Matt asks: Are Sarah Silverman and Ann Coulter basically the same person? Good question.
The difference is that Silverman expects you to be in on the joke, whereas Coulter, if she doesn't believe what she's saying herself, certainly wants/expects her listeners to. The former, though it treads a fine line, is acceptable in the right contexts; the latter is just pathetic.
posted by MacDara at 12:34 PM on October 6, 2007
it's not really a good question. it's a lame attempt at being clever when there really is nothing there. put what they say into context. sarah is making jokes on comedy shows. ann is attacking on "news" shows.
posted by lane at 10:25 PM on October 6, 2007
No. I think you're missing the point. If you look at the quotes from each, you wouldn't be able to tell one from the other. But one is making a joke, while the other is being a pundit. This makes the question one of linguistics and speech/act theory: how do we know the difference?
Of course, we do know the difference -- but how do we?
If you start thinking about this a bit, you can see an empowering moment -- as a way to rethink both Ann Coulter and Sarah Silverman. Both are much-criticized, for surprisingly similar reasons. If we could better understand the "performance" of both of them, we might draw some interesting conclusions...
posted by Rex at 10:32 PM on October 6, 2007
This makes the question one of linguistics and speech/act theory: how do we know the difference?
Exactly. It's all about context. Their statements are ostensibly indistinguishable, but the context makes all the difference. I think some guy called Derrida wrote a few books on the subject...
posted by MacDara at 7:37 AM on October 7, 2007
NOTE: The commenting window has expired for this post.
Company Tumblr VYou Twitter Google+ Facebook Instagram Flickr Amazon Foursquare
A fimoculous is a micro-organism that consumes its own waste for sustenance.