosaics -- in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.
Except that none of those are examples of diversity. Those are, in fact, the opposite of diversity. "Diversity", in the parlance of which she speaks, represents not differences, but acceptance of differences. Ireland is now a diverse society, in that Catholics and Protestants accept their differences and don't kill each other over minor theological disagreements any more.
Every example she gives is an example of the exact opposite of diversity, and Ireland in particular is a bad example, because acceptance of differences, i.e., diversity, has saved them, not doomed them.
Bad examples abound, however. I'm not sure why Canada is on a list that includes Israel, Chechnya and Rwanda. Joe-ay, my dear: is there a lot of sectarian violence/terrorism/genocide going on in Canada right now? Also, at what point was South Central (a neighborhood in California) ceded to a third world country? Oh, right, they're black. Any place black people live is automatically third world.
We should start making up other nonsense mantras along the lines of "diversity is a strength" and mindlessly repeating them until they catch on, too.
Next time you're at a cocktail party, just start saying, "Chocolate pudding is dramatic irony" from time to time. Eventually other people will start saying it, without anyone bothering to consider whether it makes sense. Then we'll do another one: "Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine."
Before you know it, liberals will react to news of a mass murder by muttering, "Well, you know what they say: Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine," while everyone nods in agreement.
Yes, only liberals would repeat nonsense. Ah-hem: death panels, ACORN, abortion tax, Kenya, secret muslim, pallin' around with terrorists. *deep breath* Socialism, facism, communism, FEMA camps, mark of the beast, antichrist, two million teabagging and counting.
But liberals celebrate diversity only in the case of superficial characteristics like race, gender, sexual preference and country of origin. They reject diversity when we need it, such as in "diversity" of legal forums.
PF's BRAIN SAYS: Please, for the love of quarks, stop it! She just called military courts for terrorist suspects "diversity"! I swear, I'll let you sleep right now, just stop!
There better be sleep tonight, or it's Rush Limbaugh tomorrow, Geneva Convention be damned.
Oooh, oooh, I can do that, too:
ReplyDeleteAs long as the general has brought it up: Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a benefit. Look at the Roman Empire with its multinational population, the Persians with their diversity of tribes and tolerance for other religions, the Ottomans with their Shia, Sunni, Jewish, and Christian factions that all joined together to take Constantinople and nearly conquer Europe and the Mediterranean.
Or consider the peaceful coexistence of people of all nationalities who live side-by-side in much of America, England, France, Italy, and Japan. Also look at the beautiful mosaics -- I mean the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare -- in Third World hellholes like Rio de Janeiro, Dubai and San Francisco.
Did I do it right?
I have to disagree slightly. Coulter's initial notion of diversity, defining it without regards to whether or not their is acceptance or tolerance isn't an intrinsically unreasonable definition (indeed, the definition in most dictionaries is closer to her definition than yours). The problem is that when progressives use the term diversity that's not what is meant. What is meant is closer to the definition you give.
ReplyDeleteOf course, even by her definition her comment about military tribunals is grade A crazy, but that shouldn't be surprising.
Joshua: While you are technically correct, I suspect she knows exactly what contextual definition of diversity fits here- especially since she claims to know the inner-workings of libruls on a regular basis.
ReplyDeleteOf course, her definition of liberal tends to be rather . . . idiosyncratic as well.
No, Mount Royal is not a blood volcano caused by Anglophones and Francophones opening each other's veins staining the St. Lawrence red.
ReplyDeleteFrom 1963-70, there was an extremist terrorist group, the FLQ. After the October Crisis and the leaders of the FLQ were thrown in jail or sent to exile in Cuba, extremists were pretty much discredited in favour of peaceful political means.
Newest favorite band name: Blood Volcano.
ReplyDeleteHa, when I saw the horse-faced bitch (seriously) mention Canada and the supposed warring between French and English Canadians, I honestly knew you’d think of me, dearie. *Blushes* Am I now your Senior French-Canadian Correspondent?[*]
ReplyDeleteEh … The history between French and English Canadians is very long and quite bitter in general, but in recent years it has eased up quite a bit. Rob F pretty much summarized the deal; tensions peaked during the historical Referendum vote (led by the Parti Québécois under René Levesque, which was to decide whether Qc should be an independent nation or not) but things have calmed down since. There is still some tension and animosity, but really, it’s not really that different than, say, between Democrats and Republicans in the U.S.: sniping, snarky articles, some name-calling and endless jokes (usually lame ones, from both sides), but no real violence or hate, except in a few nutballs who form less than 0.1% of the demographics anyway.
If anyone wants a very accurate illustration of the situation between French and English Canadians, they should watch the marvelous Bon Cop, Bad Cop, a fully bilingual Canadian comedy/buddy-cop film. Best Canadian movie EVAR.
[*] I don’t suppose only those who watch The Daily Show regularly will get the reference?
It's strange, they're all senior correspondents . . .
ReplyDelete@denalian:
ReplyDeleteThey just selectively choose whatever is harsher and less humane.
Consider this: Coulter's definition of diversity fits the definition that liberals use when it comes to college enrollment and to hiring practices. When liberals say that colleges or work forces need to be more diverse, they mean simply that people of different races, genders, etc. need to be there.
ReplyDeleteShe is correct in saying that there is often conflict where there are diverse populations. I think she is wrong in considering it inevitable or universal. It is possible for diverse groups of people to live together peacefully.
-----
I've made the comment before, but it bears repeating. It's interesting to see how you and some of you commenters demonstrate the "tolerance" that liberals are always telling conservatives they are supposed to practice. According to your definition of diversity, is there room for Ann Coulter?
@Renaissance Guy:
ReplyDeleteThere is such a thing as intolerance towards intolerance. I, for one, am happy to be so.
(Basic maths: two negatives cancel each other out, or create a positive. I think.)
Joe;
ReplyDeletei know they do. i find it beyond hypocritical, especially when they demand the "best" [as in, most lenient] institutions for one of the own...
yay, evil.
also: exactly what you said to R.Guy.
i get tired of the whole "if you want diversity, you have to be willing to accept people who are actively working against your interests, otherwise you aren't "tolerant"
that is not tolerant. "accepting" Coulter isn't the problem; i could [do] accept her as a person. i would never be FRIENDS with her - she is MUCH to mean, petty, hateful for me to want to be around.
all that proves is that people who practice tolerance and embrace diversity expect the same actions from the people who associate with them. i would NEVER voluntarily hang out with a person who said things to me like "why are you dating a n*". that is NOT me being "intolerant" per se; that is me rejecting hate.
Okay. I'm fine with people claiming to be tolerant and saying that they will not tolerate what they call intolerance. As long as you admit it, fine.
ReplyDeleteNext question. . .
What would you like to see done to the intolerant people that you cannot tolerate? Censor them? Punch them? Put them in prison camps? Reprogram them?
You see, this "intolerant" person would never want to silence any of you in any way. I practice true tolerance, which means putting up with that which I do not like or with which I do not agree. It does not mean that I never disagree. (Logic: If I agreed, then I would have no need to be tolerant.)
If you set yourselves up as absolutely right and the arbiters of who is "tolerable" and who isn't, then you are no better than the ones you criticize. That's about as "real" as it gets.
-----
I have to add one more jab. The way that some of you talk about your political and philosophical opponents is exactly as mean, rude, and nasty as anything Ann Coulter has ever said. In fact some of it is much cruder.
(I think her quote in the image is meant to be darkly sarcasatic. You know, that's what radical Muslims say that they should do to us? Sarcasm! Get it?)
Oh, and by the way: that Coulter quote above isn’t sarcastic. She was dead serious. It’s the kind of shit she says all the time, so unless her persona is just one big joke, she meant it.
ReplyDelete