Margaret Cho's hate mail

>The link you just posted contains no more of Margaret's

>material than what you previously posted.

I posted the link so Doug and others could see "selected excerpts" were taken out of the whole context from other performers as well.

>The link you just posted contains no more of Margaret's

>material than what you previously posted.

I posted the link so Doug and others could see "selected excerpts" were taken out of the whole context from other performers as well.

>Fortunately, middle American is not relating to this kind of

>stinking behavoir. She should really lay off the drugs, it

>makes your judgement poor to say the least!

Since when did middle America become Margaret Cho’s fan base? Have you ever seen her act? It is wickedly funny, extremely dirty, completely over the top, and not meant to be the pabulum of middle America.

I believe that’s the only point Rick and others are trying to make and it has nothing to do with her judgment. This was a non-issue until Drudge excerpted her act into a venue full of people who had probably never seen or thought about a Margaret Cho performance in their life. (Apparently a very unimaginative group if they had to resort to race baiting!)

As to VDN’s (correct I think) point. Do you see this as any different than someone taking gay porn and broadcasting it on something like the ‘700 Club?’ Wouldn’t that spawn just as much hate mail and be just as meaningless as an indicator of the propriety of the material?

>Fortunately, middle American is not relating to this kind of

>stinking behavoir. She should really lay off the drugs, it

>makes your judgement poor to say the least!

Since when did middle America become Margaret Cho’s fan base? Have you ever seen her act? It is wickedly funny, extremely dirty, completely over the top, and not meant to be the pabulum of middle America.

I believe that’s the only point Rick and others are trying to make and it has nothing to do with her judgment. This was a non-issue until Drudge excerpted her act into a venue full of people who had probably never seen or thought about a Margaret Cho performance in their life. (Apparently a very unimaginative group if they had to resort to race baiting!)

As to VDN’s (correct I think) point. Do you see this as any different than someone taking gay porn and broadcasting it on something like the ‘700 Club?’ Wouldn’t that spawn just as much hate mail and be just as meaningless as an indicator of the propriety of the material?

>She made extremely hateful, vile and disgusting comments, and

>she shouldn't be surprised when that's exactly what she gets

>in return.

So you really think that saying Republicans are "stupid," "George Bush is not Hitler. He would be if he fucking applied himself," and "I'm afraid of terrorists, but I'm more afraid of the Patriot Act" are on the same level as "Go fuck yourself and go back to Asia you slanted eye whore," "the people who adore you have AIDS for a REASON," and "I am hoping you develop breast cancer"? Calling someone "stupid" is equally as "hateful, vile and disgusting" as telling them to "fuck your stinky and nasty Korean heritage"? OK, Doug, if you think so.

>She made extremely hateful, vile and disgusting comments, and

>she shouldn't be surprised when that's exactly what she gets

>in return.

So you really think that saying Republicans are "stupid," "George Bush is not Hitler. He would be if he fucking applied himself," and "I'm afraid of terrorists, but I'm more afraid of the Patriot Act" are on the same level as "Go fuck yourself and go back to Asia you slanted eye whore," "the people who adore you have AIDS for a REASON," and "I am hoping you develop breast cancer"? Calling someone "stupid" is equally as "hateful, vile and disgusting" as telling them to "fuck your stinky and nasty Korean heritage"? OK, Doug, if you think so.

>She is a performer/comedian and she could say and do whatever

>she wants.

Who said otherwise? Do you see someone challenging her right to say this? The point is - it's not just her who has free speech. The people who wrote these oh-so-awful e-mails have free speech, too, and have every right to say what they said back to her.

> She was not

>performing for a mainstream audience. Freedom of speech takes

>charge here.

Why do you keep prattling on about free speech? Are you under the impression that someone said she didn't have the right to say what she said?

The point is - you can say whatever you want to say. But if what you say is stupid, hateful, and offensive, don't come whining when the people whom you offend exercise THEIR free speech rights and spew stupidity, hatefulness, and offense back at you.

>Though some of her stuff even shocked me she was never racial.

> She was extremely political and hateful but not racial.

That's not an excuse. Racist bile is one type of bile but it's not like it's heads and shoulders worse than any other kind. Saying that someone was extremely hateful but they weren't racist isn't much of a defense.

A lot of what she said was clearly anti-Christian. She called all Republicans - who happen to comprise about half of this country - stupid. She compared the President of the United States to Hitler. She has every right to do this - and, by the way, how stupid does soeone have to be to compare the President to Hitler and the U.S. to facsism when people like this fat stupid cow can get up and say whatever they want about the President without consequence? Do you think Hitler would have allowed a speech like this? What kind of fascist society is this - what kind of Hitler is Bush - if people can say whatever they want, no matter how vile and critical, about our Government?

The only people who can compare Bush to Hitler and call the U.S. fascist are people who are so complacent and spoiled and who have never lived or been anywhere near actual fascism.

>People who sent her e-mails went to the lowest common

>denominator and couldn't respond back without attacking her

>ethnicity. That is racism.

Who the fuck cares? She went the lowest common denominator as well. Once you go throwing mud and feces on people, you can't complain because someone throws diarreah on you by saying "Well, I threw feces on him, but they threw diarreah back and that's wrong." Sorry for that repulsive metaphor, but that's basically the defense you're making of her.

>Is your request possible in a free speech society? She is a

>comedian. She is doing what comedians have done for years:

>use politicians, and their politics, as their stage fodder.

Being a comedian is not license to say disgusting and hateful things. And again, my main point is - if you are going to be that kind of a comedian, who is going to deliberately and knowingly offend people, don't then turn around and act like a fucking victim and go looking for sympathy when you get the same thing in return.

>The point is - you can say whatever you want to say. But if

>what you say is stupid, hateful, and offensive, don't come

>whining when the people whom you offend exercise THEIR free

>speech rights and spew stupidity, hatefulness, and offense

>back at you.

I agree that, as a public person, she should hardly be surprised that people may respond negatively to edgy, biting (bile is in the eye of the beholder) statements whether they are humorous or not. However, you don’t think there is any difference in making those kind of statements to an audience that came to you expecting that kind of stuff, and having it forced on you by people you were never talking to in the first place?

I think the whole thing is a nit really. Public figures get attacked by people – both ignorant and intelligent – all the time. I’m sure there must have been some intelligent criticism of her comments somewhere and the webmaster only chose to post the ones from ignorant, racist, hypocritical Christians. Yeah, I’m sure that must be what happened, because we know those people are capable of intelligent discourse.

>I agree that, as a public person, she should hardly be

>surprised that people may respond negatively to edgy, biting

>(bile is in the eye of the beholder) statements whether they

>are humorous or not.

This is ESPECIALLY true when you are deliberately standing up saying things that you are know are offensive and doing so in a manner designed to make people angry.

However, you don’t think there is any

>difference in making those kind of statements to an audience

>that came to you expecting that kind of stuff, and having it

>forced on you by people you were never talking to in the first

>place?

If someone is standing up saying things as a minor celebrity at a highly politicized event like this MoveOn.org dinner - and it's recorded - is it really a surprise that other people found out about what was said other than the people in the room?

> Yeah, I’m sure that must be what happened,

>because we know those people are capable of intelligent

>discourse.

If you can read what she said and compare them to those e-mails and honestly say that what she said is sitting on some higher plane of discourse than those e-mails, I'd be very surprised.

I just find it so nauseating when someone like her gets up and say what she says, then gets the e-mails she got in reply, then says: "oh, my only crime is that I'm an Asian gay woman who stands up for the GLBT community" - as though she's some delicate little innocent flower who was miding her own sweet business and then along came these mean bigots who, unprovoked, spewed insults at her.

She puked on the people she purposely puked on. They puked back on her. Now she's crying because she has puke on her. And my only point is that if she wants to be this oh-so-edgy comedian who spews offensive material, then she needs to shut the fuck up when people react the way anyone with a brain knows they would and stop crying and screaming racism and homophobia and fatphobia and misogyny and acting like some fucking victim.

>If you can read what she said and compare them to those

>e-mails and honestly say that what she said is sitting on some

>higher plane of discourse than those e-mails, I'd be very

>surprised.

I'm saying it so be surprised.

>She puked on the people she purposely puked on

Lame argument, but nice alliteration! :*

>Who said otherwise? Do you see someone challenging her right

>to say this? The point is - it's not just her who has free

>speech. The people who wrote these oh-so-awful e-mails have

>free speech, too, and have every right to say what they said

>back to her.

It was said in a very subtle way. I do not know if you have ever been the victim of racism. You are claiming that if they have "every right to say what they said back to her". She criticized government, foreign policy and the philosophies of our President. In return, her ethnicity was attacked. Racism is a crime that knows no boundaries of country or constitutional jurisdiction. I don't think I would be having this conversation with you if they just lamented her on her size and issues (past and present) with drug and food addiction. However, they went for the jugular ... they went for things she can not change.

>Why do you keep prattling on about free speech? Are you under

>the impression that someone said she didn't have the right to

>say what she said?

Racism is a tool of asserting power over an individual, a tool used throughout history to silence people. So yes, people attacking her ethnicity are indeed implying she doesn't have the right to say what she wants.

>The point is - you can say whatever you want to say. But if

>what you say is stupid, hateful, and offensive, don't come

That is subjective. You feel what she said is stupid, hateful and offensive because (I am assuming) she offended your political beliefs. Would you feel differently if her comments were towards a political group you particularly didn't care for? And, for my short time reading your postings, you have never said anything hateful or racist towards any ethnic group or person you have a disagreement with.

>That's not an excuse. Racist bile is one type of bile but

>it's not like it's heads and shoulders worse than any other

>kind. Saying that someone was extremely hateful but they

>weren't racist isn't much of a defense.

When you comment on something that no one has the power to change because that person insulted your political idol then that's stupid. She verbally fucked Bush with a dildo. People, with hate in their minds and fingertips, e-mailed racism to her instead of giving real evidence of the good things they feel he did. In the Democratic debates no one is calling Al Sharpton anything raciest because his political views differ from the others. Of course he isn't using the adjectives (and verbs) Ms. Cho is using but it is all the same.

>She compared the President of the United

>States to Hitler. She has every right to do this - and, by

>the way, how stupid does soeone have to be to compare the

>President to Hitler and the U.S. to facsism when people like

>this fat stupid cow can get up and say whatever they want

>about the President without consequence?

Why can't she compare the two? They have a lot of things in common. They both have agendas, both aren't truthful with their total "vision" for their country and both are political leaders who allow(ed) bad things to happen so they wouldn't get their hands dirty with the blood of others.

>Being a comedian is not license to say disgusting and hateful

>things.

According to you these things are disgusting and hateful. Therefore, you have a choice (as we all do). Your choice is to react in the same way those people did behind their computer screens or type a well thought out response atttemptting to educate and prove her wrong without insulting her ethnicity.

>Being a comedian is not license to say

>disgusting and hateful things.

Tell that to Joan Rivers.

>It was said in a very subtle way.

What nonsense. People read what she wrote and got enraged and so they said everything about her that they could think of to hurt her. They picked on her fatness, her gayness, and her race. Big fucking deal; that's hardly tantamount to an attempt to take away her free speech rights.

>She

>criticized government, foreign policy and the philosophies of

>our President.

In the excerpt you provided, she also mocked Christianity. Somehow, that's the one acceptable form of bigotry. And I hardly think that calling Bush "Hitler" or calling Republicans "stupid" is attacking the philosophies of our President. It sounds more like third-grade playground insults designed to anger and inflame.

Racism

>is a crime that knows no boundaries of country or

>constitutional jurisdiction.

Actually, racism is NOT a crime. People have every right to mock her race as she does to mock their religion.

I don't think I would be having

>this conversation with you if they just lamented her on her

>size and issues (past and present) with drug and food

>addiction. However, they went for the jugular ... they went

>for things she can not change.

She went for the jugular, too. That's my point. If you go for someone's jugular, it's both stupid and pitiful when you whine when they go for yours.

>Racism is a tool of asserting power over an individual, a tool

>used throughout history to silence people. So yes, people

>attacking her ethnicity are indeed implying she doesn't have

>the right to say what she wants.

This is just such PC garbage. How is it any different to attack someone's religion than to attack their race? And in this case, racism was most certainly not "a tool for asserting power over an individual." The people writing those e-mails have no power over Margaret Cho. It was just a tool to express their anger at her and to try to insult her - just like she did to them.

>>The point is - you can say whatever you want to say. But if

>>what you say is stupid, hateful, and offensive, don't come

>

>That is subjective. You feel what she said is stupid, hateful

>and offensive because (I am assuming) she offended your

>political beliefs.

No, this is exactly wrong. I think that those who agree with many of my political views (though not all) use just as insulting and inflammatory language to do so. But if, say, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh came around crying about the mean hateful e-mails they get (and they get LOTS of them), my reaction would be exactly the same: "What the fuck do you expect?? Quit the whining." That, in fact, is exactly my reaciton to Bill O'Reilly when he whines about mean things being said about him.

You have it exactly backwards. If Margaret Cho had said about Jews or blacks (or, God forbid, gays) what she said about Christians, or if she had compared Bill Clinton or Al Gore to Josef Stalin (instead of comparing George Bush to Adolph Hitler), the same people in this thread who are defending her would be viciously attacking her - just like they do to Ann Coulter. That's because their view of what is "offensive" is strictly determined by who is saying it.

>Why can't she compare the two? They have a lot of things in

>common. They both have agendas, both aren't truthful with

>their total "vision" for their country and both are political

>leaders who allow(ed) bad things to happen so they wouldn't

>get their hands dirty with the blood of others.

Although I want to see George Bush lose this election (assuming that the right candidate runs against him), when I see the number of liberals who are willing to compare George Bush to Adolph Hitler as though all Hitler did was utter a few falsehoods, it makes me so ill that it actually makes me start wanting Bush to win, so that such individuals don't get their way. Think how the rest of the country reacts when they hear it.

>Although I want to see George Bush lose this election

>(assuming that the right candidate runs against him), when I

>see the number of liberals who are willing to compare George

>Bush to Adolph Hitler as though all Hitler did was utter a few

>falsehoods, it makes me so ill that it actually makes me start

>wanting Bush to win, so that such individuals don't get their

>way. Think how the rest of the country reacts when they hear

>it.

And who, pray tell, would that "right candidate" be? Dick Cheney? Paul Wolfowitz? Richard Perle? Ann Coulter?

Inquiring minds want to know.

>And who, pray tell, would that "right candidate" be? Dick

>Cheney? Paul Wolfowitz? Richard Perle? Ann Coulter?

Howard Dean, for one. Or anyone whose election would induce a coronary event in that fat chest of yours.

>Inquiring minds want to know.

Apparently, so do genetically defective, stunted ones.

Doug,

>Actually, racism is NOT a crime. People have every right to

>mock her race as she does to mock their religion.

You don't need me or anyone else to tell you you are right on with this point. I should have been more clear when I said crime. It is a "crime" because it is hurtful and no one should experience it, though it isn't necessarily a crime on the books. But race, much like sexual orientation, religious affiliation, etc. can't come into play when hiring, or firing, someone for/from employment. It is a crime when racism denies someone employment or equal access to a water fountain, a public library or a peep booth.

So, it is a crime in the court of humanity because it just isn't right. But I know you are rolling your eyes thinking I am a bleeding heart liberal and possibly an ass because Margaret wasn't on a job interview.

All of this would go way if we elected a black, Jewish lesbian, with a prosthesis, for president. And the vice-president, of course, would have to be Mormon.

VDN

>>And who, pray tell, would that "right candidate" be? Dick

>>Cheney? Paul Wolfowitz? Richard Perle? Ann Coulter?

>

>Howard Dean, for one. Or anyone whose election would induce a

>coronary event in that fat chest of yours.

>

>>Inquiring minds want to know.

>

>Apparently, so do genetically defective, stunted ones.

FYI, nothing fat about my chest.

And what has become of the new, improved, civilized Doug, who was going to behave appropriately? For you, it must be in the genes. Leopards truly don't change their spots.

And as for Howard Dean, I'd be delighted to see him elected. I just find it hard to believe that you would based on your past rantings and ravings.

>FYI, nothing fat about my chest.

Let's see some hot pics.

>And what has become of the new, improved, civilized Doug, who

>was going to behave appropriately? For you, it must be in the

>genes. Leopards truly don't change their spots.

I know - I was doing so well. . . . and then you showed up (credit to Taylor for the ellipses). Your question wasn't exactly posed politely; one could hear the sneer over the computer. But having fallen off the Civility Wagon, I will dust myself off and get right back on that fucking horse.

>And as for Howard Dean, I'd be delighted to see him elected.

>I just find it hard to believe that you would based on your

>past rantings and ravings.

Actually, I've made clear for months now that I would vote for Howard Dean over George Bush. I think Dean is the more conservative candidate on most issues.

He governed Vermont with almost perfectly balanced budgets; slashed wasteful social spending in order to do it (sending leftists in that state into fits of drooling rage); is a vigorous believer in states rights (unlike Bush, who wants very hypocritically and un-conservatively to federalize everything, including marriage laws, once uniquely within the provence of the states); and generally speaks with exactly the type of authenticity, passion, and integrity which I admire (and which I think is painfully lacking in the Bush Administration).

Lots of conservatives are seriously furious with Bush - particularly over his corrupt "amensty" program for illegal immigrants; his endless defecit spending (such as the recently announced $1.5 billion to teach citiznes about the virtues of heterosexual marriage); and the infinite pork to corporations at the expense of our country's economic security. Lots of conservatives also have serious concerns about how deliberately misleading (as opposed to being mistaken) the pre-war announcements were about the state of things in Iraq.

I disagree with Dean on numerous issues - the war in Iraq, abortion, and lots of domestic issues. But his opposition to the war in Iraq was not based on pacifism, but on the good faith belief that our military resources would have been better spent elsewhere - a view shared by many military leaders (I disagree with that assessment, but it's nonetheless reasonable and is NOT some reactionary leftists "war is bad; no war for oil" idiocy). And I think the tone he has, the notions he clearly embraces about government, and his core integrity - as well as the extraordinary grass-roots, politics-changing nature of how he has raised money and built his campaign - outweigh any of these issues.

Most people falsely perceive Dean to be this extreme leftist because that's how the gullible, idiotic, simple-minded media has presented him. In reality, I think he transcends the liberal/conservative paradigm - something which, in my view, is reason enough to be excited about his candidacy.

If we follow your logic to the end, then if I am a performing artist known to be anti whatever group and I give a performance in which I say all kinds of disgusting and hateful things about that group and it is printed in a widely disseminated document, then the people who know that I am anti whatever are not entitled to write me any kind of hate mail at all. Then it also follows that if I giving a speech to a Ku Klux Klan rally and someone writes down that I said this anti-semitic thing or that anti-black thing or equated the leaders of some other group as being some other distasteful disgusting bastard, then a Jew or a black or anyone else I talked about should know that I say things like this and should not take offense. I don't think that is something up with which you would put for very long and I am surprised that you would fall back on that excuse for what Ms Cho said.

You completely missed the point. But thanks for trying.

My point is that what you in all your sophisticated New Yorkerness find disgusting and degrading may not be the same things that Joe Sixpack in his unsophisticated West by God Virginianess would find disgusting and degrading and you are trying to force your standards on his. All the differences in people that cause problems are not caused by their being black or Oriental or Caucasian. This is the reason that trying to force the coastal PC standards on the whole country is not a good idea.

>He governed Vermont with almost perfectly balanced budgets;

>slashed wasteful social spending in order to do it (sending

>leftists in that state into fits of drooling rage); is a

A 4th grader could have done the same thing Dean did because the governor HE TOOK OVER FOR jacked up taxes to levels never seen in Vermont's history and most states in the Northeast and the Eastern seaboard.

Dean also says a lot of "stuff" then apologizes for it a few days after because of pressure from other groups. His convictions seem temporary.

And here are some things to "think" about when thinking about Dean:

Why Vermont gun owners adore Dean, and why Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence thinks he's worse than President Bush, and what the National Rifle Association now says about the top rating it gave him.

The reason for Dean's shocking turnaround on the death penalty, and liberals’ curiously mixed reaction.

ACLU's stunning response to his call for “re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties.”

Why leftist Democrats were Dean's harshest critics in Vermont.

Where he really stands on taxes, and how he balanced his budgets.

His not-so-green reputation in the Green Mountain State.

The many things he has in common with … President Bush.

How he is trying to avoid the albatross of Michael Dukakis and is beating Bush at his own game.

Why Dean enraged Sen. John McCain (Bush's longtime rival) as well as the Democratic Leadership Council.

The startling reason that race won't be the asset he is counting on.

Why Howard Dean’s worst enemy on the campaign trail is … Howard Dean.

I don't know what you're talking about. I never complained about anything being disgusting or degrading; I actually never complained about the letters Margaret Cho received. All of that was done by other posters in this thread.

Hey Dick,

On the right of the computer screen is a scroll bar. I find that when I use the scroll bar I can see what other people wrote and, therefore, attempt the best response possible. Just a suggestion from an unsophisticated New Yorker.

Yours truly, and trying not to be myopic,

V to the D to the N

:*