Coulter Debate: Part 2

See Part 1 for the beginning of this discussion.

Mr. Auster countered:

AUSTER: These are not serious or grown-up arguments. They are childishness. The reader’s position comes down to saying, Democrats are bad, Democrats seek to destroy our society, Democrats call us racists and fascists, therefore let’s call Democrats “faggots.”

All that this adds up to is the same thing I’ve been criticizing through this decade, that conservatives and Republicans have become mere reactors against the left. They don’t stand for anything except for opposing the left. It’s the death of politics, the death of the intellect, the death of decency.

I responded:

WES: Being antagonistic isn’t my goal, here, and if I’ve come across in this fashion, I apologize; I just disagree with your take on this. I see eye-to-eye with you far more often than not. I would like to comment on a couple of things you said, though.

The reader’s position comes down to saying, Democrats are bad, Democrats seek to destroy our society, Democrats call us racists and fascists, therefore let’s call Democrats “faggots.”

It’s difficult for me to understand how you drew this conclusion, when the first point I made was that I would not have called Edwards this name. Nor did I ever use the term “Democrat” in describing these people. I said Leftist. I’m not a Republican, or a GOP supporter. This is not a Democrat/GOP issue, for me. I’m a traditionalist who believes we should return to constitutionalism and the intentions of our Founders. I think it’s also worth pointing out that the term is considered a pejorative because the Left has chosen to characterize it so. There was a time—and not very long ago—when this would have been a far less significant issue than it is, now. I think the whole situation sheds light on the normalization of destructive political correctness more than anything else.

These are not serious or grown-up arguments. They are childishness.

I think it’s interesting that you say this, while not addressing points 3,4, and 6—the first two of which were attempted specific refutations of your earlier comments.

AUSTER: Frankly, points 3, 4, and 6 were either irrelevant or off-base and not worth replying to. It’s really too much when people send multi-point e-mails and then complain when they don’t get a reply to every point.* I was responding to the main point, which was that the left is very nasty and destructive, and therefore there’s nothing wrong with Coulter’s language.

Also, I did comment either in this thread or elsewhere about Coulter’s passing this off as a joke, and said how wrong that was.

* In my recent discussion with Mladen from Israel (whose family is from the Soviet Union) about Giuliani, in the interests of keeping the posted exchange interesting I left out a side-point of his that we had already gone over sufficiently and then he wrote to me telling me I was behaving like a Soviet commissar suppressing debate. Another recent commenter, Henry A., wrote to me in an inquisitorial manner questioning the sincerity of my religious beliefs, all because I had made a mistake about what the Bible says about resurrection. This is the kind of behavior I open myself to by having discussions at this site.

[I took issue with the above, but for some inexplicable reason, Mr. Auster chose not to post my comment on his blog. However, the discussion progressed without my input, in which Mr. Auster continued making assertions I had addressed. Here's the part he kept from seeing the light of day at his website (Mr. Auster moderates his forum by allowing comments only via email)]:

WES: It's obvious to me that we'll not agree on this issue, so I won't take it further after this email.

I don't consider points 3 or 4 irrelevant or off-base. They specifically addressed comments you made earlier in this thread, in the formulation of your argument against Coulter. You said:

She issues a humiliating insult at a public figure, and then pretends that she didn’t do so.

My third point took issue with this, with a direct quote that indicates--in my view--that Coulter is not guilty of this accusation. You may disagree, but I'd hardly call it irrelevant to the discussion.

Number four, again, was a specific rebuttal of something you said earlier in this thread:

"and she used her sex to get away with an insult that no man would use against another man unless he was prepared to fight."

How do you harmonize this claim with the very real name-calling--of a much worse nature, I might add--that emanates from the Left on a regular basis, through the broadcast media? Being dubbed a racist or murderer is far worse than having one's sexual orientation questioned or joked about. Are you contending that leftist males don't engage in this behavior regularly against other males on the opposite end of the political spectrum?

As for addressing each point made--obviously you're free to tackle or ignore any or all points; it's your website. But I see it as something of a cheap shot to dismiss specific arguments as mere "childishness," without answering them, then to accuse the person who made them of "complaining" when they point this out.

And for the record, I'm not suggesting that you're suppressing debate, or questioning your honesty in what you believe about Coulter.

(TO BE CONTINUED)