Here is a one question IQ test. Good luck.
1. Rush Limbuagh's comments on Georgetown Law Student Sandra Fluke are:
A) Really really important.
B) Not important at all.
RESULTS:
If you answered "A" you are really really dumb.
If you answered "B" you are not dumb.
It is also interesting to note how the coverage of this in the MSM is indistinguishable from the Lefty blogosphere. I guess they are all living the Weird Al motto: Dare to be stupid.
16 comments:
So I don't care for Rush's opinions, but since what he says carries significant weight to his listeners, Left or Right, it's important to hold him accountable for what he says in his followers ears. What he said wasn't important so much as the importance of the impact of what he says. No?
That is assuming we know what that impact would be, wouldn't it?
I've never bought into the notion of this amry of Limbaugh drones rampaging over the countryside, wrecking havoc on a poor unsuspecting world based upon the utterences of their weighty demi-god of the airwaves. (And polling on media effects backs up my skepticism here.)
As for "being held accountable", What exactly does that mean? There are all kinds of people who say vile and evil things far beyond merely calling someone a "slut." How exactly should I, or anyone else, hold them accountable?
Well, I can do what I always do. Blog about it and point out its evil and vile character. I've just never thought my not liking something meant I should keep other people from being able to hear it. Then again, I'm far more liberal than is common these days.
"That is assuming we know what that impact would be, wouldn't it?"
I am not suggestion that I could predict everyone's reaction to sexist name-calling (which is likely to have been a advertising devise for Limbaugh). However, media data awareness suggests that the those following Rush may automatically agree with most of he says, solely because of his political association.
I suggest that the majority of his listeners are predictable to that extent; that they'll go ahead and agree with everything. Is it really too much of a stretch to assume that their blind agreement would directly influence the women in their lives?
"I've never bought into the notion…" Please tell me why.
My point is that his "being held accountable" forces him to reconsider (if just for the space of a weekend), the power his voice carries, precisely because his voice's impact is an extension of his power. By holding him accountable and requesting an open apology, perhaps his followers may reconsider their words and actions as they associate with/to women. Limbaugh is free to say whatever he pleases, but his ir/responsibility necessarily directly influences others.
Please tell me how you cannot buy into how easily the masses are swayed and how the forces of oppression could come out of nowhere. His voice isn't remotely as isolated as yours.
"I've just never thought my not liking something meant I should keep other people from being able to hear it." Thank goodness people have the right to not listen to him.
I have no clue how liberal you are in comparison to others, but I'll take your words for it. I think more freely some days than others.
...please excuse those typos.
Look at the link on the post I just put up. If THAT is what is meant by "holding people accountable" then I want nothing to do with it. The impulse to silence speech we don't like is antithetical to a free society. Period.
"I've never bought into the notion…" Please tell me why.
Political Science has been conducting studies of media and mass political behavior for over forty years, and they simply do not find it has this kind of effect. Think of it this way: Is anyone who is left-leaning suggesting that hearing Ed Schultz call Laura Ingraham a "slut" and a "whore" is causing MSNBC viewers to become sexist? NO they aren't, because it isn't. (Though it does say something about Schultz, and the people who hear that but dont blink an eye because they feel the target "has it coming.")
As for my liberalism, I'm a committed Millian liberal, which pretty much has nothig to do with liberalism today. To my mind we all have different ways we think of and identify "the good", and we, as a result, construct our lives differently as a result. Anything which interferes with our ability to do this is illegitimate (as long as our actions are not directly harming others or keeping THEM from living their lives in tune with THEIR conception of "the good.") Unfortunately, we live in a time when people believe it is OK to have a conception of "the good" which allows they to dictate to others how they must live and direct their own existence. Indeed, I can think of little in this world as totalitarian in nature as the desire of some to force people to violate their personal moral/ethical code in the name of some supposed "common good."
As time goes on, in fact, I am finding the moralizing tone of the new Left as blinkered and narrowminded as any 1950's church lady ever was. That their moralizing is often only directed towards their ideological "enemies" makes it especially toxic for the well being of the community. (Though it would be nearly as bad if they did operate with rigid consistently.)
I think of example like the recent penchant of left leaning groups on college campuses to "shut down" talks given by people they dont agree with by causing non-stop interruptions, phoning in threats, or even physically assaulting people. 20 years ago is such things were to occur they would ahve been roundly condemned by people from every political perspective. Today, the silence on the left is deafening.
Now if you feel I'm being selective here, I would gladly like to hear about example of right-leaning groups attempting to shut down the speech or association rights of Democrats. I simply have not seen Republican groups organizing protests against the Democratic National Convention, as the Dems do as a matter of routine, as if the mere existence of Republicans are a moral outrage. (Not to mention the making common cause with anarchist types who resorted to violence.)
And no worries on the typos. The commenting tool here leaves something to be desired.
"The impulse to silence speech we don't like is antithetical to a free society. Period."
Pardon me if I get silly on a serious subject:
I'm not sure anyone can or even wants to completely silence Limbaugh… I think they just want to at least replace him. (Better person for the job. If there's a better speaker, he won't be a jerk. Let him buy his own station on his own time to say jerk things. He can say whatever he wants, just maybe on his own watch, out of his own wallet. He Ought to be replaced.) Say the garbagemen decide to put flowers in my garbage bin after they empty it. I don't want my taxes paying for flowers for my garbage bin. I just want an empty bin. Just like Limbaugh cannot offer his stance on Millian or Appiahn thought… he's just using money to make more garbage. "for over forty years"
Context. Past 10yrs the internets has exponentially increased speed of exchanging information and subsequent awareness. The ripple effect doesn't pay any mind to political party.
"To my mind we all have different ways we think of and identify "the good"".
…the essence of different opinion, thought, views, etc.. Proof that nobody can think exactly the same and the reason people should seek out different thinkers and challenge their own thinking.
"or even physically assaulting people. "
You are aware that the government plants leftish morons to make lefties look like hypocrites, right? They've been doing that for at least 50-60yrs.
"as if the mere existence of Republicans are a moral outrage"
…I know this is an exaggeration. I'm going to try to avoid being vague with this example: Both parties are just advertising. Everyone is advertising their political beliefs 24/7 (what they buy/consume, mainly, what they do, what they say, what they say they do, etc.). By the democrats simply protesting (or advertising) some idea/concept/ideal, that's them simply asserting their "oughts" and their "we think ___". Republicans doing the same things by buying power and being dramatic, using straw men, and cutting off conversation, or (scary word) progress, because their audience and the other-name-calling-schmucks to whom they are campaigning Want to be pandered and Want to be entertained. The vast majority of people do not read between lines or question others… status quo and agree, and then you have stagnating consensus = lame.
[inserting a minor tangent: There is no proof that people change their minds over-night, politically. The likelihood is slim, especially when fear of change, fear of questions and answers, and fear of new ideas is just so pervasive. Look at the U.S. citizens covering up information for decades… what, they think that the effort they go through of their covering it up doesn't make the facts of their history any more obvious? What the hell is the government so afraid of? Banning funding to wikileaks only makes citizens more concerned about what the government could be hiding. And so what if people find out about More atrocities the U.S. has committed? By the time the truth is uncovered, the people who committed the acts and caused such a huge mess already died years ago.
Getting the record, the closest to the truth, is a priority… and their can't be any of this freedom, liberty, justice, or pursuit of sappiness, with all of this fear mongering and conspiracy krap -- the gov. stalling everyone's life the gov. claims to protect. Nobody wants to do time. Don't call it Republican. Don't call it Democrat. Don't call it Independent. Or "progressive". The history of the parties is muddying, marring, and stalling the process of working together. Shit only gets done around here right before the elections. People gain rights, people reform, people progress, people work harder -- whatever you want to call it -- shit gets done before elections. We need protesting morons to remind or pass on a clue, a hint, to both those who have no idea that their wallets are being raped, and to those paying .04% or .004% taxes that that's not cool to just be stealing from the person trying to help out their business, working for them, or consuming their products. I never bought into the notion of "economic injustice", but there's just one example.
As far as radical pursuits go, anyone carrying a gun in an effort to change someone else's mind on any issue or political issue is just asking for it. Most of the people carrying guns don't care what we think… they are just taking orders and doing their job. (In my name. With my money. By the head's order/s. By the president's command.) I am a citizen and -- like it or not, president or not, authority or not, credibility or not -- the undercurrent is that I am partially responsible for everyone else's actions and there is just no avoiding that I am completely disconnected from anyone else on earth. The ripple effect doesn't lie and it existed well before the internets, statistics aside. In a way, you already explicitly proved the rule of the ripple effect: every is implies an Ought.]
No, political parties are obviously not a moral outage and I don't think people question the parties as generally and vaguely as you seem to be assuming, correct me if I'm wrong, please. Political epistemology shows that people question and seek out and ask nicely and beg and demand and scream for their rights and plead for their rights to public information based on Specific Context-Informed (context-informed, because god knows people's favorite political and power game is simply a matter of context-dropping to laugh at whoever plays in the ashes while the power mongers buy more time covering up their bloody mess) Concepts or Statements or Shitty ideas or name-calling. Ask Aristotle and Closterman: people have an instinctual desire to know and learn just as people have an instinctual desire to tell their story -- to people they can trust.
It's easy for people to take what they say for granted when the speaker's purpose is to buy time and air waves to say meaningless stuff meant for everyone to agree … with. It's like "hop on board with my corrupt ideas… look, it's easy to agree with me!" Seduced robots will take a free ticket to agreeing-land, any day of the week. But say nobody ever stood up and spoke up. Ever. Mr. Horton, who taught you dissent? Who taught you to question? Or if they didn't teach you, where'd you learn it? Mills? Well for those who don't have Mills, for those who don't know about Mills, they might now know about a law student who ought to have had that apology from someone who throws their words around to gain an audience during political partying and mass marionette-ing the country for votes.
Please, look at what's happening, and tell me Mr. Horton, please write to me and tell me that speaking up in response to Rush was over-reacting, and didn't make things just a little bit better:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/rush-limbaugh-radio-stations-drop-show-fluke_n_1322609.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=030612&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
Maybe my IQ is an Colbert A+, but the over-reaction was warranted and nobody is silencing him; we're just saying, say dumb stuff on your own watch, with your own wallet, and with your own air waves.
"Pardon me if I get silly on a serious subject:
I'm not sure anyone can or even wants to completely silence Limbaugh… I think they just want to at least replace him."
That would be an illegitimate want. If you don't want to listen to him, turn him off. The second you wish to keep OTHER PEOPLE from listening to him you've gone to an entirely different place. Hey, if enough people stop listening to him, he will go away. (Which isn't the same thing as threatening his advertizers with boycotts.)
"You are aware that the government plants leftish morons to make lefties look like hypocrites, right?"
Are you sreiously saying the "Welcoming Committee" in the Twin Cities in '08 were FBI plants or something? Because that is "what color is the sky in your world" territory. Argument via "conspiracy theory" is another way to say you dont have an argument.
"I know this is an exaggeration. I'm going to try to avoid being vague with this example: Both parties are just advertising. Everyone is advertising their political beliefs 24/7 (what they buy/consume, mainly, what they do, what they say, what they say they do, etc.). By the democrats simply protesting (or advertising) some idea/concept/ideal, that's them simply asserting their "oughts" and their "we think ___"."
By this standard you would have to be okay with the "protests" of Westboro Baptist Church. After all, it does get their "ideas" out there when they would otherwise just be ignored, right?
Icon,
It is a bit too much to have you defend Rush Limbaugh's name-calling by name-calling of your own. Why do you focus so much on calling people with whom you disagree names -- e.g., "really, really dumb," "morons," the "stupids," "scumbags," et al. -- instead of engaging the merits of their arguments? Is that the best you can do?
There are significant differences between Ed Schultz's name calling of Laura Ingrham and Limbaugh's of Sandra Fluke: (1) Schultz quickly and sincerely apologized (Limbaugh's apology was incomplete as it only applied to "slut" and "prostitute" when he said a series of nasty things about Fluke over 3 days and was only given after he started losing sponsor: (2) Inghram is a shock-jock just like Schultz and Limbaugh as public figures they can expect some of this as the price of their lucrative business (Sandra Fluke is a young woman who made no strident attack on any one and merely testified before a congressional committee about a salient matter in public health; (3) Limbaugh has long history of misogyny and racism, e.g., "feminazis" and "Barack the magic negro" to name just two so that this 3-day tirade is not a one-off, it is part of schtick that has made Limbaugh incredibly unpopular outside of conservative circles. Last week (2.27.12), before the Fluke cause celebre the Harris Poll found that Limbaugh was the least favorite of 26 "current affairs personalities" with 46% of respondents rating him their least favorite (Sean Hannity came in second with 31% rating him their least favorite).
My concern has never been what Limbuagh said, it has been the reaction of his "critics" and the media. (Look at the tags I picked.)
And I'm sorry, but the amount of attention this has gotten IS dumb.
And I'm also sorry but my discussion of how the response of the media and critics fail to live up to the moreal/ethical considerations laid out in Mill's "On Liberty" is hardly "not dealing with the arguments."
As for the othe things I may say they follow a strict definitonal norm:
Idiot = Someone who lives in their own world (from the ancient Greek idiotes)
Moron = Someone who speaks nonsense.
Scumbag = Someone who defends the indefensible, such as, anti-Semitism, violations of free speech, violations of free association, violations of the free excercise of religion, etc.
Besides I have no use for the PC police.
Or "civility" for that matter (which in most cases is only the excuse for shutting up THE OTHER GUY.) http://iconicmidwest.blogspot.com/2007/12/in-praise-of-incivility.html
"Last week (2.27.12), before the Fluke cause celebre the Harris Poll found that Limbaugh was the least favorite of 26 "current affairs personalities" with 46% of respondents rating him their least favorite (Sean Hannity came in second with 31% rating him their least favorite)."
So what? Are you advocating the silencing of unpopular opinions?
Icon,
Having sponsors quit paying advertisements on the radio show of an unpopular misogynist and racist is a lovely example of the free market at work. I thought you conservatives liked the free market. Having sponsors withdraw their support is not the "silencing" of Rush Limbaugh. No one is taking away his ability to talk. Indeed, his voice is projected over publicly owned broadcast frequencies that are sold to for-profit radio stations that ostensibly work in the public interest but instead serve to maximize their own profits (and in the case of Clear Channel et al. to push their conservative corporate agenda). Carbonite, AOL, etc. are just deciding that they don't want their brands to be associated with Limbaugh's misogyny and racism. I think that is a good business decision on the part of those corporations (which as Mitt Romney helpfully noted are people too).
Rush Limbaugh does not have a first amendment right to be eternally supported by commercial sponsors nor does he have the a first amendment right to be on Armed Forces Radio. In fact, in light of the fact of our very diverse armed forces, his serial bigotry is no doubt wearing thin within the ranks of our fighting men and women.
Lastly, the notion that Rush Limbaugh is the victim in this is absurd. He is heard by millions, makes A-Rod money, and launched a heinous attack on an innocent young woman. I do not feel sorry for him in the least. He brought this controversy on himself.
"Having sponsors quit paying advertisements on the radio show of an unpopular misogynist and racist is a lovely example of the free market at work."
Actually, no it isn't. It is the organized intervention into the market by groups for political purposes. Just because it pertains to a business does not make something a "free market." BY your standard, a mafia strongman collecting protection money from shop owners would be an example of a "free market." Uh, no it ain't. (And if you aren't sure why I encourage you to take an Econ 101 class somewhere.)
Post a Comment