The Coulter hoax
This post's sole author is Peter Olofsson. I am posting it as a courtesy to Peter and have not contributed a single word to it. Here starts Peter's text:
When confronted with Ms. Ann Coulter's diatribe against evolutionary biology in her 2006 book Godless, many educated readers will be upset, annoyed, outraged. However, if one instead assumes that Ms. Coulter is only joking, in fact providing a faux criticism of evolution in order to expose the ID movement in a Sokalian fashion, her writing suddenly becomes a brilliant satire.
Continue reading The Coulter Hoax at Talk Reason
12 Comments
Frank J · 14 March 2007
Before everyone jumps in with "no way it's a hoax, she really believes that nonsense," let me remind everyone that she does not necessarily have to believe a word of it to promote it, as satire or otherwise.
An intersting tidbit is that, after writing it, Coulter admitted on the Michael Medved radio show that she was an "idiot" about science. Which means that she would not be able to tell whether Dembski et. al. (who practically wrote the chapters) were just feeding her nonsense that just "felt good"?
Doug Schwer · 14 March 2007
That's a great article! Seriously, sometimes the most appropriate response to creationist arguments seems to be: "Is this a joke?" Sadly, creationists spout their arguments with such conviction and veracity that unless one steps away and thinks about the argument logically, they may not realize just how silly it is! Which can be a problem, considering how many people like to avoid thinking.
Doug
Kristine · 14 March 2007
Gawd, I am beyond caring about what Ann Coulter personally believes. You know what I think? I think that, as women (except me, because I prefer to yak about this stuff) bond by kvetching about their weight, men bond by talking about Ann Coulter.
And you know what, maybe she realizes this, too. Maybe that's what's she satirizing, if anything.
Sir_Toejam · 14 March 2007
I like the tack this piece takes, but really, it's way too long and too dry to be considered a piece of good satire.
trust me, the creationists will quote mine this as if it were supportive of Coulter somehow.
Roger Albin · 14 March 2007
No, its pretty good satire. Olofsson captures the silliness of academic post-modernist criticism nicely. Its simultaneously a good critique of Coulter and a send up of post-modernist garbage. Its defects are that Olofsson doesn't use terms narrative, discourse, trope, or Foucaultian. Another give away is that he is too clear a writer to be a real post-modernist critic.
Adam · 14 March 2007
Ann Coulter did write some pretty good, witty satire several years ago. She started loosing her touch somewhere around 2005, and since then seems to have lost some of her sanity. My guess is that with her speaches now filled with sophomoric vulgarities and epithets, few right wing groups will be willing to invite her any more. I doubt she'll speek at CPAC ever again.
MelM · 14 March 2007
Admirably clever!
MarkP · 14 March 2007
Coulter's signficance is as a measure of the bare minimum of barebones crazy people out there, because that is what someone would have to be to support what she says these days.
Popper's Ghost · 15 March 2007
Laser · 15 March 2007
Popper's Ghost · 16 March 2007
Raging Bee · 16 March 2007
Even more pathetic than Coulter, are her fans. First they defend her as a serious commentator/pundit saying important things that we all have to take seriously. Then, the minute they are faced with criticism of her statements, they turn around and call her a comedienne, and say it was all a joke. They don't have the guts, either to stand by their princess, or to admit that she -- and the hatreds to which she panders -- are wrong.
And, of course, they can't learn courage from their princess, because she has none herself.