The nonviolence part doesn't include pies
Noticed this interesting piece about a student at a Quaker college who hit a conservative commentator with a pie. I find a few things wrong with this approach:
But the best "protest" quote I've read in a while comes from a story about the (let's be frank) abrasive Ann Coulter. After helping to deliver a heckling at the Kansas University, a protester told a reporter, "We're just not open-minded enough to like Ann Coulter." The organization he represented? The Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics.
(By the way, I'm not suggesting that only liberal protesters are prone to bouts of ridiculousness; but I don't see a lot of these reports in the press. If there's an example you'd like to forward, please do. I may vote Republican, but I know idiocy comes in all kinds of flavors.)
NB: Read the comments for the response of the contra-Coulter quoter.
- The guy is a commentator, not a policymaker. Hitting someone like this with a pie accomplishes nothing except to say that you think people with different views should be hit with pies.
- Why not something like a sign spelling out your objection? Why, exactly, a pie? Is there a subtext I'm missing?
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Quakers supposed to be pacifists? How do they justify using pastry as the projectile of choice in an assault?
But the best "protest" quote I've read in a while comes from a story about the (let's be frank) abrasive Ann Coulter. After helping to deliver a heckling at the Kansas University, a protester told a reporter, "We're just not open-minded enough to like Ann Coulter." The organization he represented? The Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics.
(By the way, I'm not suggesting that only liberal protesters are prone to bouts of ridiculousness; but I don't see a lot of these reports in the press. If there's an example you'd like to forward, please do. I may vote Republican, but I know idiocy comes in all kinds of flavors.)
NB: Read the comments for the response of the contra-Coulter quoter.
posted by Jeff at 4:46 PM
1 Comments:
Thank you very much for your comment, and be assured I will edit the lead post in this thread to encourage future visitors to read your comment.
I am sympathetic to your view that you have been misrepresented. But you've got to admit that there is tremendous and entertaining irony in the quote. I applaud your willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints (an intellectual conscience demands no less), but you seem surprised that the press would seize on something not directly related to your point.
Why the surprise? This is not a left-right media bias thing (I felt the article was slanted against Coulter, but no matter). You spoke with a reporter, and in a perhaps unguarded moment you made a statement that one could not possibly help associating with your group's name. The reporter made the natural choice in selecting the portion to print.
Reporters on both sides of the ideological aisle are quite adept at cramming a jumble of related and unrelated facts into small boxes. That's clearly what happened here. But you gave her a piece of meat, and she can't be faulted for taking a bite.
Post a Comment
<< Home