How to prove Ann Coulter is crazy using Google and a phone. pt 2

So how do you prove generalizations? Most people rationalize them, but very few actually try to prove them. It is very difficult to prove generalizations because they are always based on false assumptions. Ann has found a great formula for her proof. I like to call this formula, one for all and all for one.

There are two steps to this formula. First, take a comment that has been made by any member of the group and apply it all. This one is pretty useful: if one liberal says they don’t believe in God than no liberals do. In this way you can take anything ever said and label the whole group with it. Best of all this can be done regardless of how unrelated the individual is to the group. This is how Ann can prove that liberals love both Stalin and Hitler.

The second step is where it gets clever. It is not enough for a group to stand for certain beliefs, but the individuals believe everything the whole group does. If one liberal says they don’t like the death penalty because it’s inhumane than all liberals, as individuals, believe the same thing and no liberals believe differently. This goes further than a label or statistic. In Ann’s world the idea is concrete not a possibility. Like the first step, this step can be done regardless of the individual.

By following these steps Ann finds contradictions in the liberal mentality. For Ann she can say the following and it makes sense. When talking about the death penalty Ann will say “They say that life in prison thinking about the crime is worse than death. Evidently not to the murders on death row who regularly fight their execution tooth and nail. But just so we understand, is the problem here that the death penalty is too humane, or not humane enough?”¹ Ann uses “they” to make sure she doesn’t have to quote anyone and can attribute to all liberals equally. She uses this kind of statement to prove that all liberals have an innate hypocrisy in their ideology. She completely ignores that a group can’t be hypocritical because it’s made up of many different mentalities and ideologies.

It is possible for an individual to be a hypocrite. So here is my favorite example of Ann demonstrating the concept. In her book Slander Ann makes the following statement. “More than other hate speech, the left’s attacks on women for being ugly tell you everything. There is nothing so irredeemably cruel as an attack on a woman for her looks. Attacking a female for being ugly is a hideous thing, always inherently vicious.”²

So anyone, by Ann’s standards, anyone who attacks women for their looks is irredeemably cruel, and vicious. Ann, you are irredeemably cruel, and vicious. Here is what she has to say about Susie Landalfy and Andrea Duerkan. “…Miss Landalfy, to put it as charitably as possible is physically repulsive in apearance. With a presentation that was about as erotic as phone sex with Andrea Duerkan, or actual sex with Andrea Duerkan come to think of it”¹ The rest of the quote just gets worse, but you can listen to it yourself.

1. Ann Coulter, “Godless, The Church Of Liberalism,” [audio CD] Random House Audio. I attached the audio so you can listen to Ann says all these things herself.

2. Ann Coulter. “Slander: Liberal Lies About The American Right.” Crown Publishers, New York, New York. 2002

How to prove Ann Coulter is crazy using Google and a phone.

I’ve always heard that Ann Coulter was crazy, but I wanted to find out for myself. Because of some deep curiosity, or my slight masochistic tendency, I decided to read Ann’s books. So I did something desperate and went to the public library and found three books: Slander, Godless, and Guilty. Then I read and listened, two of the books are audio books. Reading Ann’s books are not easy to get through - especially if you actually bother to read what she says. In the end I think what I have found is worth it, but I know some parts of my soul will never grow back. What I have managed to do is compile a list of all the ways in which Ann is a nutcase as well as all the lies and the ways in which Ann uses them. I manage to do all this using nothing more than the Internet and my landline.

Part 1: Assume a liberal
Ann really only has one book: How liberals have destroyed society. This is the only theme that Ann has. In order to make her argument Ann starts with one big lie. Ann asks the reader to blindly assume a lot about liberal and a lot of it is false. Ann never tries to prove her assumptions; we are just told that they are true. In Ann’s world liberal are “Druids”, who “hate science”, and “deny the existence of God”. Liberal also “hate mankind”, “love Stalin”, are “zealots”, and “hate America and God”. Yes we can hate God while we deny he/she exists. This is Ann’s starting point. She starts with “liberals are nutcases” and just tells us to trust this statement. Here’s a great example of what Ann considers a good argument: “If Hitler hadn’t turned on their beloved Stalin, Liberals would have stuck by him too.” This argument is for why liberal will defend anything hateful. She has no proof of her beginning statement, “liberals are nutcases”, and so anything she says from here will sound crazy. She starts with crazy and moves onto to crazy, all with false assumptions. Ann doesn’t stop at just false assumptions, she continues into something that I don’t think has a word.

Here’s another great argument by Ann: “Colleges pick up where the public schools leave off inculcating students in the religion of hating America and hating God.” This I would usually call generalization, but Ann makes sure her generalizations start at awful. Most generalizations can at least be rationalized, but what Ann says can’t. Her comments serve two purposes; first she makes sure that liberals sound like nutcases. Second she makes the reader believe that all liberals think the same. This kind of argument I don’t think has name, but I would call it lying. The way she argues is rather brilliant because it can be used on any group. Let me show how to use it against Republicans. “Conservatives are superstitious, who hate the earth so much that they are willing to waste money and gas on watching car go around in circles.” These are gross generalizations that can’t be proven. I’m pretty sure that there are Republicans that don’t like NASCAR just like there are liberals that do. I also believe that believing in God does not make you superstitious. Nothing in my sentence can be proven right. Ann, however, has found a great way to do it.

Next time:
Part Two: All for one, and one for all.

1. Ann Coulter, “Godless, The Church Of Liberalism,” [audio CD] Random House Audio.