That’s Not A Faggot!
by sarabeth at 6:35 am on March 8th, 2007 in Religious Right / ExtremistsReaders of a certain age may remember the iconic scene in Crocodile Dundee when Paul Hogan/Mick Dundee whips out what can only be called a demi-sword and says: “That’s not a knife. That’s a knife!”
The gods seem to have pulled just such a that’s-not-this-is joke at Ann Coulter’s expense.
Corporal Matt Sanchez, who was presented with the CPAC’s Jeane Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award at the same function where Coulter threw the word faggot in John Edwards‘ direction, and who Annie happily posed for pictures with, turns out to have “had a lengthy career in gay porn, working under the names Rod Majors (NSFW) and Pierre LaBranche, starring in such art films as Jawbreaker, Donkey Dick, and Glory Holes Of Fame 3, where his ‘11-inch uncut monster cock’ earned him a devoted following”.
Poetic justice is always sweet, even when it doesn’t involved ass lube. And you have to love it when an ex gay-porn star gets recast in the role of an unwitting instrument of poetic justice.
sac wrote:
Nice NSFW header, there. Anyway, check out this rundown of Wes Clark’s recent appearance at the 92Y in NYC. I really do hope he runs again.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 9:41 am ¶
matt wrote:
he won’t. and it’s too late for that now. donors are locked up and the internet atm won’t be there for him unfortunately.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 9:52 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
certain things you just have to go with in their uncut form
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 9:55 am ¶
sac wrote:
He hints that he will run again in that link. I’m not ruling it out.
Tell that to my mohel.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 11:00 am ¶
matt wrote:
wager?
that’s funny.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 11:03 am ¶
sac wrote:
Sure, I’ll bet you 5 bucks. I take Paypal.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 11:34 am ¶
matt wrote:
done. what is the witching date?
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 11:40 am ¶
sac wrote:
End of this year. Once primaries start in Feb. of 2008, I’d say the field is set.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 12:01 pm ¶
matt wrote:
12/31/07 then.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 12:05 pm ¶
robmandu wrote:
wait a sec.
isaiah washington tries to check himself into rehab after the maelstrom caused by his repeated use of the (new) f-word.
coulter is now subject to extensive blowback (and rightly so) for her poor judgment and sorry execution in using the f-word as part of a joke.
but now sarabeth appears to have engaged in exact same maneuver as coulter… by associating use of the f-word with an ex gay porn star.
sarabeth, i’m just trying to understand. is it okay for you to use the f-word where it’s not okay for coulter?
really. you’re calling out coulter here in your article… but then do the exact same thing. what am i missing?
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 12:10 pm ¶
sac wrote:
It’s about intent, rob. It’s pretty clear Sarabeth is not anti-gay and is using the term ironically. Coulter and Washington used it as a hateful epithet. Some people will not accept that paradigm and get offended at ANY usage of the word, and that’s valid, although in my opinion, a little over-sensitive.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 12:16 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
a single particle of common sense, would be my diagnosis
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 12:24 pm ¶
robmandu wrote:
in reality, intent matters not. just look at hr guidelines in anyone’s place of work.
personally, i say let sarabeth use whatever word she wants, whatever her intent.
but judging someone else’s intent is something that none of us can do. coulter claims no foul intention, citing many gay-supporting statements she had made at cpac earlier that same day.
as i’m sure sarabeth realizes, many ex gay porn stars are not necessarily gay themselves. how would corporal matt sanchez respond to sarabeth linking him to the f-word? what if he’s not really gay?
she claims no ill intent, but if sanchez feels slighted, it’s his perogative.
i do believe sarabeth intended no negative associations for sanchez. but she cannot control his perception. and society rules stipulate it’s *his* call.
pot, meet kettle. he’s black.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 12:47 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
funny, she doesn’t remember making any such claim.
why don’t you stop making it up as you go along?
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 12:58 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
funny how
is followed in short order by
a little bit of practicing what you preach might go a long way towards gaining you a partticle of credibility around here.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 1:01 pm ¶
robmandu wrote:
oka-a-a-a-ayyy.
a) you’re right, sac is the one that said that “sarabeth is not anti-gay and is using the term ironically”… not sarabeth herself. sorry for the typo.
b) i can express what i believe about sarabeth’s intentions if i want (especially if i make it clear it’s my own perception)… i’m not claiming affront due to use of the f-word.
sarabeth, you know what i’m asking. why don’t you try answering that point instead of feinting back with my admittedly poor wordmanship?
sac, thank you for polite and considerate responses.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 1:11 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
robmandu: i hereby accuse you of being JimC in disguise
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 1:27 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
after saying no one can judge intent, you judge my intent, and then you claim no contradiction.
you can do whatever you want, and I never said you couldn’t. i’m just pointing out how foolish you’re making yourself look in the process.
feel free to go on making a fool of yourself as long as you care to, but I’m through responding as of now.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 1:30 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Christ, I now regret defending Sarabeth.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 1:43 pm ¶
robmandu wrote:
(sigh) ok
seems to me like you’d want to use your own blog as a forum for discussion, not simply a soapbox from which to shout your opinion. might as well turn off the comments if you don’t like feedback. licensing blogging software is a waste when you simply need static web pages.
unless, of course, you seek only sycophantic praise in the comments.
again I say to sac, thanks for your responses in both threads. if you have a blog of your own, i’d enjoy learning of it.
auf wiedersehen
p.s. not that I really want to know, but who is JimC?
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 1:44 pm ¶
sac wrote:
That is adorable. You’re obviously new here.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 1:45 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Meant to add that I find this here blog the most frustrating one in all of blogland because I agree with almost everything they say, but disagree vehemently with the way they go about saying it. For that reason, I only stop on by a few times a month. Doctor’s orders.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 1:46 pm ¶
matt wrote:
hilarious.
i keep meaning to write a post about how often certain people mistake our criticisms. no one here says that anyone can’t disagree with what we say. often as i write, i hear good arguments in my head. i don’t often read these arguments here. but having the right to disagree is far from doing it well. sarabeth has pointed out several examples of rob coming off the rails, as have i. should we just let it slide? call for a point of order? what?
if i see something that isn’t right, i’m going to point is out. i could care less if was in the comments or on the main page. a grand total of 2 people have ever lost their ability to comment here. a grand total of hundreds have said idiotic things i disagree with. do the math.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 2:07 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
i don’t have time right now; have to go discharge my responsibilities to society for a few hours; will be back to flesh this out, if necessary
but I’m dead serious. this guy is JimC. he has exactly the same way of “thinking”, the same style of dishonest disputation. he does the same things in the same way.
his comments will either track back to the same geographical location as JimC’s or will lead to an opaque dead end (I’m sure matt can check that if so inclined).
if anyone wants to wager, I have $20 to back up my conviction.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 2:14 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
just curious which comment that was in response to, and what you meant by it.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 2:15 pm ¶
robmandu wrote:
// this is all offtopic //
how am I “off the rails” to point out an easy-to-identify possibility of hypocricy in sarabeth’s post??
both matt and sarabeth have gone on the defensive by pointing out clearly that I’m not the accomplished bloggists that they are, but it’s like pulling teeth to get an honest response to a simple question.
i ask one question trying to understand why sarabeth can make an f-word-association joke, but ann coulter can not. the only replies i have from sarabeth point out inadequacies in my writing without answering the question i posed. what a gyp.
if sarabeth had tried a response like sac’s, we wouldn’t be here. matter of fact, maybe we all oughtta consider bailing from here. we can intelligently diatribe amongst ourselves and need not cow-tow to sarabeth and matt whilst they await the perfectly coiffed comments worthy of their real answers.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 2:19 pm ¶
matt wrote:
it’s not your writing. it’s your self contradiction, on this and the libby post. if it isn’t self apparent, i can not hope to explain it to you.
make sense, and you can type with your damn toes if you like. carry on as you are, and your arguments will be picked apart. what else would you expect?
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 2:32 pm ¶
sac wrote:
This one:
in response to rob asking “what am I missing.” I answered his question based on what I got from the title of your post, and he accepted that. I’m not sure if he agreed with my position, but he at least came closer to understanding what, in my opinion, you intended by the use of “faggot.”
You, however, immediately took the offensive and said he had no common sense. It’s a pretty common tactic here and I’ve become inured to it. Then you start picking apart sections of his comment, ignoring the spirit of his question. I understood his question, even though I disagree with his position on this, so you can’t just imply that he’s “off the rails.” Of course, this is the place where you can insert a joke about both of us being nuts so of course we’d understand each other, etc.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 3:04 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Also this one:
in response to rob saying you “claim no intent.” Now you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing. Of course you meant no ill intent to the gays by using the word “faggot,” and yet you felt the need to parrot, once again, this site’s prime directive, in this case inappropriately.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 3:12 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Crap, make that “claim no ill intent” for the above blockquote.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 3:12 pm ¶
matt wrote:
so you missed the part where he brought up sandy berger and then bitched at me for bringing up the clinton impeachment.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 3:40 pm ¶
matt wrote:
cap peeling? nullus?
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 3:41 pm ¶
sac wrote:
For one, that was in the other thread. For two, I didn’t miss it, but he aptly defended that with the fact that the Berger verdict went down a few weeks ago, whereas the Clinton impeachment was 8 years ago. In light of that, I agree the Berger verdict is relevant whereas the Clinton impeachment is not.
In this thread, I said that SB immediately went on the defensive when all rob did was ask an honest question. Take a look at rob’s first comment on this thread. He disagrees with SB and then honestly asks if he’s missing something. I reasonably reply, he accepts that. SB flies off the handles and tells him he’s got no common sense.
Ha.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 3:51 pm ¶
matt wrote:
i agree that you are clueless.
and he’s shown on 2 topics that he hasn’t any.
seriously, being unable to tell the difference between coulter’s use of the word and sarabeth’s is or should be a disqualifying malady.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 3:58 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Why?
He doesn’t seem to like the use of “faggot” in any instance. You and I may disagree with him on that, but it’s hardly reason to say he’s got no common sense.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 4:17 pm ¶
matt wrote:
rob said: “but now sarabeth appears to have engaged in exact same maneuver as coulter”
sarabeth didn’t. period.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 4:25 pm ¶
robmandu wrote:
wow… sac, you’re great under pressure. right on point.
I do think that ann coulter’s attempt at a joke was tasteless and pointless. but i also think that if sarabeth can use it in her context above (regardless of intent), then so should ann coulter or anyone else.
if we don’t like what pundits say, we can always change the channel or buy someone else’s book.
my ham-handed attempts earlier were to try and understand sarabeth’s intent because she obviously is no fan of coulter’s, and yet her methods seemed very similar.
i think sac’s reply is the only valid one thus far, and i’m happy to leave it at that.
just for fun, i thought i’d try coming up with my own suggestions of answers to my question that sarabeth can use in the future…
Q: isn’t it hypocritical to criticize coulter’s f-word association joke with your own f-word association joke?
A1) geez, it’s called irony, dummy. get on board.
A2) i like the f-word. i think it’s funny to say. my speech is protected by the constitution of these united states. and i’m just glad ann coulter and isaiah washington are stupid enough to keep saying it in public in reprehensible ways so that i have topical reason to use it here.
A3) are you gay? oh you’re not? then shut up. let someone that it applies to speak up as to whether they’re offended.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 4:44 pm ¶
robmandu wrote:
sarabeth wrote,
anyone, eh? me included?
will a verified paypal account be sufficient evidence? if so, please write me at my posted email address (as captured by this comment tool) and i’ll be happy to put a crisp, new twenty in my pocket.
but i doubt you will.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 4:55 pm ¶
jamie beth wrote:
i’m going to to go with rob not being JimC. there is a different, less self-agrandizing tone and the comments (at least in this thread) are sticking far closer to topic than good ole’ JimC. also, although JimC would probably claim that some of his best friends are gay, at least until his church heals them of their malady, i don’t think he’d bother commenting on the use of the word faggot.
sorry, i know it was off-post-topic, but it’s my 2cents for now.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 6:34 pm ¶
matt wrote:
rob is not jimc. sarabeth lost the bet to me. sorry, there can only be one winner.
it’s funny that this came up today as i have traded emails with the man himself.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 6:49 pm ¶
matt t wrote:
As a Gypsy-American, I’m incredibly offended by this hateful slur.
Due respect, Sac, I think you’re wrong there. It looks like he wants everyone to be able to say it or no one:
Posted 09 Mar 2007 at 7:02 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
robmandu’s question, to my mind, betrayed an absolute lack of common sense. So that’s what I “immediately” said.
I “ignored the spirit of his question” because that’s all some questions deserve. there are some “questions” you demean yourself by responding earnestly to. in my judgement, this was very much one of those.
and then robmandu so quickly went on to display all the dishonest-disputation characteristics I listed earlier in the other thread that I stopped taking him seriously.
why on earth would I want to insert any kind of joke about your mutual lovefest with robmandu? at the risk of permitting myself a small pun, who you chose to have lovefests with is entirely your affair.
Posted 09 Mar 2007 at 9:03 am ¶
matt wrote:
let me second this for the record. this is important, and it’s also advice democrats (in and out of office) have been ignoring for far too long.
there are times when an “are you fucking kidding me?” serves better than 20 position papers and carefully crafted responses.
Posted 09 Mar 2007 at 9:09 am ¶