Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)


Human being? It merely took on a human form for practical purposes, a DNA-test would reveal the truth!


That reminds me of a question that's been running around in my head for years. If Satan is powerful enough to tempt even Jesus, and to plant all those dinosaur bones to fool us, then how hard would it be for him to write a book say, about 2,000 years ago or so, and get people to rely on it as Truth? --Kels 10:40, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Because Bibles come with Satan-proof forcefields, everyone knows that! MiddleMan

Curse their holy technology! It's that Conservative science! --Kels 10:49, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
I thought I mentioned this on another talk page? Anyway, I don't want to spoil anyones fun, but isn't this kind of personal abuse, mmmmm, well, frowned on?--Bob_M (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
I concur. Bad though she is, 'worst person alive' is an altogether more prestigious title.

'Personal "attacks", however justified, are strongly frowned upon.'

From teh rules.

C'mon, we're above CP style personal attacks. I mean, just making an article entirely out of her racist, homophobic, quotes, completely unadulterated, with nothing else, will be a more damning indictment of her than anything we could write. --ύικι ντερπρετηρ woo!

This could all be solved by linking directly to her CP page. They actually tout that she thinks women shouldn't vote. Anyone here on RW would be probably more offended by CP's article. Well, maybe not as much as about McCain's... --Eira 18:49, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Amen. Why make stuff up when we can resort to the Godless and totally biased approach of simply printing what she has said? I mean, for conservatism she's the personification of Poe's Law.

From Media Whore talk page[edit]

that should do for now. αιρδισΗταλκ 09:09, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, but I feel a little bit uncomfortable about making an attack page like this. Doesn't this make us just as bad as ... the [ enemy]? Oh, and w007! We both have hellenised user names!--ύικιντερπρηρwoo!
Shouldn't media whore be a category? It's not like she's the only one. --Kels 09:18, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Shouldn't we at least mention how hot she is?--PalMD-Talk 09:21, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Pal, are you blind???!!!22 olliegrind 09:22, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm sure this must contravene a guideline somewhere or other.--Bob_M (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Perhaps this one?"# Personal "attacks", however justified, are strongly frowned upon. "--Bob_M (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm with Bob M here...while funny it is just a cheap shot. I also suspect that she's a deep cover liberal, kinda like Stephen Colbert is a "right wing" whonk...Her views and obnoxitity are her "act" that Conservatives actually buy-into rather than repudiate (as well they should). As I see it she's going where the money takes her. If I were a better writer I'd stump around the RW talk circuit too, bashing all I see simply because Conservatives will pay for this crap while liberals let Air America founder. ~~ Cracker 09:43, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
I know, i apologise.. it was funny, at least to mine eyes. brief giggle over. αιρδισΗταλκ 09:44, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
As I know nothing at all about this woman I've reduced it to a stub.--Bob_M (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
During those brief periods of time when her mouth is shut, she might well be thought "hot" by a person who had never heard or read her views on, well, anything. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs


Hey, say what you want about her politics, but take it easy, cuz she is SOOO hot.--DoxXox-DawkT0wk 21:57, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Even with the man hands, she's still hot.--DoxXox-DawkT0wk 22:04, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
I just famoused you in the article, you big-hands-loving-goat-milking freak! humanbe in 22:07, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
Hey, Ann, why the long face? Dude, she's a horse. A male horse. Stile4aly 00:46, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
Hot? For a transsexual, maybe. But the sheer ugliness of her views pretty much cancels out any physical good looks she might have. It's hard to enjoy looking at someone when you can see, behind their eyes, the sucking black void where their soul used to be before they ate it to make room for more hate. --Gulik 01:26, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
Er... no comment. ɧєɭıסş-get sunburn! 18:45, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
As someone who's good friends with a number of transsexuals, I don't appreciate you using them as the butt of a stupid joke against someone you don't like, and insulting them in the process. --Kels 12:10, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

An IQ of less than 70 is a real turnoff for me. But was "it" born as a man, or not? MiddleMan 18:54, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Her vocabulary outshines yours, as well as her understanding of history. I am also concerned, though, because a person with an IQ below 70 is considered a "vulnerable adult." Don't be unkind to the less fortunate by using their plight as an insult. HeartGold tx 00:54, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, I've just been to Google images and I must say that she doesn't look that hot to me. (Even including the surprisingly large number of doctored porno images of her.) Can we set up a poll to decide if she officially RW hot or not? --Bob_M (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

It has a faint glow of hellfire in it's eyes and that cheap 90's porno-blonde look (not really my thing), I'm surprised conservatives don't reprimand it for that and the fact that it had extramarital sex (or fornication if you will)... MiddleMan 09:49, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

She does?? With liberals? What's her number?User:DocSock
I think that was from WWZ were she(an expy) is seen making out/fornicating (been a year since I last read it, can't remember) with Bill Maher (also an expy).Tyrannis (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It has fornicated several men (they're on milk cartons now) and never got married, if it knew you were a liberal it would kill you before the act, instead of after it. You may however be able to deceive it by offering it the head of a slain homosexual. MiddleMan 09:55, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

OK, homersexual volunteers? User:DocSock
I think Jeb would be down. ollïegrïnd 09:58, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
Um..what do you mean by "down"? That doesn't sound as good. User:DocSock
What's going on doc? You too lazy to login? ollïegrïnd 10:01, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

I must warn you my brave friend, many have tried before, none have returned to speak about it. Such are the ways of the beast, however I shall give you this talisman, may it protect you from the beast's conservative powers.

I see your talisman, but some how i feel it may be a, er, setup?--DoxXox-DawkT0wk 10:13, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

You are wise my friend, stay away form the beast and you shall live. MiddleMan 10:34, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

I'd tap that... but I can't guarantee I wouldn't try to smother it with a pillow afterwards. Wazza (Yes, that Wazza)Bring a little light into my dim and dull existence 02:02, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

You know, looking at her, I might be tempted to go lesbian... but then I remember that she hates all women, and thinks we shouldn't vote, and I'd hate to end up in a lesbian couple with her, in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, while she's in the living room drinking beer and yelling at the football game. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 20:52, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
Why are you pregnant?? Why has she turned into a man??? Nothing about this scenario makes any sense! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!It doesn't make you less of a man, it makes you more of a shoe. 20:59, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
My job here is done, *flies off to confuse someone else* --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 16:26, 19 May 2008 (EDT)


Most of this discussion is seriously offensive and homo/transphobic. Are some of you guys even reading what you type? --Kels 12:18, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Hey, she's hot whether she's XX, XY, XXY, XYY, he/she, tranny, whatever. I just don't want her to kill me.--DoxXox-DawkT0wk 12:49, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
This is getting surreal. Kels defending the grounds upon which other liberals are attacking Coulter. My brain has gone into an Nth complexity infinite binary loop. Be back after reset. HeartGold tx 01:01, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Nah, it's more complex than that, see, we only attack Ann Coulter on that because of its views on anything that is even remotely homosexual, which would make it incredibly hypocritical. MiddleMan 06:32, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm pretty sure she is a transwoman. Honestly, I know plenty of transwomen who pass better than her, even before facial feminization surgery. I'm not sure if I want proof of it to get out, as a transman with numerous other transgender friends I would really not want to be associated with this imbecile yet I would love for her hypocrisy to be exposed. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

If it's a cruel, degrading offense to lawyers to identify her as a lawyer, it's even worse to suggest she's a transsexual. That would imply that she's a human being.

Anyone who believes that accusing Ann Coulter of being transgender is a more effective way to demean her than quoting her own words is saying a lot more about how much he/she despises transgender people than how much he/she despises Ann Coulter. (And by the way, that includes the stupid pronoun crap -- she's a she until we hear convincing evidence to the contrary.) — Unsigned, by: ‎ / talk / contribs

Adam's Apple[edit]

It's well documented. She has also stated recently that she is more of a man than any liberal. The defense rests. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I think someone needs some edjumakashun:

The laryngeal prominence is usually more prominent in adult men than in women or prepubescent girls or boys. Note that the growth of the larynx itself during puberty is responsible for the vocal instability in teenage boys, not the laryngeal prominence. The laryngeal prominence is merely the protrusion one sees of the thyroid cartilage making up the body of the larynx. Some suggest that the reason for the laryngeal prominence usually being more prominent in males is that the two laminae of the thyroid cartilage that form the protrusion meet at an angle of 90° in males but that angle is usually 120° in females. This theory, however, seems more like conjecture when the fact is taken into consideration that with most women with a large laryngeal prominence appear no different from those seen on men.

A prominent laryngeal prominence is commonly considered a male secondary sex characteristic though this is more of a perception than anything pointing to scientific fact since not all males have large laryngeal prominence and there are quite a few women who do.[1]

An adam's apple and/or large hands do not distinguish men and women accurately. While there is a large bias one way or the other, there is an incredible amount of overlap. --Eira 19:00, 11 December 2007 (EST)
I think the thing about the laryngeal prominence is that it's more noticable when you're extremely thin. Coulter gives me the vibe of someone with a serious weight problem, whether it's dieting/anorexia or maybe she's hiding a medical condition, I dunno. Either way, she's just too damn thin, which I find creepy regardless of politics. --Kels 19:29, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Yes, weight certainly does play a factor, and like you said, she's just too damn thin. Actually I am as well... so... yeah... my friends hate me, because I can eat fast food anytime I want to. :( --Eira 18:12, 12 December 2007 (EST)


Why did this get moved? Its highly factual not essay material at all. - Icewedge 10:33, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

It is an opinion piece. HeartGoldPreach to somebody not in the choir 10:34, 21 July 2007 (CDT)
Also, just read the article on Rush Limbaugh. It has some opinion left, but it is not so bad as this Ann Coulter essay. HeartGoldPreach to somebody not in the choir 10:57, 21 July 2007 (CDT)
Please discuss before moving. Add fact tags so things can be footnoted. Also, keep in mind that to an extent, this site is an opinion piece. humanbe in 12:41, 21 July 2007 (CDT)


How the hell tall is RobS if he can call Ann Coulter petite? From what I've read, the woman's six feet tall! Not that unusual among women these days (go past any high school), but not what you'd normally consider petite. --Kels 23:43, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

I always thought petite was 5ft 2in or less (well at least in the clothing industry). 16:45, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
That's what I thought, but apparently RobS lives in the Land of Giants. --Kels 16:57, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

See also?[edit]

Who're we trying to insult with the transgender see also's? Why would it be insulting TO AC if there is nothing wrong with being TG/TS? If she is in fact NOT TG/TS then why insinuate that she is, (unless, of course, the editor finds there to be something "wrong" with being TG/TS)?St. CЯacke® 10:09, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

I agree - there's enough to about Coulter to trash without resorting to that kind of thing. Can it. PFoster 11:38, 25 August 2007 (CDT)
It got undone, just a noob adding what everyone might first throw at AC. We cleaned this article up once before over similar issues. It will probably happen again. Go easy on the slanderers. After all, AC is such a hateful person, some people just see red. But let's not compliment her by saying she's GLBTQ aware. humanbe in 22:31, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Rousseau - vian[edit]

Isn't it spelled Rousseauvian? Or is that just the pronunciation? Just wondering if the quote is tight, or if we need a [sic} or not... humanbe in 22:29, 28 August 2007 (CDT)


Petite goat for sale, eats anything, refuses to touch Coulter "books". humanbe in 16:01, 5 September 2007 (CDT)


Don't forget the general hotness of her, though. User:DocSock

Hell yeah. I'd fuck her in a second (ball gag assumed). Or get her to fuck me. Just imagine the cock on it - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
You have got to be fucking kidding me. Although I'd agree on the ball gag. Scarlet A.pngmoral 16:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I think I'm right on the cock size - David Gerard (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


Why don't we port over exactly the same quotes CP has? They pretty much fit our purpose as well, strangely enough, from my quick skim of them. And they're all already wikified and footnutted! humanbe in 19:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)


So I have an offer to join the law firm where Coulter started. Apparently she didn't like it, and left; also, she didn't fit in there. The question is, do the totality of the circumstances (that she joined, but she didn't like it) work in favor of or against said firm?-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 13:08, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

I would say the fact that she didn't like it is pretty high praise of the law firm. I Eat Glue 13:12, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Right, but I hear that the reason she didn't fit in there is "not what you would expect." What does that mean?-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 13:13, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

It means "don't listen to every piece o' scuttlebutt you come across". IMO it's not going to matter where you go to work since you're only going to be there a short while, two, three years tops. You strike me as a very Type A personage who will likely strike out on their own after paying down some bills and looking at the lay of the land. Relax and have fnu, make some money, do some pro bono. Contribute mighty (financially) to a wiki.
CЯacke® 13:53, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Cracker, I do intend to do that last thing in a very real way. Also, my personal dream is to litigate against Schlafly. He may be smarter than me (although he hides it well), but he's just plain wrong.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 14:01, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't know anyone who wasn't dropped on their head while young who Shachfli is smarter than. And as far as that dream, I'm sure you can find a way to do it - since you track his online slanders/libels, etc., you can offer pro bono representation to someone he has clearly wronged... with any luck. humanUser talk:Human 18:46, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
Think Richard Dawkins would be interested? He might have a case... --Gulik 23:05, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Hmn....that's too bad for the law firm. Ann Coulter should be president, or at least Secretary of State. HeartGoldPreach to somebody not in the choir 01:26, 12 December 2007 (EST)
That would be like putting the reanimated corpse of L. Ron Hubbard in charge of the FDA. --Gulik 14:50, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Philip Pullman[edit]

Any relation to Mrs. Coulter ? Streona 17:09, 6 January 2008 (EST)

A Poem?[edit]

In Depreciation.

Unlearnt co.

to cruel Ann,

unrectal no,

one cult ran.

Real con nut

non-u cartel.

Enrol a cunt

to Ann cruel.

Run lone act.

No true clan.

Earn on cult.

Lucre to Ann.

Neuron talc.

Alt run once.

Lunate corn.

Ultra nonce.

No-clue rant.

No curt elan.

No-rule cant.

Toe-curl Ann.

Not unclear

unclean rot.

Nuclear ton

cure Ann lot.

Sesquihypercerebrel 01:12, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Wow, nice work. humanUser talk:Human 15:00, 5 March 2008 (EST)

cut from article to discuss[edit]

"Although transsexualism is entirely natural and acceptable, there is some question over whether Ann Coulter was actually born a woman. If you look closely at a photograph of her masculine face you can see what appears to be a very large Adam's apple sticking out of her giraffe-like neck. Although such suspicions remain unconfirmed this may explain why she hates women so much despite identifying as a woman. Although, it should be noted that the Adam's apple is a variable trait on all individuals, and its size depends upon the amount of androgens introduced into a person's body, and it is neither impossible, nor uncommon for women to develop a reasonable Adam's apple."

This wild speculation, which proceeds to undo its own point, just seems silly. Please also see several discussions above on the topic of Ann's alleged sexuality, etc. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:30, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

I would love to keep it in there, but not in this form. It's a fun, stupid, childish name calling that *sometimes* just feels good when someone is so vile and ugly. But it could be done in a cute "no one really belives this, but we had to report the rumor, anyhow" way, I would think.--Waiting for Godot 15:35, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
*nod* I agree. It's a snarky comment about her... I wonder about the purpose of RW sometimes, because to me, it exists mostly to snarkily and humorously make fun of people who think irrationally... that just happens to be most often the fundies... although hippies, and other liberal nutheads are certainly there as well. If we can't take a woman who's obviously an attention whore and attempting to act out a crazy parody of fundies and make fun of her... what purpose does RW serve at all? It should be important to note that being TS isn't wrong, but rather simply her vindictive attitude towards women is certainly a sign of some self-loathing of their own gender at the very least. It at least deserves attention her feelings about her gender, and the potentiality of her being transsexual. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 19:55, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
"If we can't take a woman who's obviously an attention whore and attempting to act out a crazy parody of fundies and make fun of her" - but we do, have you read the rest of the article? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:15, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, I follow 90%/10% rule in reading talk pages over articles... :) I know we're teasing her, but teasing her by questioning her gender... well, that's just limiting free speech. :) --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 21:12, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

What's weird is, I've looked close at pics of her, and I don't see anything I'd judge as an Adam's apple. What I do see is a woman who's probably anorexic, and certainly not of a healthy weight in any case. The bony knees, elbows, cheeks, etc. point in that direction, which might fit in well with Eira's "self-loating" scenario. It's also interesting that it's been pointed out that she was much tamer in her vitriol before the big time, and got worse as things went along, which suggests that this is, in large part, performance art. She knows where the gravy train stops, and has no shame about just wading right in there. --Kels 20:01, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, it's a prominence, but not a big one... certainly not enough to be called an "Adam's apple". As well, her voice is far too high to have a significant prominence of an Adam's apple, since the expansion of the voice box is what causes both the prominence and the deeper voice. I would say that her voice is definitely in the higher range, based on the limited amount that I've listened to her. I don't think it's likely that she's a transsexual male to female, but hey... she has enough self-gender hatred to start a war against women herself. I think by making the suggestion that she justifies her hatred of women, or rather her "hating on" women, because she herself might feel uncomfortable about her own gender itself... whether that be female or male. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 21:12, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

This transsexual sees no point in making the same old observations which, no matter their rational truth, seem to impress very few. But here's the practical view point: There's so much to roast AC on that's true; why make shit up? It's kind of like "Hitler? Yeah, he ordered the Holocaust, he suppressed the freedom (and the lives) of millions of Germans, he launched a war of aggression that became the most lethal conflict in the history of the human race, he executed his own allies in the most cynical political moves, he set his own country up for utter devastation ... and he only had one testicle." — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Because it's snarky, silly, and mean? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

From Conservapedia/Ann Coulter, some talk page stuff I was involved in.[edit]

I am putting this here because I was banned from Conservapedia (4th time I think), and I thought it better be archived. Just thought it was interesting. FYI, I am YesALiberal — Unsigned, by: Jimaginator / talk / contribs 16:51, 25 August 2008‎ (UTC)

== Not a big fan (remark) ==

Frankly, I don't see why Ann Coulter's contempt for the First Amendment is being reverted (THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL TITLE OF THE TALK SUBSECTION Jimaginator 14:42, 25 August 2008 (EDT))

"Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment." University of Florida speech; October 20, 2005

Why is this being reverted? She said it, it's factual, informative, and goes to the heart of who she is. The Bill of Rights is an amazing pillar of American Freedom. Conservapedia, and a million other sources of information might not even exist without it. If she has such contempt for the Constitution of the United States, why not say so? Yesaliberal 11:07, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

The links did not work; no way to see the information is accurate. --cp:User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 11:12, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
I don't know about the links, I'm no HTML expert, but this URL will get you there. Yesaliberal 11:25, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, I was able to figure out how to make the link work. Yesaliberal 12:00, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
The article does not say that she has contempt for the 1A, or explain the context for the quote. RSchlafly 12:45, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Fair enough. She said she is not a big fan of the First Amendment. Yesaliberal 12:48, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
You'd hang someone for saying she is 'not a big fan of ' something? She may be a medium fan, or no fan at all. The quote is so vague that it does not merit inclusion. Bugler 13:01, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I would, especially because: 1. We are not talking about being "a big fan" of some silly movie here, we are talking about the Bill of Rights. 2. The Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of American Freedom and should never be taken lightly especially by those who profess to be protecting American Freedom. 3. Any prominent liberal who said this would be burned alive in this forum. 4. My attempts to include the context for Obama's not wearing a flag pin were reverted. 5. Truth is truth and fairness is fairness, and including or excluding certain facts in order to bias an article is deceit whether commited by a conservative or a liberal. John 8:32 Yesaliberal 13:18, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Coulter's point is obvious: she's not a "big fan" of how the First Amendment has been misinterpreted by the courts. Coulter is not attacking the Bill of Rights as originally understood in any way.--Aschlafly 13:22, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

She also criticized the media for being liberal and Democrats for whining about their rights under the First Amendment. "They're always accusing us of repressing their speech," she said. "I say let's do it. Let's repress them." She later added, "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."

Where does she talk about the courts? Corry 13:29, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Where does she talk about the courts? Yesaliberal 13:42, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Here is the (partial) context of the remark:

She also criticized the media for being liberal and Democrats for whining about their rights under the First Amendment.
"They're always accusing us of repressing their speech," she said. "I say let's do it. Let's repress them."
She later added, "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."

The question, obviously, is what she meant by this. She might have meant that she wants to suppress the speech of everyone who contradicts her; but based on my reading of 3 of her books I find that impossible to believe.

It's more likely that she was making a satirical point. We could email her for a clarification, if necessary, but what she probably means is that she opposes the abuse of the First Amendment.

Writers, be careful not to make ideological edits; i.e., do not add anything to an article which promotes your ideology in an illegitimate way, such as out of context quotation or quote mining. Don't copy the strategy of Bushisms, the anti-George Bush book which collects as many "damaging quotes" as possible with the aim of making him look stupid.

You may, of course, report truthfully that a certain published author or other prominent person made an argument about Ann Coulter, based on a 10-word quotation from a lengthy speech. That's not an ideological edit; that's reporting someone's viewpoint.

In general, avoid unattributed views, implications, and insinuations. --Ed Poor Talk 21:23, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Retrieved from ""

Thanks to user Susan who told me how to get the formatting here!

Jimaginator 14:12, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

I think this is what Ed gave me a two week block for. "Writers, be careful not to make ideological edits" is pure gold. CorryNo, what I'm calling you is a television actor. 14:23, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
Corry, I know I was blocked for this because it was the only thing I was editing at the time. It happened right after I echoed your "Where does she talk about the courts?" I think a double request for the same information just makes them plain old mad. You're right about the "pure gold." Sometimes I truly can't believe what I am reading sometimes. Thanks for your comments. 8-) Jimaginator 14:37, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
No no no... I think it's hilarious that he's all "don't quote mine", and it's like, wait, what does their FEMINISM ARTICLE CONSIST OF? It's like, the entire page is quote mined. I think it's no surprise to anyone here, "don't quote mine unless you're attacking a liberal, or making a conservative look good." --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 17:32, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Anagram for posterity[edit]

  • "Anagramming my name does not yield "No Real Cunt", this is liberal deceit."

Had to save it here, it's too funny to lose to merely not being true. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, it is true... it is an anagram of her name... I think we need add a new section... --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 19:19, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

The part that isn't true is the above being an AC quote. PS, a few sections above is a lovely poem constructed entirely of annagrams. I don't think it's a good idea for a section, but perhaps a sub-page? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:29, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, I just couldn't resist adding it. It seemed like the article is half fact and fiction anyway. I would never put such a bogus thing on WP, but I wonder sometimes if RW has an identity crisis, and will soon have to make up it's mind whether it is going to include the jokes or not. I would miss them, but scholarly refutation of bad science and logic, and balancing CP's awfulness is a very laudable goal. And yes, I got the anagram idea from the poem above.

Jimaginator 11:45, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Whoever added the subsection "Annagrams" instead of "Anagrams,", you are brilliant! Jimaginator 13:40, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
That was Eira :) ħumanUser talk:Human 15:36, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
Operation Salvage Credibility So We Can Get Outside Funding: moving the anagram section to funspace. Nutty Rouxnever mind 09:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation for quotes?[edit]

It looks a bit CPesque without sources for these quotes, what's to say us deceitful bastards didn't just make them up? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 22:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but it looks like the three we didn't make up do have cites. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


About a third of the summary introduction to this woman's article is a discussion over whether she's physically attractive. That, my friends, is ugly. --Mqduck (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I read it as being quotes from her fans. Presumably in need of citation - David Gerard (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
At least some of it was a direct reference to "hot or not" discussions that have taken place on this talk page. It doesn't matter what the source is, though. The first characterization she is given -- in fact the very first statement made, translates to: "Despite what some may have claimed, Ann Coulter is not stunning, petite or debonaire. She's a 'cluster' bombshell with a horse nose." In an article dedicated to mocking her (which she no doubt deserves, for her views), her earliest derision is that she's unattractive because of her nose, but then she's quickly resexualized with the "(cluster) bombshell" pun. The summary ends with the line "There are also, sadly, RW editors who think she is 'hot'", which I don't think requires comment. --Mqduck (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't let me hold you back from going the hack on it, by all means. Cites regarding her status as wingnut sex symbol are relevant, though. My horror at finding out that Pauline Hanson was considered a right-wing sex symbol ... - David Gerard (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't shed a tear or lose any sleep if all reference to Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter being "hot or not" disappeared. Scarlet A.pngmoral 14:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, she's certainly a "wingnut" (a term I'm still not used to the sound of, but that's another matter). And I know I've heard her attractiveness or lack thereof brought up in various places before. I'm not personally aware of her having any particular status as a "wingnut sex symbol", though (and I didn't notice any obvious citations in the current article). If it's anything like what I've seen so far though, it's in the form of people expressing their casual hostility towards her by playfully/sarcastically/"jokingly" reducing her to a sex object. If it were all up to me, I'd leave that stuff off entirely. However, even though I thoroughly believe my view is the correct one, I'm sure I'm far outnumbered by those who think it's funny to some degree. So I'm not going to try to excise it from the article, even if I might get away with it. But I would like to remove it from her primary description, and ask that we try to be careful to avoid implying that one's opinion of her should be judged by any different criteria than, say, Sean Hannity: the ugly, hateful things she says and the people and movements she associates with.
Perhaps you can make a suitable section in the main body of the article, and elaborate on her sex symbolness. Maybe you could also explain to me this "petite" thing the article's got going on. Nobody likes being left out of a joke. :)
Anyway, I'm going to put off any editing of the article until tomorrow. --Mqduck (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Pff... I thought it was funny to mockingly allude to a possible transsexual history with her. But some people felt it was insensitive to transsexuals. *shrug* The "petite" joke is because a good conservative woman is suppose to conform strictly to female gender roles, and be petite, and dainty... not hostile and offensive. Thus, it's used satirically against her. No one would describe her as "petite", but it diminishes her by using it. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Mqduck that the sexually-charged comments need to go. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I went and employed a scorched earth policy towards sexualizing content in this article. I also made some other edits while I was at it. Please feel free to challenge me on the necessity or wisdom of any of it. Here's a rundown:

  • The crap, most of which I already talked about, has been removed from the introduction. I briefly considered removing the picture of her, but it feels fine outside of an objectifying context.
  • Removed the "Coulter blows Clinton" section. By no stretch of the imagination or the English language could anyone defend it by calling it parody or satire.
  • The various occurrences of the word "petite" throughout the article have been removed. I decided to do so, even in light of Eira's explanation for two reasons. First, in my opinion, it just doesn't work as a joke. The term "petite" hardly makes one's mind jump to the stereotype of the obedient housewife. It just ends up being confusing. Second, as far as criticizing conservative gender rolls goes, I don't think mocking an assertive, well-known, independent woman for not staying in the kitchen (so to speak) is the best form to take.
  • I changed some of the wording in the paragraph on her defense of McCarthyism which I think improves it in a couple different ways.
  • I removed the Ipecac section. This one I really don't understand. It's got one part in it that implies that Coulter's bulimic, but that's the closest I could find to something resembling a joke. Please tell me if there's something I'm not getting here.

One more thing: Though I didn't do anything to it, the paragraph about some judge named Richard A. Posner naming her in a list feels kind of unfair to me. It mentions that this judge made the insane statement that she's one of the "top 100 public intellectuals" and then goes on to list some possibly even more insane things that he's said, which feels to me like an attempt to establish some sort of guilt by (very tenuous) association. --Mqduck (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I take issue with the "petite", your argument is definitely persuasive, but I think it lacks a simple acknowledgement: she espouses the subjugation of women to men herself. She thinks we shouldn't be able to vote, and various other erroneous objections to feminism, much like Mother Schlafly. As such, mocking the dissonance between her assertive words and the meaning of those words that women should back down and be submissive is entirely appropriate. Perhaps we can find a compromise? Perhaps just a single header under which we discuss this topic semi-seriously? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The hypocrisy you point out should absolutely be pointed out in the article and, in line with its tone, mocked. What I'd hate to see, though, is "mockery" being used as just an excuse to hurl misogynist insults at her. --MQDuck (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not misogyny to turn one's anti-feminism against herself. I will note my state as a female, and a feminist, and state that hurling insulting misrepresentations of a person back against them is perfectly valid when they spew so much hate themselves. If the biggest White Power leader was discovered to have black genetics, I could see a satire in calling him a "nigger", and when the Christians leading the charge against homosexuals is revealed to enjoy private interludes with rent boys, I don't see anything wrong in satirically labeling them "fags". --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 00:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Trouble is, I think we might risk a straw man situation if we say something along the lines of Coulter not chaining herself to the nearest kitchen sink despite her anti-feminist views. Scarlet A.pngmoral 00:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't really agree. It's most certainly humorous to suggest that. But, I mean, her position really is hypocritical, is it not? What strawman can we really be accused of? Applying her argument to her own deeds and actions? Refusing to allow her the exception she demands of allowing strong confidence assertive conservative women to not play by the rules she herself claims? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 00:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Calling George Rekers, who you allude to, a fag isn't satire. The word isn't less ugly because the one you're hurling it against is an ugly person. If you walked up to Rekers and told him, "hey, you homophobic jerk -- you're a fag!", who's the one being hypocritical there? At best you're sacrificing credibility in order to craft the most personally hurtful insult possible. --MQDuck (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Which is the benefit of having groups that do not have the credibility-to-lose problem. They can speak the honest ugly truth, without risking their "credibility", because they do not care about it. To wit, does RW have credibility, or humorous honesty? If we only care about credibility, there are much more credible sources of information, and by taking the snarky approach, we have already willingly conceded some of our credibility. At some point, where is a benefit to having a place where we can get together and be uncivil about those who deserve mockery. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
You're evading my point. Anyway, as I've said before, I don't mind mockery. But there's a difference between mocking hateful language or pointing out the hypocrisy in it or satirizing it or turning it on its head against the speaker... and merely copying that language and using in the same way, with the same meaning. If that's all you're doing, you're acting no better than they did. --MQDuck (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Your attempts to ennoble this forum is well received, if not perhaps hopeless. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 04:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, new user, for overriding things we have had here for three-odd years. The conflict lefties have with Coulter's "attractiveness" (or not) was a major literary tension in this article. Too bad you didn't understand it. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
About this... I didn't set out originally to drastically alter the tone of any article on RationalWiki which, as you mention, I'm new to. I merely felt compelled to criticize some of the content of this article. But based on the reaction I got, I felt a) encouraged to make those edits, and b) like I was the one expected to do so. Apologies to anyone who feels I overstepped my bounds. --MQDuck (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think ours became a discussion in its own right, somewhat divergent from a discussion of this article. --MQDuck (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Human just has a stick up his ass about "his" articles (and all articles are his). You can ignore him. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed... if he isn't reverting your edits then he's just expressing his tantrum in electronic form. Speaking of which *rolls around on the ground whining about how 'petite' was removed from the article* --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
IMO the article is better now. It shows up the stark staring lunacy for those of us who don't experience her delights in their original form - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Anita Hill[edit]

I had no idea Ann Coulter used to work for Anita Hill. That aside, I thought we agreed with Hill's claims that she was sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas. With that in mind, why do we refer to her in passing as a "fringe notable" along with Paula Jones? Rabbitxhampster (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)