Who is Debbie Schlussel and What is Her Reputation in the US?

[Borek]

I checked the wikipedia so I have some background information, but I wonder how she is seen in US.

I am not going to quote opinions about her that you can hear in Poland now, I don't want to be banned by Evo.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Never heard of her, checked the wiki, want to be sick.

 

[Naty1]

Somebody should put her in a room with Debbie Schultz..Chairperson of the DNC.

 

[Danger]

I also had never heard of her until now, and had to research her. She seems to be exactly the same as Ann Coulter; two bodies sharing one tiny piece of a brain. Both of them should be fried in their own fat.

 

[russ_watters]

I also had never heard of her.

I care very little about the rantings of a random, low-level political comentator in my own country, much less the rantings of a Polish one, so I have a hard time recognizing why Poles would care about this. But then, I'm not an easy person to offend, so I have a hard time seeing why people get upset about certain things. I would never get upset over an honest mis-speak like Obama's, for example. And even statements that are truly/intentionally offensive wouldn't necessarily offend me if I don't know the person saying them and they aren't prominent enough or close enough to me to matter. This woman certainly fits that category.

Still, I am human and I recognize that some people are more emotional than others and some issues are more emotional than others, so I can see why the Obama mis-speak and this woman's statements might upset people in Poland. Then again, if her family truly did die in a death camp in Poland, I could also understand her not being a big fan of Poland either.

 

[ThomasT]

I checked the wikipedia so I have some background information, but I wonder how she is seen in US.

I am not going to quote opinions about her that you can hear in Poland now, I don't want to be banned by Evo.

I never heard of her either. Checked out the Wiki entry. Apparently she doesn't like Muslims, Arabs, Barbara Dobb, Marc Shulman, and lesbians.

In answer to your question, my guess would be that ~50% of Americans agree with her views and ~50% of Americans don't agree with her views.

Perhaps the best she can hope for is recognition in the form of some sort of colloquialism, used mostly in and around Dearborn, Michigan, containing the term Schlusseled.

 

[mege]

I lived in the Metro Detroit area for almost 10 years and I do not recognize her name (although some of her quotes/sentiments sound familiar). She's a washed up bitter Politician.

 

[Borek]

She hit the news here, and I started to wonder if she is someone influential, or if the thing was blown out of proportion by the media. Comment that you all repeated

I also had never heard of her.

answers my question.

Thank you for your ignorance :rofl:

 

[Danger]

my guess would be that ~50% of Americans agree with her views and ~50% of Americans don't agree with her views.

Luckily, the rest of the world doesn't have that level of idiot-tolerance. Coulter, for instance, was scheduled to give a talk at the University of Calgary a few years ago. The show was canceled when the RCMP determined that she would probably be killed. We don't put up with that sort of BS.

 

[azdavesoul]

We don't put up with that sort of BS.

Where is the harm in letting someone with different ideology speak? If their ideas are foolish, they will be exposed. The prevention of expression of differing opinions is only a display of intolerance or an insecurity of recognized beliefs.

 

[Danger]

Where is the harm in letting someone with different ideology speak? If their ideas are foolish, they will be exposed. The prevention of expression of differing opinions is only a display of intolerance or an insecurity of recognized beliefs.

While we have Freedom of Expression in Canada, it isn't as immutable as it is in the US. Coulter had already been warned, in advance of her booking, that she would be charged under hate-crime legislation if she spouted her usual vitriol in our country. She chose to ignore that and appear anyway. The multiple death threats managed to keep her on her own side of the border, whereas the threat of prosecution did not.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Where is the harm in letting someone with different ideology speak?

It's not that there is no harm in allowing it. It's that there is even more harm in preventing it. I had never heard of her until this thread pointed her out to me.

 

[russ_watters]

Luckily, the rest of the world doesn't have that level of idiot-tolerance. Coulter

Er, swing and a miss, Danger. The thread is about an American speaking bad about Poland. Most countries are plenty tolerant of people in their country speaking bad about people in others. And the US is the undisputed world leader in being on the receiving end of foreign idiots speaking against us and few countries lack idiots willing to do so. We even export our idiots to speak against us once they wear out their welcome here! It is always easy for a terrorist (Al Awlaki, Yemen [RIP]), pedophile (Polanski, France, etc.), or idiot reporter (Palast, UK), to find a home if it enables poking the US in the eye.

Even if you meant only the West, not the whole world, I think you missed the mark: freedom of speech is easy to be for if it is speech against someone else. Still...

Coulter, for instance, was scheduled to give a talk at the University of Calgary a few years ago. The show was canceled when the RCMP determined that she would probably be killed. We don't put up with that sort of BS.

...though it crosses the line for me, I'd still rather be in the country that allows a terrorist dictator to speak (A-Jad, Columbia University) than one that prevents an idiot commentator from speaking -- even having a higher tolerance for murder than free speech!

While we have Freedom of Expression in Canada, it isn't as immutable as it is in the US. Coulter had already been warned, in advance of her booking, that she would be charged under hate-crime legislation if she spouted her usual vitriol in our country.

Just speaking can be a hate crime in Canada? Wow, I honestly had no idea there was such little regard for freedom of speech there!

 

[D H]

I think you missed the mark: freedom of speech is easy to be for if it is speech against someone else.

Exactly.

A measure of whether someone truly is an advocate of freedom of speech is how tolerant one is of the right to speech of those with whom one disagrees most vehemently. It's a hard concept to understand, and an even harder concept to accept. It is a concept that even many Americans, and apparently most from outside this country, do not fully understand or accept. We do have rules against slander, incitement to riot, and "fighting words", but beyond that, speech here is pretty much unfettered. We do not have hate speech laws; they would be highly unconstitutional.

The US is arguably the most speech-protective country in the world. One reason is that our nation got its start with a lot of speech and press that was deemed highly illegal by the colonial governments. How can we ban something that is central to our very existence?

That freedoms such as freedom of speech occupy center stage in the 1st Amendment hasn't quite stopped various government organizations from occasionally trying to squelch freedom of speech or press. The last such episode, the McCarthy era, was particularly bad. The response to each of these governmental transgressions has been to make sure that speech is even freer than it was before. Post McCarthy, speech has been very, very free.

 

[Danger]

The thread is about an American speaking bad about Poland.

Granted, I forgot that the original question was how she was seen in the US. That is the only place on the planet where she would be tolerated.

even having a higher tolerance for murder than free speech!

Not exactly. While the shooter would have been hailed as a hero, s/he would still have been prosecuted. The only fitting crime that I can see, though, is discharging a firearm into a public nuisance.

Just speaking can be a hate crime in Canada?

Absolutely. If Michael Richards had pulled his rant at the Montreal Comedy Festival rather than in California, his *** would have been in jail before he could have collected his paycheque.

edit: That was a bit of hyperbole. An individual rant like that, while reprehensible, isn't criminal. Coulter, however, would be guilty of inciting hatred.

 

[mege]

Granted, I forgot that the original question was how she was seen in the US. That is the only place on the planet where she would be tolerated.

Except - no one in the US (on these boards at least) had heard or paid much attention to her. I lived adjacent to the district that she campaigned in for State rep and I don't remember her having any significance.

There are whackos with bullhorns everywhere... if enough people ignore them, they go away.

When hate and violence/coercion is used against another hater, who is right?

 

[Danger]

When hate and violence/coercion is used against another hater, who is right?

The one who didn't start it.

 

[mege]

The one who didn't start it.

In the case of Debbie Schlussel: I'd wager she doesn't think she 'started' it either particularly regarding Islam. Where does it start?

There's the problem with attempting to restrict speech or sentiment - you become part of the cycle of hatred. Allowing people their opinions, right or wrong, is part of living in a free society. Once an entity of authority (in this case, government) starts determining what is right and wrong to say - they've just entered in the cycle by 'hating on' the person who's speech doesn't align with the identified doctrine.

 

[Danger]

In the case of Debbie Schlussel: I'd wager she doesn't think she 'started' it either particularly regarding Islam. Where does it start?

Anyone with that level of bile was a racist long before 9/11. That was just an excuse for her, the same as it was for Bush.

Allowing people their opinions, right or wrong, is part of living in a free society.

My society is very free, thank you, and I daresay a hell of a lot more peaceful than yours.

an entity of authority (in this case, government) starts determining what is right and wrong to say - they've just entered in the cycle by 'hating on' the person who's speech doesn't align with the identified doctrine.

That's another difference. Our policies are determined by the populace, not by political parties. For instance, I don't agree with a lot of what's going on now, because I'm a life-long NDP follower, and the PC's are in power. (For the first time, though, we're actually the official Opposition. If Jack Layton hadn't unfortunately succumbed to his cancer, he might have been the PM.) That's beside the point, though... the point being that we have a straight "majority rules" system. We vote for either the candidate or the party (if we're lucky, they coincide), that best represents what we want to have expressed officially. If we are outvoted, then so be it. That is true democracy in action, a part of which is that we have a multitude of parties, rather than just two. Generally, only the top three have been taken seriously, but the Green Party put up a really good scrap this last election. (I'm actually a Rhino by nature, but that party no longer exists. That's a shame, because it was the most logical one. When a Rhino candidate was asked to explain his platform, he and his supporters dragged a plywood construction out in front of the podium. That same party once entered a dog as their candidate in a northern Alberta community. It came in second, after the NDP.