A number of you are arguing that Rush Limbaugh is actually putting together a high-flown satire that I missed. Umm, okay, maybe. The problem is, if so many missed it, it's not a very good satire.
I know, I know--I'm a humorless west coast liberal who doesn't get an obvious joke. No offense, but Limbaugh's listeners are not known for their ability to appreciate maybe-sort-of-satire. I don't think it's ridiculous to say that for Rush Limbaugh, racism isn't a big problem in this country, but anti-racism is one of the greatest threats facing America today. So when he does a "satire" that comes perilously close to his normal rants against feminazis and raice-baiters, well, I don't really think you can expect the rest of America to get the joke.
Update: Okay, perhaps I am unfairly tarring Rush Limbaugh's viewers with his own behavior. But I have, in fact, listened to Rush Limbaugh quite a bit, though not recently, and at least back then, he was a humorless jerk who really didn't find, say, Michael Moore or Jon Stewart funny. His main product is outrage at the vast conspiracy against him and his people. Sound familiar?
This is not funny, or acceptable, for the same reason that Michael Moore's "truthy" BS isn't acceptable. The "humor", such as it is, comes at too high a cost.
And yes, I think that the people who are claiming that Rush is inciting a race war or a revolution are also humorless twits. But what he's doing is quite bad enough. The world is not desperately in need of more anger, hatred and paranoia.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Megan, you are better than this sort of comment, surely.
If Megan's statement is satire, I've missed it.
Actually, the average Rush listener is probably better educated than average. Certainly more up on current events.
And I haven't found liberals to be very good at differentiating satire from seriousness. Thus the success of The Daily Show.
In general, I find that some people (such as the present company) hear "Rush Limbaugh" and all their ability to hear humor goes out the window. I'm reminded when Limbaugh joked that he gave his mother a can opener for her birthday so she could open the dog food she was living on, and Congresswoman whats-her-name denounced him for it on the House floor believing it was true.
Re: Update
"His main product is outrage at the vast conspiracy against him and his people. Sound familiar?"
Actually, "vast conspiracy" is a Hillary term. But by comparing Rush to Moore or Jon Stewart, you reveal your obtuseness when it comes to Rush. The Daily Show and Moore make their living by making stuff up (Moore more insidiously, but from the beginning was dinged for presenting "A" when his camera presented "B"). Rush believes everything he says (as far as I can tell) and if he didn't believe it, he wouldn't say it.
Maybe you don't like the way he says it or what he emphasizes, but the Potatoes of his "Meat & Potatoes" is to take the memes he hears in the media and among the Left and push it to extremes or turn it around (that's why he used to refer to Hillary Clinton as "The Smartest Woman in America").
Rush is parodying the belief of many people who voted for Obama (stated or implied by Sen. Obama and his followers) that somehow electing him would "heal" America; That Obama had some special power end the feelings of disenfranchisement and racial hostility at least among black Americans if not among all Americans.
It's actually not as subtle as you seem to think it is, unless you come to his show with such extreme presentiments that you are unable to hear it.
There are only 20 million of us Rush listeners. Megan knows us all, and knows we are all dolts incapable of grasping nuance.
Don't you call yourselves ditto-heads? More brilliant satire?
Why parade your ignorance?
I would love for some of the people who believe that Limbaugh is merely satirizing racism to walk me through exactly how it works in this case. So, Limbaugh sees (presumably on Drudge) that a black kid beat up a white kid on a school bus. He agrees with Drudge that this merits national attention. The reason, though, is NOT because he wants whites to feel afraid that blacks are now turning against them in some terrifying movement of which Obama is the most prominent representative... The reason he brings it up is because he knows that liberals are going to accuse him and Drudge of bringing it up to stoke such racial fears and prejudice? Or because the widespread anti-white racism in this country is what allows stories like this to ordinarily go unreported? Please explain.
"...the widespread anti-white racism in this country is what allows stories like this to ordinarily go unreported? Please explain."
I'm guessing that he would say ... "because of multicultural political correctness."
But I don't listen to the jerk so what do I know.
"I would love for some of the people who believe that Limbaugh is merely satirizing racism to walk me through exactly how it works in this case."
They already have. Check the comments in Megan's last Limbaugh post. Look for my name.
James, I just read your comment on the other thread. Hyperbole and sarcasm are not parody. (Longer explanation of that in one of MY comments on the other thread.) Limbaugh was engaging in the former, not the latter, it seemed to me. And, judging by that comment, it seemed that way to you also. Unless I'm missing something. If I am, please explain.
Troy,
First of all, you and I were talking about "satire" which is not necessarily "parody". But you'll have to explain to me why parody and satire can never be sarcastic. In any event, I have "walked you though" how Limbaugh's statements were a) tongue-in-cheek and b) intended to make applicable points about current events.
You were talking about satire, James, I was talking about parody. Parody is often a specific form of satire. Both often employ sarcasm, but sarcasm can be employed without any kind of satire or parody.
But let's skip the terminology and get to the bottom line: does Limbaugh honestly think white people are treated as second-class citizens compared to blacks in "Obama's America"? Or, does he not believe this, in fact thinks it's the kind of ridiculous, over-reaching, blame-the-President-for-everything kind of nonsense that the Left would say under Bush, and therefore worthy of some kind of satirical parody?
I think, based on what he's said previously on his show, that he does believe that. And I think that's vile and deserves to be criticized and roundly rejected.
Troy,
(actually dgf3, who started this thread was talking about satire)
I think Limbaugh believes that President Obama's supporters reach for the "racism" label as a substitute for meaningful dialog. I think that he does not believe that Obama has faced the media gauntlet that even Clinton faced, let alone GWB. I also believe that Limbaugh thinks that many people voted for President Obama because they believed that he could "cure" the feelings of racial resentment among black Americans at least and probably all Americans as well. I think he believes that President Obama and his supporters encouraged that belief.I believe that too, and that is the sentiment I detected in Rush's mockery.
James, I can respect your viewpoint, and even agree with key parts of it. I just don't see how you get any of that from what Limbaugh was saying. Note that I'm not saying that I see what you're talking about but prefer an alternative explanation; I literally cannot think of a way to contort Limbaugh's little riff into the points you made below. Maybe I'm dense and just don't get it.
Troy, it probably helps some people to listen to Rush a bit to pick up on his tone. The people my circles, however, would have no problem detecting all the subtext I listed because we have frequently said the same things among each other by the time he makes his joke. Apparently, he's arrived at his points by discussing them with his friends as well.
But perhaps some background would help. Every time Rush refers to Hillary Clinton, it "Hillary Clinton, the smartest woman in the world". When his refes to John Kerry, it's "John Kerry who served in Vietnam". During the campaign, he used to bring on his phone screener as "certified Black enough to criticize Sen. Obama". Rush will often employ sarcasm regarding things he was discussing a few days before or the last time he mentioned something. There are two or three references in all those jibes I mentioned. So if you really are amazed by Hillary's intelligence, or John Kerry's war service, or think that "a White man can't know what a Black man faces in this country", you will probably miss the sophistication.
"So, Limbaugh sees (presumably on Drudge) that a black kid beat up a white kid on a school bus. "
The thing is, you're already past the point here. It's not "see an incident, then go to satire", it's "go to satire, find the incident that would set my enemies off if it were reversed". What set this off was not a kid getting beaten up, it was a hundred pundits calling criticism of Obama racist.
And I'd suggest for Megan that it's probably better satire than she thinks. If someone you strongly dislike says something that if taken seriously you find disgusting, you're much more likely to fly past the possibility of satire than someone who has a neutral or positive view of the speaker.
The problem is, if so many missed it, it's not a very good satire.
I'm not so sure about that, on two grounds. First, good satire should cut close to home rather than being obvious hyperbole. What if Rush had used wildly exaggerated imagery to make it clear it was satire? Then you (and many others) could have dismissed him as fighting an laughable straw man. By sticking pretty close to the sort of thing that is said fully in earnest by liberals--and by provoking liberal (and squishy libertarian) outrage with it--he exposes how outrageous the statements he is lampooning are. If Rush is out of bounds, what about Dowd, Klein, and others?
Second, "so many" of the people who missed it are predisposed to outrage at Rush anyway, and therefore aren't necessarily thinking clearly or critically.
Limbaugh's listeners are not known for their ability to appreciate maybe-sort-of-satire
So far, the only thing in evidence is that Limbaugh's non-listeners are not known for their ability to appreciate satire. You'll need to back up your deprecation of his audience with something more than that.
I think you're confusing satire with sarcasm.
Maybe. I'm not exactly a literary critic.
Lets get into a semantic debate!
Jay, it's a pretty important difference. It speaks to what Limbaugh really believes, and if what he really believes is vile and dishonest, then he needs to be called on it.
From one of the dictionary's definitions of satire;
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
So sarcasm used to expose vice or folly is satire. That sounds to me exactly what Rush is attempting. No?
So far, the only thing in evidence is that Limbaugh's non-listeners are not known for their ability to appreciate satire. You'll need to back up your deprecation of his audience with something more than that.
That is not correct. The only thing in evidence is that Limbaugh's non-listeners are not know for their ability to respect the intelligence and sophistication of Limbaugh's listeners. I think they can appreciate satire perfectly well when it is on NPR and skewers the right.
The problem is, if so many missed it, it's not a very good satire. ... No offense, but Limbaugh's listeners are not known for their ability to appreciate maybe-sort-of-satire.
Oh, please.
Obviously, the Rush Limbaugh crowd is far superior at understanding satire than the McArdle/Dreher/Freidersdorf/Sullivan crowd.
The problem is that the McArdle/Dreher/Freidersdorf/Sullivan crowd is not interested in a reasonable interpretation of the piece. Their entire schtick is to distance themselves from the neanderthals who listen to Limbaugh.
I'd add, you've got to love the air of superiority in the "Limbaugh's listeners are not known for their ability to appreciate maybe-sort-of-satire".
Shorter McArdle: If even I (with my Ivy League degree and job in the elite MSM) can't get it, it must be pretty bad satire, and those morons who listen to Limbaugh are certainly too stupid to understand it.
Really, it's been a pretty long time since I read such an arrogant statement here.
But, it appears that is Limbaugh's non-listeners who were unable to detect the sarcasm/satire in this case.
Yes, listeners had no problem discerning the sarcasm evident in his dialogue.
I think it's safe to say that Andrew Sullivan isn't a listener, which is why his analysis is so flawed. You should remember that, Megan, next time you use Sullivan as a source of information.
He's not reliable.
maybe putting my question more clearly:
i get that limbaugh is sarcastically berating the media/liberals for thinking that everyone, even babies, are racially prejudiced against black people. and i hear the kind of mocking lilt in his voice. but i don't understand how the bus-beating anecdote comes into this. what's his stance on this? that it's a laughably unimportant story, only worth bringing up because it's the equivalent of the kind of thing that liberals would bring up, were the shoe on the other foot? is drudge in on the joke too?
Remember back when we had Republican Presidents? Or even Newt Gingrich as Speaker?
I seem to recall arguments of the form "In Reagan's America, we have homeless people dying in the street," and "in Bush's America we're mean to puppies." Typically this sort of argument was used to blame a particular Republican (or Republicans in general, or capitalism or whatever) for things they had nothing to do with. He's applying similar "logic" to Obama.
I don't think that it was particularly good satire, and his whole diatribe was a bit unfocused. That said, I think it's unlikely that even Rush Limbaugh actually holds Obama responsible for this attack.
The Newsweek article really was beyond parody, by the way. I had to check to make sure I wasn't reading The Onion.
And how about Drudge? Why did he make it the top story for a whole day? Is he a race-baiter? Or was he trumpeting the story satirically?
I don't read Drudge, so I don't know. I don't listen to Limbaugh, eiither, but I saw a link to the audio and listened to it. My sense, in listening, was that Limbaugh was being sarcastic, or at least attempting sarcasm.
I can't judge Drudge, because I didn't see it. What did he say about the story? I certainly don't think that merely reporting the story is race-baiting. Despite the reduction in crime rates over the last decade or so, criminal violence is a serious problem in the United States, made even more serious because of various racial dynamics. I think that the story is worth reporting and worth discussing, and the video is certainly quite disturbing.
So do you think that reporting the story at all is race-baiting? Or is it only race-baiting if it's the top story?
Tell me why you think it was race-baiting, and give me a link to Drudge's story, and I will evaluate your claim. Until then, well, I don't know.
Would you ask this question if the story were a black kid getting beaten on a school bus by two white kids as other white kids cheered on? What would your reaction be if the investigating cop declared the event "had nothing to do with race"?
Americans are endlessly attracted to the idea of race because we're not supposed to talk about it. White people (the majority in America) are terrified that they might inadvertantly say "monkey", or "watermelon", or "witch doctor" in a conversation that incidentally includes a black man. So a story like this drives traffic however the races are arranged.
"... but i don't understand how the bus-beating anecdote comes into this. what's his stance on this?"
Let me answer your question by asking you a question:
If a bunch of white kids were cheering on the savage beating in the back of a bus of a black child, while the driver did nothing ... would you accept that as proof positive that racism is alive and well in America?
I think you would.
And yet, when a bunch of black kids savagely beat to a pulp a white kid in the back of a bus with the apparent approval of the bus driver ... it's "nothing to see here, folks ... move along."
Middle America can see through what's going on. They're not the rubes you thought. And the racial dynamic that has been set up by liberals is about to come home to roost.
ok, thanks for the response. so just tell me: what do you see as the larger meaning of this bus incident? that anti-white prejudice is a problem in this country? i'm genuinely curious.
The larger meaning of this bus incident is that the driver did nothing to stop the attack. The larger meaning is that the other black kids cheered on the savage attack. The larger meaning is that there is no rush to enact hate crime legislation to put a stop to this.
The driver did nothing because if he had, he would have been accused of being a racist; just like the white school superintendent in Florida fired after a highly racially charged meeting for refusing to pump Obama's speech into his classrooms.
The larger meaning is that liberals are setting up a racial dynamic that will boomerang on them. They're stoking racial fires for political gain and claiming that if you criticize black elected leaders then that is ipso facto proof of your racist tendencies.
If you can't where that road leads, it is you that is blind my friend.
"... what do you see as the larger meaning of this bus incident? that anti-white prejudice is a problem in this country?"
From yesterday's thread ...
Smitty - "Here's the problem--there is nothing remotely comparable in the claims of grievance from white people, as a group, to blacks and other minorities, as groups."
Does Smitty believe that his anti-white prejudice is justified?
I don't really know - but it sure sounds like he does.
Mover, ever wonder how you came to see this particular video, but not any video from the thousands of other fights that go happen on school buses all the time?
dgf3,
The larger meaning is that we should be careful about being too quick to seek a larger meaning in an isolated and statistically insignificant event even if it really fits well with our preconceived notions.
I don't know what you're talking about! I'm constantly victimized by black people.
The other day I was at McDonald's and I ordered a Coke, and then the dude working the counter, who was BLACK, told me they only had Pepsi. AHG! Only in Obama's America!
Then as I walked outside, a home less man, also BLACK, asked me for some change! WTF! Only in Obama's America!
Well, if the guy at McDonalds told you that they only had Pepsi, you really ought to be mad at the fellow, since McDonalds is a Coke establishment.
It's only a coke establishment because the CIA is pumping it into the neighborhoods of color.
As a Diet Coke enthusiast, I must point out that McDonald's is all Coke, all the time. Many Diet Coke-heads such as myself maintain with great intensity the one great Diet Coke truth: There is no better Diet Coke than the one obtained from the fountain at a local McDonalds.
Just saying.
"I'm a humorless west coast liberal who doesn't get an obvious joke."
Well, at least you're no longer pretending to be a libertarian.
Heh.
Now we can complain everywhere that Megan has admitted that she isn't really a libertarian.
And, you know, if she meant the statement as sarcasm and we didn't get the sarcasm, well, then it must not be very good sarcasm.
If you have to explain it, it ruins the joke. Anyhow, I didn't think it was that good, either. But that's just how Limbaugh works. You try rattling away for most of three hours a day, and not including some dross in with the sparkling gems.
but i don't understand how the bus-beating anecdote comes into this. what's his stance on this? that it's a laughably unimportant story, only worth bringing up because it's the equivalent of the kind of thing that liberals would bring up, were the shoe on the other foot?
That would be my take, given the eagerness to discover "hate crimes" whenever a white guy kills a black guy, but declare "nothing to see here" when (say) a black Muslim and his teenage apprentice go on a terroristic killing spree, but I don't listen to Rush, so I can't begin to fathom his thought process.
The Satire Defense is constantly used by Limbaugh fans to look past his inflammatory idiocy. Ann Althouse does it all the time, for instance.
What Limbaugh was being satirical about was what he expected "liberal/Obama America's" response would be to the video. What he was most definitely NOT being satirical about was his perspective that white people can't catch a break in this day and age. It's a constant theme on his show.
He's blasting Newsweek on their supposition that white people are born racist and can't help it.
But, it's obvious that you don't listen, so you wouldn't know.
You think I don't listen. You base this claim on the idea that I failed to recognize that he was "blasting Newsweek on their supposition that white people are born racist and can't help it".
Except that I wrote "What Limbaugh was being satirical about was what he expected "liberal/Obama America's" response would be to the video." Which is pretty much exactly what you accuse me of not knowing or understanding.
Unlike your claim, my claim that you clearly didn't read what I wrote appears to have a basis in fact.
To repeat, then (maybe you'll read it this time): There was clearly satire in what Limbaugh said. The satire just didn't have anything to do with the straightforward "white people are being oppressed" theme.
"No offense, but Limbaugh's listeners are not known for their ability to appreciate maybe-sort-of-satire."
this reminds me of the observation that when somebody starts a statement out by saying "With all due respect....", the odds that they are about to dole out some serious disrespect are close to 100%.
If the pro-Limbaugh anti-Limbaugh forces here can agree on anything, it's that this was a pretty dickish thing to write. It really undermines Megan's point (which I happen to agree with).
Let me put that a different way, then. I don't know what Limbaugh's listeners are like. I do know that Limbaugh does not find liberal satire funny. Maybe his listeners are cut from finer stuff, and I unreasonably extrapolated.
You're letting your biases get in the way, Megan. I recently read an interview with Seth MacFarlane. "Family Guy" is writing an episode for Rush (in which Karl Rove will also appear.) Rush did a spot on the Star Wars spoof and made a positive impression on MacFarlane, et al. I think MacFarlane said something to the effect of "You know who is actually a likeable guy" in regard to Rush. Rush's first voiceover was as a radio announcer for the Tatooine radio network who complained about the liberal galactic media.
I'm not a Limbaugh listener, but that example pretty much precludes an inability to laugh at liberal satire.
"I don't know what Limbaugh's listeners are like."
Boy, you really have been living in a liberal bubble for a long time. It explains a lot. You'd think you'd know ONE listener.
I do know that Limbaugh does not find liberal satire funny. Maybe his listeners are cut from finer stuff, and I unreasonably extrapolated.
Of course he doesn't. But he does, in point of fact, realize that it is satire. That is the essential difference. It has nothing to do with "his listeners are cut from finer stuff." Rush's listeners don't like liberals but they have a chip on their shoulder while they do so. Deep down, all conservatives want intellectual respect from liberal elites. By contrast, liberals simply dismiss conservatives as an inferior and subhuman breed. Your own sarcastic dismissal "cut from finer stuff" only reinforces the point.
"No offense, but Limbaugh's listeners are not known for their ability to appreciate maybe-sort-of-satire."
Megan,
Believe it or not, I enjoy your presence on this board. Please stop insulting your readers (yes, many of your readers are also among Rush Limbaugh's audience. We also watch both NBC and Fox).
Surely someone of your considerable rhetorical talents can come up with colorful and scathing invective while confining it to the ideas, rather than the person?
"I'm a humorless west coast liberal who doesn't get an obvious joke."
I thought that you lived in Washington D.C. When did you move to the West coast?
You missed the sarcasm. It's probably because you listen to Rush Limbaugh and are a racist.
You’d only be half-right on that score. I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh but since I disagree with many of Obama’s policies, my being a racist is pretty much a foregone conclusion. ;)
(Megan, that last part was a joke)
I'll try again.
People seem to think that either a) you thought Limbaugh was being 100% straightforwardly serious and we should take everything he said strictly literally, in which case you're a moron who didn't get the joke or b) he was engaged in either sarcasm or parody or satire (even though each of those is a different rhetorical device, they seem to be used interchangably in many posts above) and should be let entirely off the hook.
There are obviously a lot of people, myself included, who think this was a pretty vile little riff by Limbaugh, but who don't think he meant it to be taken literally. In other words, we don't think either "a" or "b".
Here's the question: does Limbaugh really think that, in Obama's America, white people are treated like second-class citizens while black people get away with whatever they want? If so, then what he was doing was sarcasm and hyperbole. If, however, he doesn't believe that, and was attempting some kind of sophisticated critique of either the media or the Left railing away at President Bush, then it was parody and satire.
So, which is closer to Limbaugh's honest read of the situation? We know where Megan stands on this:
I'm with her.
Yeah, you dim-bulb Rush listeners are just gonna assume that she's a west coast liberal because "OMGZ11!!! she's insulting Rush!!!!111!!!!" Haha! Jokes on you! She's a *libertarian* you see, and she lives on the *east coast*! LOL!
I have to agree with the majority that this is weak. You made a mistake and instead of apologizing you are just insulting 20 million people because you are sooo much better than they are.
I listen to Rush when I am driving and I am perfectly capable of recognizing sarcasm. But if you want to call me and everyone else who listens to Rush mindless neanderthals, well I have some things I will start calling you starting with being a stuck-up b***h who looks down her nose at middle America. No disrespect intended of course.
You were wrong and you missed it because you hate Rush. Just admit it and move on.
Or better yet, just start listening to his show before allowing Andrew Sullivan to lead you down to his level of credibility.
There's a nice little meta thing going on here:
Megan's obnoxious comment undermines her correct initial point, and allows people to discount it.
Those same people are pointing out that Limbaugh's tangential satiricism negates any problem with his statements. In both instances, the distraction is working effectively.
And also, I love how Limbaugh listeners say that you have to listen to Rush constantly to have any ability to understand what he says. Do I have to read everything that Charles Krauthammer ever wrote to have an opinion on his latest editorial?
Context is one thing. You have to listen in context. But the idea that the only people who can comment on Limbaugh's show are those who listen frequently is just another way of excusing his bad behavior.
I think the Limbaugh listeners' objection is that most of the people criticizing Limbaugh don't listen to Rush themselves. Rather, they criticize Limbaugh on the basis of reading someone else's summary of what Limbaugh said.
The summary (not direct quote) of Limbaugh's statements that Megan quoted directly were indefensible. The problem is that the summary included assumptions and conclusions and additions of the criticizer that weren't present in Rush's statements.
Megan should remember that you have to take into account the bias of the messenger. Dreher (sp?) has socio-political motivations to put the most negative spin on Rush Limbaugh's words.
Thus, if your opinion of Rush Limbaugh has been developed without ever actually listening to what Rush Limbaugh says, you are being led by the nose by liberals acting in bad faith.
Daniel, that is not accurate. Limbaugh listeners ask that you listen at all to Limbaugh if you're going to take time to criticize the things that he says. Very few Limbaugh criticisms that I read are referencing his remarks in such a way, "HEY, I was listening to Rush, you won't BELIEVE what he said!" Typically, they're linking to a source (Media Matters, TPM, Sullivan, whomever) that is known to have an anti-Limbaugh slant and taking their interpretation at face value. It is perfectly reasonable to request that someone hear comments in context before passing judgment.
To get the satire of the incident in question is achieved by simply listening to the clip; one does not need to be an avid listener.
J, clearly no. Because I did listen to it. I didn't just read about it. I listened in context. And I read the transcript.
"No offense, but Limbaugh's listeners are not known for their ability to appreciate maybe-sort-of-satire."
Lordy, lordy! When you've dug a hole, why not really get in there nice and deep?
Insulting a segment of your readership, many who've shown themselves astute and maybe -- just maybe! -- able to suss out for themselves whether something is satire, is ugly and unbecoming of you. You try and pre-empt the inevitable criticism by assuming we're going to call you a "humorless west coast liberal" (aren't you an east coast liberal? I may be a troglodyte Limbaugh listener, but I *can* read and retain).
I agree with Alex S when he says:
"Really, it's been a pretty long time since I read such an arrogant statement here."
This is the first I recall such disdain and arrogance thrown at a portion of your readership.
By liberal, of course I mean "quasi-libertarian to some extent but not totally, but still mostly". Just got to typing too fast.
Megan writes: No offense, but Limbaugh's listeners are not known for their ability to appreciate maybe-sort-of-satire.
PULLEEEAZ!
So now you're not only an expert on el Rushbo (someone whom you NEVER listen to), you've also done extensive analyses on the demographics of his audience. Well dear, hats off to you. Perhaps you can find work advising him on advertising strategies.
Time to point your little nose a little lower. Blogging while breathing that rarified air can be damaging to your reputation.
And, Megan writes, I don't think it's ridiculous to say that for Rush Limbaugh, racism isn't a big problem in this country, but anti-racism is one of the greatest threats facing America today.
Huh? What in heck is "anti-racism"? Is that like, "reverse racism"? I don't understand that either.
Let me help you out here, Megan. Racism is the belief that you are in some way superior to other human beings because of your genetic makeup. Kind of like the Black Congressional Caucus.
I don't think you're a racialist (a better word, btw) Megan. I just think you're a fool (and an "intellectual" snob).
"...I will start calling you starting with being a stuck-up b***h who looks down her nose at middle America."
Stay classy, CAL. Why would anyone have to call you a "mindless neaderthal," when you do such a good job advertising that fact, yourself.
Uh, you seem to confused on the distinction between class and intellect or education. I am insulting one person who actually said something offensive. Not 20 million people about whom she knows squat.
dgf3,
Not a day has gone by in the last month that I haven't seen racism raised as a primary reason for the suddenly expressed opposition to various administration policies. You see it in widely read writers like Dowd, Dionne, Rich, Klein, and dozens of others. Limbaugh was pointing out how absurd such commentary is by doing the exact same thing in regards to the white student being beaten-"he was beaten because he was a racist", "Newsweek told us so".
Like I wrote last night, it might not be the smartest way to make the point. You make enemies out of people who completely miss the point of the satire, and you give even more race-card ammunition to your enemies who don't even care to understand it and are quite happy to misunderstand it deliberately. However, he at least gets people talking about it, it certainly doesn't hurt the ratings of his show. Unlike Megan, I don't think this was subtle satire- so subtle as to be missed. I think he could have easily found some other foil to play off of, or even make up one out of whole cloth.
However, I do have a question- do you think the incident on the school bus might be a hate crime? Do you think the response of the media would have been different if the races involved had been the opposite of what they were? It is even fair to wonder if Drudge would have highlighted it if that were the case.
Oh, and I have to point out that though I don't listen to Rush every day, I haven't heard a rant against the "Feminazis" in quite a few years. So, if you're going to castigate Rush for his "normal rants", at least bother to reference recent actual rants.
I don't do this much since I recognize it's your blog and you can talk about what you want, but how about taking a break from channeling other people's Rush-phobia and giving a little publicity to the pair of kids that are probably going to take down ACORN?
I already did.
>>So when he does a "satire" that comes perilously close to his normal rants against feminazis and raice-baiters, well, I don't really think you can expect the rest of America to get the joke.
I haven't listened to Limbaugh with any regularity since I was in highschool and in the car a lot more when his show was on--and before I got tired of his schtick--but unless something major has changed in his tone and format, I'm pretty sure ALL of those rants are satirical. He even used to have little comedic theme songs for his updates on each group of feminazis, environmentalists, etc. I've always had the impression that he's an entertainer first, and a pundit second. Again, maybe something's changed, but I think many of his liberal critics have always been missing the boat on that aspect of his show by taking everything he said at face value. I don't like the guy or his show at this point, but I really don't think taking his comments at face value is a good or fair approach, regardless of whether he's ranting about feminazis, race-baiters or "Obama's America".
Since I don't listen to him now, I will remove myself from the debate after having simply commented on my impression of things as I remember them years ago wrt Limbaugh's style of presentation and entertainment.
I admit that while I haven’t listened to Rush in years, I did listen to him almost regularly when I was in college and for a couple of years out. I seem to recall that he frequently said that his shtick was “demonstrating absurdity by being absurd” and I seem to recall that his show did a lot of song parodies. Perhaps his show has changed since I quit listening to it but it seems to me that it would be rather difficult to listen to his show for any length of time and not realize that “yeah, the guy’s trying to use humor to make a point.”
Megan,
I hate to pile on, but must agree with many others here. Your comments on this issue reveal a disdainful bigotry that is completely unbecoming. "No offense, but Limbaugh's listeners are not known for their ability to appreciate maybe-sort-of-satire." This comment is offensive, bigoted, and ignorant.
You are better than this.
While I am not a Limbaugh listener, my reaction is colored by the unsubstantiated accusations of racism flowing from Kurtz, Dowd, Pres. Carter and others in recent days. To be told that disagreement with President Obama's policies is tantamount to prima facie evidence of racism is infuriating.
Listening to the news hour segment last night:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec09/rage_09-16.html
Matt Welch made a cogent point - accusations of racism are being made (hinted at, alluded to...) with little or no evidence.
Racism is unacceptable. Unfounded accusations of racism are unacceptable. Both are wicked, vile, and disgusting.
Regards,
Neil
Calling someone "racist" is fighting words.
If Jimmy Carter called me a racist to my face, I'd punch him in the mouth.
You're a racist.
Once Juan Williams launched into his "reasons" for labeling anyone who disagrees with Obama a racist, I finally removed NPR from my car radio.
Uhm, what? You think that the average Rush listener listened to the performance and thought, yeah, the white kid probably was racist and probably deserved to get beat up?
Really?
No, but I do think that the average Limbaugh listener listened to the performance and thought, yeah, that's just like what Democrats and liberals say about white people all the time. Some of them went on to have more racist thoughts, others not.
Telling white people that there's a double standard probably makes them more racist, but so does actually having a double standard.
Telling people they are racist for opposing policies they don't like may also cause racist thoughts. Or it might not.
Telling black people that all their problems are because white people are keeping them down causes many of them to go on and have racist thoughts, although others don't.
Heck, after saying Good Morning to someone, others go on to have more racist thoughts, though others do not.
You are being reckless with your implications of causation when not even correlation has been demonstrated, much less plausibly indicated.
I reject your imputations.
I know, I know. You coastal sophisticates are just so much smarter than the rest of us. We really need to learn our place, and do accept being smeared as racists as part of the mystifying order of the universe.
Did you listen to it, or just read the transcript? A lot of things intended as satire or parody work better in voice than on paper. That's why sarcasm can be so difficult on the Internet, as people have long known.
She did not listen to it, or read the transcript. She relied on the linked blogger - Andrew Sullivan. Who, let's face it, is not exactly a reliable source.
No offense, but Limbaugh's listeners are not known for their ability to appreciate maybe-sort-of-satire.
I think I am going to take offense Megan. You just alienated a loyal reader.
@Daniel, who wrote:
"Mover, ever wonder how you came to see this particular video, but not any video from the thousands of other fights that go happen on school buses all the time?"
Daniel,
Are you really suggesting to me that white kids are cheering on the beating of their black bus mates all the time? That there are thousands of such videos in all of the video-equipped busses, but that we only see the one - the single one - where black kids are beating a white kid to a pulp.
Are you really suggesting there are thousands of such videos? And that I've been tricked "by those in power" who are holding back the videos of all the racist white students pummeling black kids across the nation every day?
That racism is so rampant in America that there are, literally thousands of examples of white people beating black people to a pulp every day?
Really?
Wow, you may be right. I might have been tricked.
I retract my previous comments.
No don't! You were right!
Missed his point by about 6 miles...
Well one of us missed someones point...
This is awesome.
Point 1:
You see black and white kids involved and assume it's a race thing. Why? YOU see race here. Kids get into fights all the time.
Point 2
Point 3
Point 4
They're all over youtube!!! And kids cheer fights all the friggin time too. But these don't make it onto Drudge. My question was why, of all the fights on school buses or in playgrounds or whatever, a number of which are filmed and posted, why was this one so "important" in some way?
There was only one reason this ended up all over the place -- because it involved two black kids beating up a white kid, and that served someone's agenda at this particular moment. It was that person, and the people who disseminated it further, who had race on the mind.
Look at what you wrote:
Are you really suggesting to me that white kids are cheering on the beating of their black bus mates all the time?
Look at what I wrote:
...ever wonder how you came to see this particular video, but not any video from the thousands of other fights that go happen on school buses all the time?
How did you go from what I wrote you what you said I was suggesting?
You see black and white kids involved and assume it's a race thing. Why?
If the situation were reversed, and a group of white punks were beating a defenseless black child in the back of a bus, while the bus driver did nothing ... would you see it as a "race thing?"
"Punks" verses a "child"?
Also, there were other white kids on the bus who did nothing, and it was in fact several black kids who pulled the punchers away. And it was TWO kids, not a group, who were beating up the one kid (and not at the same time either). Bus drivers frequently do nothing during school bus fights, as I recall from my youth. Sometimes they are, you know, driving the bus.
But to get to your question, if I saw a reason that it was race-based, I would think it was race-based. The involvement of different races is not a reason to say that it was race-based. This gets right to the heart of my point.
Point 2: White boy beats up white boy
Point 3: Black girl beats up black gir
Point 4: White girl beats up white girl
I'm still waiting for the thousands of videos which demonstrate white on black racism-based violence on America's school busses.
If your point is that kids sometimes fight, then you have a point.
If your point is that all the videos of white kids ganging up on black kids are being hidden, and Drudge only shows the one-off where black kids beat a white kid to a pulp ... then you haven't made your point.
My point is that if this situation was reversed, and a group of white kids cheered on the beating of a black child in the back of a bus while the driver did nothing to stop it, you'd be the first person claiming this is evidence of racism in America.
And yet, when a black kids beat up a white kid, it's not indicative of any black racists among us. Nothing to see here. Just kids fighting is all.
And you've made my point by your defense.
...you'd be the first person claiming this is evidence of racism in America.
Or you could have just waited for me to answer your question, and found out that you were wrong in your assumption (or more likely not believed me, since I must be lying to make a point).
Wow, Megan. You really are a bigot. After admitting you didn't get the joke, you go on to blithely assume that very few other people understood it, either (because, natch, you're the smartest person you know). You then proceed to state that you *just know* most of Limbaugh's audience is composed of rubes who took the piece as a straight up invitation to a race war.
What I noticed is that substantially all of your commentators got the joke, so apparently substantially all of them are smarter than you are? I hope you can get a refund on that expensive college education your parents bought you, because obviously you should have saved their money.
Shame on you. If you have any integrity (and I'm not holding my breath...my trogloditic religion thinks suicide is a sin), you'll apologize and admit you were drunk when you wrote the psot. Or you left yourself signed on and someone posted that as a joke. Or you're pushing the edge of subtlety in sarcasm.
I just realized I got pwned. Megan doesn't believe anything she posted the past two days, she was just making a point.
Well played, Megan.
Although in my own defense, having read your various blogs since Assymmetrical information shortly after the 9/11 attacks, normally your sarcasm is more obvious. Very subtle this time "I hear you cry..."
Although to Megan's defense she might argue that we're the minority of Limbaugh listeners who get the satire, while the vast majority are right-wing rubes who don't. I'm giving you a lifeline Megan.
That's not much of a lifeline. If she said "all Hispanics are simepletons" and then, belatedly, added "well, except for the ones who read my blog. They are OK" I don't think most people would be fooled. Bigotry, plain and simple.
So John, which of these is bigoted:
1. All Hispanics are simpletons.
2. Everyone who watches "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire" is a stupid idiot.
Both of them are bigoted statements. They both evidence treatment of members of a group with intolerance.
Wow. PC has come full circle.
But no. One is a judgment of people based on their taste. The other is a judgment based on an innate characteristic. If you don't see how these are different, well... they're different.
But is taste a moral category?
The problem is, if so many missed it, it's not a very good satire.
To the contrary, the fact that you missed it makes it hilarious.
My friends and I joke that we are all racist hatemongers out to evict orphans on Christmas eve.
And it is as though you walked up while we were doing so, and chastised us. It's as funny as it gets.
Haha, dude. Can you please stop making this argument? You have no idea whether or not she's read the transcript. Or if she listened to it. The article she linked to yesterday was two clicks away from a recording of the broadcast.
Sorry, meant to reply to the (approximately 60) comments from movertyperguy about Megan not having listened to the recording.
Satire/sarcasm isn't really humor, nor is it meant to be funny.
If pointed satire/sarcasm is considered ineffective by someone, it is probably because one of their sacred cows is being slaughtered for the BBQ.
I know, I know--I'm a humorless west coast liberal who doesn't get an obvious joke.
Well we know that Megan, but then again west coast liberals are not known for their ability to appreciate satire.
Oh, wait. You were using satire. I get it! Very clever... so that's how it works!
Rush Limbaugh isn't inciting a race war. There is already a race war going on.
and at least back then, he was a humorless jerk who really didn't find, say, Michael Moore or Jon Stewart funny. His main product is outrage at the vast conspiracy against him and his people. Sound familiar?
You know, one might think that when you realize that the hole you've been digging for the 24 hours is really, really deep, you ought to stop digging. But I guess that's not Megan's style.
Looks like Megan decided to ignore the objections and move on to some other point.
Ah, well. What can you do?
Megan needs to burnish her credentials among the Manhattan party-goers by trashing Rush.
Rush isn't a racist. He understands that the key to his success is being discussed and referenced by the media and pundits.A very effective way to do this is to constantly offer up ridiculous flame bait. Everything he says is well calculated to illicit condemnation from fools, and support from even bigger fools.
Rush is a business man. As he constantly says. This sort of shames those who take his words as gospel.
I think you're about this (in a way). He's right. Here's why:
Racism can be stopped by making laws against not servicing or prosecuting people equally.
Anti-racism involves the government worming its way into the souls of individuals to determine their motives for everything they say and do.
I'd think a good Libertarian like you could see that.
P.S. "Anti-racism" is the reason the cop in the "school bus" incident HAD to declare that two black kids beating a white kid as other black kids cheered on had NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE. Otherwise, the incident would have become a "hate crime" which would have involved government over-reaching (as hate crime prosecution always is).
Make that "overt racism" and I agree.
Here, I think you're referring to hate crimes legislation and the like. Agree that most of it is nonsense.
No. I seriously doubt the police officer here is lying because he wants to avoid this being called a hate crime. Much more likely explanation is the one he gave: at first, this looked like a race-motivated incident, but after reviewing with the kids it now looks like two bullies beating up on a kid who was struggling socially.
People keep saying, "What if the roles were reversed and this was two white kids beating up a black kid?" OK, let's play that game: what if all three kids were white? What would it look like then? The answer is that it would look like exactly what the cop said it was: two bullies beating up on a social outcast. So who, exactly, is bringing assumptions about race into the picture here?
In that case, the video would be looped on every news program and would be properly referred to as a racial incident. So what did Drudge do wrong?
Agree on the "racist" test nonsense. Also agree that it, like hate crime legislation, is an example of what we were talking about, which was in your words "the government worming its way into the souls of individuals to determine their motives for everything they say and do". I'm with you so far.
But then you shift from examples of race-focused legal controversies to race-focused media controversies, in the same sentence and the same comma-delimited list. You must realize how dangerous it is to lump the two together. The NY Post example, the macaca example, the Maureen Dowd example are examples of racial controversies in the media -- the Connecticut firefighters case and hate crimes legislation are examples of racially driven laws. Let's not confuse the two.
With that said, let's keep going. Although I'd take issue with the macaca example and don't remember the "mad chimp" example, I think the Maureen Dowd column is a fair point and illustrates the broader idea you're getting at regarding the media: that any time someone protests Obama, some idiot somewhere is going to claim that the protest is primarily motivated by the guy being black. I don't disagree with this. Sometimes they're right, of course, because in the same way, every time Obama does something some idiot somewhere is going to claim that it's secretly a plot to kill all the white people or something. But, most of the time, the people crying racism at everything are wrong, and being unfair. Maureen Dowd was wrong, President Carter was wrong, people saying the tea parties or the healthcare protests are primarily driven by racial animus are wrong, and on and on.
OK, but then, after you blockquote my text, we get to the core of the matter. My example of three white kids is NOT a big difference from what happened, because this apparently didn't have anything to do with race. Don't take my word for it -- I wasn't there. The police chief said so. He wasn't there either, and like many of us, he jumped to the wrong conclusion initially after reviewing the incident on tape. But then he had a chance to interview the kids who were on the bus, white and black. And THEY said it wasn't racial, it was just bullies beating up on a nerd. So he analyzed their interviews, and in his professional opinion came to the conclusion that this was a simple case of bullying. And I accepted that, but apparently you didn't. In other words, between me, you, the police chief and the kids on the bus, the only person who still thinks this was primarily a racially motivated incident is YOU.
I agree with you that if the races were reversed in this incident that commentators like Dowd would be screaming about racism. But can you not see that you're doing exactly the same thing, injecting race willfully where the evidence doesn't justify it?
I think you realized this by the end of your comment. Because you suddenly decide that if the races were reversed it would be covered on a loop and "properly referred to as a racial incident" [my italics]. After railing two paragraphs before about how the mad chimp and the macaca controversy were media driven nonsense, suddenly it would be "proper", if it had been two white kids beating up on a black kid, for liberal commentators to ignore the police chief and the statements from the people who were actually there and decide that this was, in fact, blatant racism and not just bullying. I hope you realize now how ludicrous that sounds.
Furthermore:
1) Sure the bullies said the issue it wasn't racial (presumably, since we don't know how the cop arrived at his conclusion and I don't think he based on anything but expediency). Even bullies don't want to be thought of as racists. Just like Andrew Sullivan said, the kid was beaten up for sitting in the wrong seat. Rosa Parks also got in trouble for sitting in the wrong seat.
2) I don't believe in detecting racism out of thin air. I also don't believe in pretending its not there when it obviously is. When two white men drag a black man to death in TX, I don't say they were just random bullies. And when two black kids beat a white kid, or the other way around as those of the beater's color cheer on, it is self evident what is going on. If it weren't for "hate crimes" legislation, those in authority would have no problem calling it as they see it. One day hate crime legislation is going to be ruled unconstitutional because someone is going to prove statistically it is only applied when the perpetrator is white and straight.
Wow, Rush listeners aren't known for their ability to appreciate satire. What's next, black men aren't known for their ability to raise a family, Jews aren't known for their ability to be charitable, Mexicans aren't known for their ability to become educated? Funny thing is, McArdle and Limbaugh are pretty much on the same page economically.
You're the second person to equate demeaning the listeners of a radio show with demeaning people on the basis of race/ethnicity. How is insulting Rush listeners the same as racism?
Yeah, politics as an ethnic identity - it is an idea to be resisted. I think some of it comes from the way elite media outlets talk about the right. At best there is a sort of anthropologist amongst the odd natives of a foriegn land aspect to it. They discuss conservatives as if they were inherently different in psychology, sexuality etc. or at least something odd and foriegn and largely unknown. It pushes a type of identity onto conservatives.
The left believes that one's politics are almost indistinguishable from one's race - or at least racial interest. It is apt to create errors of conflation.
If people push the idea that black conservatives are inauthentic and/or race traitors - or that white conservatives are racist for their purely political beliefs it blurs the lines between ethnicity and politics. It is a very bad idea that I think has to be laid at the feat of the left - at least in starting this kind of thinking. Folks on the right, and people generally should really resist it.
What would be helpful is if someone with a large megaphone made some sort of satire, parody or something showing how bad it is if you inject race where it does not belong. Whoever did it will probably be misunderstood and villified by some but it is worth doing.
I agree with some of what you say. For instance, there is a media disdain for a lot of people out there. I would add "San Francisco liberals" and "elitist liberals" to the list of people who receive an awful lot of disdain based on where they live and what they are perceived to believe -- this also pushes a type or identity onto liberals. And there are big regional divides in this country that sometimes fall along political lines.
I also remember Sarah Palin's "real America", Nancy Pfotenhauer's "real Virginia". I think there are a lot of people on the right who believe that one's politics are synonymous with one's patriotism or true American-ness.
There is some truth to this. That website called something like "Things White People Like" is a sort of look at coastal liberal schtick. But then you have crunchy-cons and the bizarre flavors of the month that folks like Andrew Sullivan will push (remember when he wanted eveyone who shared his beliefs to call themsselves Eagles?) to let one have coastal aesthetics and some conservative beliefs. This seems like a symptom of the same disease. However, it does tend to run more in one direction than the other. You don't see a lot of liberals trying to carve out red-state aesthetic identities. Philosophically it does seem a clear outgrowth of liberal identity politics. Sometimes it does bite them on their own asses but not as much and not as painfully.
The real America thing seems like it based not on race or ethnicity so much as class and adherence to traditional values. This seems more acceptable to me because it is not innate while ethnicity is. Dividing people around what they believe seems reasonable. Dividing people by race and assigning motives and beliefs by race seems bad.
Politics is the identity that matters most. Clarence Thomas, Tom Sowell, Walter Williams -- how would they be treated by the left? Would the Left come to their defense with racists charge every time they were criticized by opposing views? Of course not. Does anyone remember how the left called Michael Steele "an oreo" and "uncle tom" when he was running for governor of Maryland?
Apparently not finding Michael Moore or Jon Stewart to be funny means you’re a “humorless jerk.”
Good thing Rush didn’t say that he found Sasha Baron Cohen to be tiresome or else Megan would have really let him have it!
Rush takes what they say literally and then blasts them for it . . .
I didn't know Michael Moore was satirist.
That is a Tu Qoque defense. Should we not criticize Rush for what he intends to say - not strawmen, even if Rush himself often constructs strawmen? I am not sure why Rush's bad arguments should justify ours.
Like what?
So, right, up until recently you thought he couldn't get any worse and now saying that he's stoking racial tension is a low blow?
Huh, the worst person I can imagine would certainly have no qualms about inciting racial violence. I guess I'm not giving the truly evil their due credit.
Wrong, it's you and your leftist buddies stoking the racial wars every time. Just yesterday Jimmah Carter was pouring kerosene all over it. You are utterly shameless.
But I have, in fact, listened to Rush Limbaugh quite a bit, though not recently, and at least back then, he was a humorless jerk who really didn't find, say, Michael Moore or Jon Stewart funny. His main product is outrage at the vast conspiracy against him and his people. Sound familiar?
Huh? Maybe you listen to Rush more than I do (a few hours a year) or maybe he's changed, but his schtick is more than half entertainment.
I don't find Moore funny either. Stewart has his moments, but I thought the Daily Show was better before him. Kilborn wasn't quite as ideological, or maybe its just the studio audience is different now (the Dem jokes tend to fall flat).
It's probably fair to say Rush is to the right what the Daily Show is to the left, more or less.
You clearly are either Craig Kilborn, or his mother.
LOL
I know, I know--I'm a humorless west coast liberal who doesn't get an obvious joke. No offense, but Limbaugh's listeners are not known for their ability to appreciate maybe-sort-of-satire.
You know, Megan, you usually aren't a complete idiot, snot, and smugly superior jerk. So it's too bad you decided to be one here.
Yes, indeed, those "mind numbed robots" who listen to Rush Limbaugh actually do appreciate the satire, despite not having gone to the same schools you went to. Are you really as much of an "elitist" twit as you are acting here? "Oh, those mouth breathing members of the great unwashed couldn't possibly understand anything as subtle as sarcasm."
Yes, it was satire. Yes, you missed it. Yes, you are acting like a complete ass here. And so was Rod Dreher.
It's not Rush who's "humorless", it's you. You don't like his sense of humor? Fine. It's not often my cup of tea, either.
But I'm not so dense as to miss the fact that it is humor, and a lot of people do like it.
You, apparently, are that dense. Do yourself a favor and stop advertising your failure.
No offense, but Limbaugh's listeners are not known for their ability to appreciate maybe-sort-of-satire.
A stupid and arrogant thing to say, but there is one factor that mitigates the stupidity -- the people who post on this blog are not representative of the population of Rush listeners -- they are much more intelligent, better educated, etc...
I compare the Rush supporters here with the people I know in my real life who are Rush supporters, and I see apples and oranges. Maybe I'm overstating it and it's really apples and pomegranates, but does anyone here really think it's apples and apples? This is a serious question.
Best example: My father-in-law can parrot everything Limbaugh says, he loves to talk about the government taking away his money despite the fact that he is living on a railroad pension that is heavily subsidized by the government. He has never considered the irony. In the interests of family harmony, I sure won't. It's important to note that is that he's not stupid, but he is intellectually very lazy and does not know how to think critically -- hence the strict adherence to everything Rush says.
My sister listens to Glenn Beck and go to tea parties despite the fact that she is living off of social security disability for a "bipolar" condition which is completely fabricated.
Another brother is a birther -- I can't be 100% certain he listens to Lumbaugh because he is impossible to talk politics with, but it's very likely baed on the things he says. His idea of sarcasm is a fart joke disguised as a poop joke.
None of these people could make an argument as reasonable as 90% of the posts made here.
My long winded point -- the people I know who support Limbaugh (and/or Beck but maybe that's not completely fair to include) are not as smart as the posters here, and I would bet a lot of money that my siblings are smarter than the average American.
I agree to the possibility that this small number of examples may be a skewed sample, but I see no obvious reason why that would be the case...
How convenient that you have three right-wing mouthbreathers, each one embodying the most toxic of the current right-wing cliches for relatives. A brother and a sister, too, who each just happen to suck off the government teat, no less! I'm shocked your father-in-law didn't bust out with the "Keep the government out of my Medicare!"
Your examples are all related to you. How does this not represent a skewed sample?
Serious question:
Do you contest his premise? In other words, do you disagree that your average Rush listener is less capable of critical thinking and reasoned argument than the Rush supporters on this thread?
I have no reason to believe that Rush's audience is mostly comprised of people incapable of critical thinking. I don't see any reason to assume that just because some listeners have found their way to Megan's blog means that they're some higher functioning critical thinker. I've been to Republican picnics and events in my local area for years, where I've met plenty of Rush enthusiasts from all walks of life who also demonstrate plenty of intelligence.
I will answer your question with a question:
Do you think that the average New York Times reader is less capable of critical thinking than the average liberal on this thread?
Here are the stages of economics:
Stage 1: incentives don't matter. Good intentions are a sufficient basis for social policy.
Stage 2: Incentives matter
Stage 3: Incentives sometimes lead to inefficient outcomes
Stage 4: As does the government
The liberal poster above comes from a family of redneck hicks. I come from a family of liberal elites. But my family members with PhD's routinely make statements that you can only make at stage 1. Most liberal elites are horribly mistaken about basic issues in ways in which the average conservative (at stage 2) is not.
Actually, it's the father-in-law and the sister that are the teat sucklers. I think the teat suckling is a bonus and not the most important part of my argument which is that I believe they are less intelligent than the posters here, but more intelligent than the average limbaugh listener. Can you respond to that or are you just going to you yell "you lie" like Joe Wilson and become a hero?
Actually only two of them are related to me by blood, and how exactly does that skew the sample against my argument about their intelligence and the average Limbaugh listener?
By the way, your comment about right-wing cliches and mouth breathers is incredibly offensive. Unlike most of the oversimplification that goes on here, these are real people with many sides.
My father-in law is a limbaugh listener and it's impossible to have a conversation about politics with him, but he is a very decent man -- this is the conundrum I face when I deal with people in my family. My brother the goof is also a much better humanitarian than I will ever be, he travels to Haiti every year to help out poor kids in 100 degree heat. My sister, well she's just an ahole, but two out of three ain't bad.
This is the kind of complexity that Obama spoke of in his great speech on race -- people can be racist, but it doesn't mean they're aholes. And this is the exact same complexity that is evident in the implicit tests of racism that I mentioned in the other thread and got jumped on as some kind of liberal zombie caricature because I expressed the idea that there isn't just black and white when it comes to racism.
This is the most troubling thing I see in America -- people clinging to absolutes with no possibility of a middle ground.
Limbaugh sells this intellectual polarity all the time. Today I heard him say that all of this "anyone who criticizes the president is a racist" is ALL coming from the white house (and no it wasn't a parody). This is ridiculous, the idea came up and stayed because the media loves it, but Rush portrays it like a left-wing conspiracy where Obama calls up media people and says "push the racism thing".
Does Rush remember when the media failed to ask any tough questions about Iraq until it was too late? Despite Rush's assertions of 'state controlled media', the media is about sensationalizing the issues, presenting false balance and scoring the horse race -- not seriously challenging the powers that be no matter who they are. Sure the MSM leans a bit left, but mostly they lean toward the money and the viewers who want their politics to look like a reality show where people have cat fights.
As I said above, I've met plenty of Limbaugh enthusiasts at local Republican functions and picnics sponsored by the radio station on which he broadcasts. I've met and networked with many nice and intelligent, enthusiastic types, whom I saw again at the several Tea Parties I've attended (it's nice to enjoy a conservative event in deep-blue Seattle). I've never met anyone that meets the stereotypical current right-wing hater/birther/whatever, so I bristle when I perceive someone (like Megan) making snap judgments about an audience s/he is neither a part of, nor has mixed with in his/her everyday life.
Rush doesn't push a left-wing conspiracy, he posits that those in the media have staked their credibility on Obama's success, hence their desire to push narratives that are helpful to the President. Any objective assessement of the coverage of the recent blow-ups with Van Jones, the NEA scandal, and notably, the ACORN scandal reveals a MSM that is loathe to cover stories that could potentially damage Obama. Each time they've been dragged kicking and screaming to "cover" the stories, and then with as little damaging detail as possible. Thank God for the Internet.
Sorry, I have to call "bullshit!" here.
The press asked plenty of tough questions on Iraq in the run-up.
President Bush justified the invasion for many more reasons besides just WMD.
Congress had access to the same reports President Bush did, and the invasion was passed with an overwhelming majority. Then President Bush went to the UN and received support. The French went squishy afterwards, but they failed to derail the invasion because it was clear they went squishy, and the invasion *was* justified.
Democrats and the press have engaged in Big Lie revisionist history to de-legitimize the Iraq invasion and President Bush after the fact.
It is despicable, and shame on you for perpetuating the falsehood.
I'm getting tired of people criticizing me for things I didn't say.
Does Rush remember when the media failed to ask any tough questions about Iraq until it was too late?
I never said the invasion wasn't legitimate, and I never said the congress (dems and repubs) weren't also to blame (they were)
I said the press didn't ask the tough questions and I stand by that assertion. They did not want to be perceived as 'not supporting' the war.
Any objective assessement of the coverage of the recent blow-ups with Van Jones, the NEA scandal, and notably, the ACORN scandal reveals a MSM that is loathe to cover stories that could potentially damage Obama. Each time they've been dragged kicking and screaming to "cover" the stories, and then with as little damaging detail as possible. Thank God for the Internet.
You need to thank Jon Stewart as well -- his piece on acorn was pretty funny and it showed how horrible Acorn behaved. You might not know this, but Stewart makes fun of the Right and the Left -- what a concept!
Something that has not really come up in all this is how much of a role aesthetics probably played in how people interpret Rush's schtick. I suspect that aesthetics is a more fruitful place to start looking for dividing lines than attitudes on race. No one in any of the threads defends racism as defensible or justified.
I wonder if folks are looking for moral and political vindication of their taste. Most of the huff in this post and the snarc back at Megan have centered around aesthetics rather than anyone's ideas about race. People are using a lot of language about class but it seems like it is more aesthetics affiliated with some class issues. A similar piece by Jon Stewart - even if it trafficked in the same issues - seems unlikely to have triggered Megan's ire. It would just be transgressive. Certainly if Stewart had crossed some actual line of decency she would not have been as dismissive of Stewart's audience.
Maybe she is continuing an argument that I should know if I had read her more in the past but is Megan really saying that a belief that PCdom is more of a problem for America right now than racism is an indefensible and evil argument to make? Seems unlikely that this is what she believes even if she disagrees with Rush's priorities. I don't know his body of work but does Limbaugh justify racism? Otherwise it is a question of priorities.
Anyway, taste creates as little justification of one's politics as one's race does. But boy are they often used to justify things.
You're right. Rush simply does not consider the potential residual racism in this country as as great a danger as the power of PC or the fear among the media that they might inadvertently say something that could possibly in any way be construed as referring to Obama's tan skin.
Stewart and his audience traffic almost exclusively in irony. From a post-modern framing of politics - irony is about as close as you can get to integrity. Stewart is seen to have integrity because he ironically shows that everything is flawed and depends on where you stand. He has integrity because he at least isn't a hypocrite, might be the argument.
This may be why Megan says that Limbaugh's audience is not known for trafficking in sarcasm, satire, and parody. Compared to Stewart, Limbaugh and his audience are pikers in the irony game. I don't think that a world-view built around a certain amount of earnest belief in a set of ideals should be denigrated and it still leaves room for parody and a certain amount of sarcasm and irony.
I also don't think Rush needs to hit the quality of Swift to be able to be understood. I don't think Rush's defenders are twisting his words out of all recognizeable shape to bring out his meaning. We aren't parsing what the definition of "is" is.
Wow, Megan, I must say, you really are on a roll. First you tell us that the polls are showing that Obama got a significant bounce from his speech. Too bad (for you) you told us this one day before the polls unequivocally showed that no, he had not gotten any significant bounce from his speech. Then you get suckered by Rod Dreher into attacking Rush for something that, to any even moderately self aware individual, is an obvious satire that you simply missed.
Then, apparently feeling permanently stuck on stupid, you decided to double down with this little gem. Which, the more I look at it, the more stupid it is. Which is why I fisked you.
I'm having trouble ginning up any outrage at Rush or Megan for what they've said on this issue. I'm still trying to get my jaw up off the floor after someone who used to be the President of the United States said that opposition to Obama's policies was largely due to racism. I don't think anything has made me angrier.
It demeans me -- calling me at worst an outright racist, and at best, someone who can't get by my hidden biases to evaluate a man's policy positions and actions on their merits, and to judge them against what I believe to be right. It demeans him -- reducing him to a victim, not a President and a leader of the country. He is the most powerful man in the world. What? He needs Jimmy Carter out there running interference with all the rednecks? God. Give the man his due. I disagree with him on many things, but one thing I know for sure. That man is not a victim. Talk about sucking the marrow out of life. I wish I had half his grit.
Anyway, putting vocal opposition to the President's policies and actions out of bounds by labeling it racist is offensive, lazy, and to quote Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, un-American. Eff that. I will not play this game.
You must be young. Jimmuh has been spouting stupid nonsense since his stint as governor of Georgia. He has the mannerisms of a Southern gentleman, but under that genteel vernier he's arrogant, vindictive, petty, and vicious. And he's generally clueless. Always has been.
I'm old enough to remember him debate Reagan and Anderson. That Carter said it doesn't surprise me, I guess. It's that I haven't really seen widespread denunciation of such a statement. And even the denunciation I've seen has been sort of half-baked. Remember when people said Bush was implying that dissent from his policies meant you were unpatriotic? And how everyone freaked? And for the record, I thought that what Ari Fleischer said was dumb and unhelpful.
How could you listen to Rush "quite a bit" and come away thinking he was "humorless"? A jerk, maybe, depending on where you're coming from, but humorless is 180 degrees from Rush Limbaugh.
Megan:
I don't think it's ridiculous to say that for Rush Limbaugh, racism isn't a big problem in this country, but anti-racism is one of the greatest threats facing America today.
It is, but maybe only because of bad word choice on your part. The problem isn't genuine anti-racism; it's trumped-up (or mistaken) allegations of racism that result in pointless lawsuits, Jackson-style shakedowns, ruined political careers, chilled dissent, and inefficient measures taken to reduce risk of all of the above and more.
This is a real problem, and it's a serious problem, arguably more serious than anti-black racism, though it's probably going overboard to say that it's "one of the greatest threats facing America today." Of course, Limbaugh hasn't (as far as I know) actually said that.
redfly:
I think Carter's credentials as worst ex-president ever are pretty solidly established by now, so I'm not really surprised.
Via InstaGlenn I note that Ann Althouse has figured out that Rush was joking.
Remember the first rule of holes: stop digging.
You screwed up. Big time. Stop making it worse. Admit you screwed up, admit you were a humorless jerk, grow up, and move on.
If you really don't think you acted like a jerk, you need to re-read your post. You were condescending and insulting to 20 million+ Americans, all in an attempt to cover up that you screwed up.
Greg
i do hope that everyone reads the newsweek article....and read for meaning. try and peel the onion folks.
i know it is easy to get upset w/rush, but he's talking in many layers. and, yes, maybe he's not johnathon swift, but there's often a lot more than the snark that makes a jon stewart.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/214989/page/1
"That leads to the question that everyone wonders but rarely dares to ask. If "black pride" is good for African-American children, where does that leave white children? It's horrifying to imagine kids being "proud to be white."
Wow.
Rush fans really hate when you hate on Rush.
(sure, it was satire, and Rush is a jackass who is in it for the money and will do and say what keeps that gravy train rolling.)
People really get bent out of shape if folks point out that some of the crazy directed at the President might be racist. Because folks, that gal from Arkansas crying "I want my country baaaaccckkkkk" is not afraid of commies.
We should probably all calm down and watch Southpark.
I suggest Chef Goes Nanners and With Apologies to Jesse Jackson for our viewing pleasure.
And it would be nice if everyone would just remember that those kids on the bus were bullies and the more important conversation is why no one seems to care that 2 bullies were allowed to beat up another kid and the bus driver did nothing to stop it.
This whole thread began when Rush pointed out the ridiculousness of labelling those who oppose Obama as racist.
the general form is
If people say X, they are lying/distorting and really mean Y
And yet this exact thing happened to be many times in the last few days here.
I posted a comment that there is a well documented subtle racism effect that can be measured with the implicit association test, I alos mentioned that I had performed the test in a college class I teach and I had seen the result replicated many times.
The responses were as follows ...
-- I had a secret agenda to find racism
-- I was using pseudo science to prove my point
-- The results of the test are easily explained
-- I was pushing my own research for some political aim
And when I mentioned i lived in LA I also got
-- I was a "type" that was a slave to the political conformity of LA academics
Then I asked if the Rush supporters here might not by typical of all rush listeners because the folks who post here are much smarter than the people I know in the real world. I used examples from my family who I know to be smarter than the average person but not as smart as the people here, the ONLY response I got was
-- "you lie" (that's a paraphrase of course, the comment said how very conveneient t was that my family fit right wing cliches, but hey that's my family).
When I pointed out that waterboarding wasn't consistent with the words of Jesus , I got a response of
-- typical response from an idiot liberal who wants to indict Bush(and then a lot of statements that I agreed with about how liberals weren't consistent about their abhorrence of torture)
When I suggested that christianity is anti-analysis I got this response
-- liberalism is full of lies and deceit, etc. etc. with no counterargument to my claim about christianity
All of these responses made claims/assumptions about me that are factually inaccurate.
-- I had a secret agenda to find racism
I have no investment in the outcome of this test, I use it in a laboratory methods class to show how we can measure things that are hard to measure. I was surprised the first time I heard that it worked.
-- I was using pseudo science to prove my point
The effect is well-established in social psychology, and as I siad above, I had no point to prove
-- The results of the test are easily explained
Very little in complex social cognition is "easily" explained"
-- I was pushing my own research for some political aim
It wasn't my research. I've never done research in social psychology
And when I mentioned i lived in LA I also got
-- I was a "type" that was a slave to the political conformity of LA academics
I'm one of the most "non-academic" teachers in my department.None of my friends are academics and my political positions are very varied and could never be described as typically liberal.
Then I asked if the Rush supporters here might not by typical of all rush listeners because the folks who post here are much smarter than the people I know in the real world. I used examples from my family who I know to be smarter than the average person but not as smart as the people here, the ONLY response I got was
-- "you lie" (that's a paraphrase of course, the comment said how very convenient it was that my family fit right wing cliches, but hey that's my family).
This is the most easily verified
When I pointed out that waterboarding wasn't consistent with the words of Jesus, I got a response of
-- typical response from an idiot liberal (and then a lot of statements that I agreed with about how liberals weren't consistent about their abhorrence of torture)
I agreed with many of this commenters diatribes against liberal hypocricy.
When I suggested that christianity is anti-analysis I got this response
-- liberalism is full of lies and deceit, etc. etc. with no counterargument to my claim which is pretty easy to back up
No counter argument, just the old liberal stereotype bs despite the fact that I don't subscribe to all the things I was accused of subscribing to.
So let's summarize, my fellow commenters constantly made false assumptions about my motivations, positions and one even questioned my veracity. Some times, they didn't even respond to my arguments because they were so hell bent on attacking liberals because they assumed I ate the whole liberal pie because I expressed a position that was liberal.
If this is how debate gets done in a place where people are smarter than average, aren't we all in a bit of trouble?
steve, don't get discouraged. Here's the thing. Initially people hear whatever narrative is already in their heads, not what you post. Read the posts you respond to a few times, consider alternative explanations, ask questions to make sure you understand what people are really saying. Make sure to outline what you agree with as well as what you disagree with.
With the folks on these threads, that's usually all it takes. I've learned a lot in these comment threads, and changed my mind about the healthcare debate because of some of the ideas expressed here. And on the good points I make I often get: "OK, that's fair enough, I just get pissed when X happens". And, in all honesty, the X that they're pissed about is usually something that's worth being pissed about.
Sometimes you get trolled, but most of the people here will give you a fair discussion if you are determined to remain precise and focused.
Thanks for pep talk. It's reassuring that there are some responses that are not only thoughtful and respectful, but even help me learn something about how to approach the process.
I said some of the things from which you take umbrage. I stand by them as origionally stated but my intention was not to upset you. I don't think you are being trolled as a lot of the criticism coming your way is substantive and not ad hominem. Of course, I would think that wouldn't i?
There is something passive aggressive about a lot of your argumentation. For intance, you claim authority because of your academic credentials and experience but when academia is questioned as a source of authority you diminish your asociation to acadenia when that becomes inconvenient. You use science to question other people's motives and reasoning (does it come from racism) and then get annoyed when people show you that they can do the same with your beliefs. You talk about how in every class you teach a test that "proves" racism but then claim that it is really about teaching methodologies of testing and that the racism angle is just some sort of coincidence. You have no responsability for a climate where unproven accusations of racism are acceptable. The interpretation of the results of such a test must apparently be handled with care yet you interject them into a blog dialogue as proof that some portion of the accusations by public figures of racism hurled at citizens are reasonable and justified.
Perhaps the best example of what I am talking about - You presumed to speak not just for christians about torture but for Christ himself and when called on how that this is incorrect you then mentioned you aren't christian. I am not christian either but I wouldn't be so arrogant as to tell christians how they aren't being true to their religion regarding waterboarding. This is the kind of thing that makes you deserving of strong responses.
I could go on but you get the idea. I don't think you got pummeled too badly - or at least no worse than you were seemingly unintentionally giving out.
Nutella on Toast is a troll.
These Rush Limbaugh defenses are simply too precious. Rush Limbaugh's niche is to put his finger on the pulse of conservative outrage and provide an outlet for it. The big tool in Rush's toolbox is mockery - to mock liberal ideas and to mock "the Liberal". Satire, parody, sarcasm, et al are simply sub-genres of his mockery. And, yes, he's pretty good at taking the pulse and mocking the Liberal.
Yet these defenses will have us (liberals) believe that we're too muddled to recognize his satire for what it is. We're told that we have to listen to Rush in order to recognize what is satire and what is not. I call bullshit. Rush Limbaugh is not interested in promoting honest diaglog to resolve problems, and so if we (liberals) listen to Rush, the only nuance we'll be treated to is among satire, parody and sarcasm and the only distinction we'll be able to draw is between mocking the Liberal and outright outrage. Our bad, I guess, if we sometimes miss that distinction.
The ironic thing is that Rush pretty much always leads to the same place - a mewling victimization on the part of downtrodden conservatives who have done so much for this country yet have never gotten a break in their lives. American society is changing and we (conservatives) don't have our privileges any more. Well, yeah. American society is changing. But losing your privilege is not oppression.
"Yet these defenses will have us (liberals) believe that we're too muddled to recognize his satire for what it is."
The fact that you (liberals) are constantly attacking Rush over things that clearly are satire is the problem. Conservatives of goodwill assume that you are somehow missing that and try to come up with reasons why you can't see what is obvious. Wiser (imo) conservatives think most of the attackers are fully aware it is satire and they don't care. They just want to attack Rush and use the any weapon at hand approach.
As to downtrodden conservatives never catching a break, what break have I gotten exactly? Unless you think being born white is inherently better than being born black and, if that is the case, I pity you.
The world is not desperately in need of more anger, hatred and paranoia.
The world is not desperately in need of more sugary breakfast cereal either, but there seems to be a a lot of it being sold. That's the free market, baby!
Very clever post! There are three readings.
1) Megan is further insulting Rush's listeners
2) Megan is apologizing but her apology is in a satire. (hence the west coast liberal comment)
3) The fact that readers (including myself) did not initially pick up the satire undermines their defense of Rush. In point of fact, Rush's listeners are not sophisticated enough to get subtle satires. The face-value reading of Rush's bit about Obama's America stands.
Well done! But I don't think #3 is correct. It is not that people are divided into "smart people who get satire" and "dumb people who don't". Rather, you get satire when it is about the speck in someone else's eye, but not when it is about the beam in your own. Thus, liberals fall for satire about the race card. Conservatives fall for satire about conservatives being dumb and ignorant (conservatives have a chip on their shoulder about this).
I think the chip conservatives have about this is a serious problem. Because we tend to feel excluded from institutions associated with intellectual pursuits - and a seeming majority of public elites deride conservative thought - I am concerned that conservatives are throwing babies out with the bathwater. There is a growing rejection of the infrastructure of intellectual pursuits and a dismissal of elite intellectuals. Either these things have to be reformed or substitute institutions need to be developed because the purposes they serve are worthwhile. Rush can be amusing and thought provoking but he is no substitute for what Commentary magazine etc. used to be. Most of the left organs are becoming just as thin on intellectual heft but they have the universities as a backstop.
I really had no idea so many of you were Rushians. I guess Megan didn't either, or she wouldn't have tangled with this tiger.
Wow what a mess. All of the room for argument comes from the fact that there are a whole spectrum of Limbaugh lovers, that love him for different reasons. And more than most people realize (Megan included, I take it.) It's a case here of 'all is true.' In my daily contact, the vast majority of these folk would not be capable of, nor appreciate, the "precious" defenses of him here. They simply enjoy hearing Magic Negro songs and so forth because they like striking a blow against "political correctness," and chafe at the bitter oppression of not being allowed to say the vaguely racist things they really think. That group is probably a plurality. But you've got all kinds, as we see here. Rush is an expert at talking to all of them at the same time.
"As to downtrodden conservatives never catching a break, what break have I gotten exactly? Unless you think being born white is inherently better than being born black and, if that is the case, I pity you."
Of course, in an economic sense, for the vast majority of people, being born white is of course an objective advantage. Not just the likelihood of being born into more money, but for the simple sociological mechanics of being in a majority, which seep into many areas of life, economic and otherwise. Further, you definitely do nothing with that response to counter Roffe's idea that the main thing that binds admittedly diverse Limbaugh listeners together is a feeling of majoritarian victimhood. It's no accident that a voice like Rush reaches such a fevered popularity precisely at the time of demographic change. And that it sounds at the same time so bombastically authoritarian and yet so whiny.
I actually didn't feel any need to counter Roffes ideas. They were as absurd and ignorant as Megans. I just wondered what breaks it was he thought I was getting by not being black.
As to in the economic sense it being better, the idea that being in the majority racewise is a benefit doesn't explain why other minority groups do so well in this country after a few generations. They obviously aren't in the majority.
The irony is rich, CAL. My ideas are absurd and ignorant, yet meanwhile you're on the cusp of self-selecting as the poster child for my point.
But let's take your situation at its self-described face value - you've never gotten a break due to your conservatism . . . or libertarianism . . . or whatever flavor dittoheads define themselves with. Can we presume then that your life has progressed on a privilege-neutral basis? That the only real break you've enjoyed is something all Americans have "enjoyed", i.e. being born into the most prosperous, most dynamic country the world has ever known? Something that applies equally to every single one of us born in the USA. With the corollary, of course, that your subsequent station in life, and any dissatisfaction springing out of it, falls solely on your shoulders. After all, you are responsible in all ways for everything that happens to you. By extension, if you're not happy with the opportunities you have, it's your fault and your fault alone . . . or at least so I understand the typical burly individualists who comment on the topic in these threads. Or does that dismissal only apply to the segments of society that the burly individualists disdain?
Or are you more typically a dittohead, i.e. not only not advantaged but explicitly disadvantaged due to your political leanings? Disadvantaged by women, perhaps, or by elites? Undoubtedly disadvantaged by the government putting you under its thumb, with maybe incremental disadvantage accruing because of Hispanics and African Americans. (It's also ironic, CAL, that you somehow interpret my comments to be about race. Until this paragraph, my comments have been exclusively about Rush Limbaugh and conservative outrage - a broad topic - so why is it that you interpret them narrowly to be about race?)
But this disadvantaged shtick - and to be fair, you never played this card CAL, but if you're one of Rush's dittoheads (and I presume you are), then I am saying that this shtick is classic Rush / dittohead - this shtick strikes me as nothing more than the hoary complaints against "the Man", some amorphous other who's determined to make your life worse. Rush and his fortune depend almost entirely upon giving "the Man" a handle, something tangible that his dittoheads can seize on as they growl at the radio dial when Rush intimates oh so cleverly (it's just satire, don't you know) that it's the minorities . . . it's the government . . . it's the atheists . . . it's the women . . . it's the coastal elites . . . it's the limousine liberals . . . oh, yes, it's the LIBERALS ! . . . that are holding good people down.
So, CAL, there you go. My interpretation of the world according to Rush and his minions. Fire away.
This post is McArdle at her worst, and she senses it - hence her defensive tone. Condescending, preachy, hypocritical, smarmy, and yes - humorless. And also elitist, not in the objective sense, but in the sense of seeking comfort in slavish and pathetic obedience to a social group that imagines itself superior to Limbaugh's listeners. (It's actually elitist-conformism, a malignant disorder awaiting DSM classification.)
McArdle wrote this post because she became aware, however dimly, that her prior post on Limbaugh was flat-out false, but she lacked the honesty and decency to simply admit she was wrong, and leave it at that.
"That leads to the question that everyone wonders but rarely dares to ask. If "black pride" is good for African-American children, where does that leave white children? It's horrifying to imagine kids being "proud to be white."
RK- It leaves white children where they've always been, proud to be an American in the land of the free as represented by the majority of U.S. history books and hundreds of songs and slogans since the 1700s.. except now other American children get to be proud too. Now the black kids get to read about the 92nd infantry and see maybe a few movies about their great grand dad's heroic involvement in the wars of this country among other things.
White pride in this country has the advantage of not having to be labeled as such but until recently, it meant just THAT. American always meant white. This is why there's no White history month or white movie week. White entertainment channel=every channel except BET.
It was never horrifying for me to see white children or white people in general display pride in their contributions to the good ole USA all these years. I'm also pretty sure they were probably celebrating a collective ideal of American heroic s that probably didn't include many blacks. While I do have my problems with omission filled histories , I don't have a problem with what's NOT being left out. White people have accomplished a lot and have much to be proud of. Hell I'm proud of them.
Are you saying that white people should fear and avoid expressing pride lest they be labeled racist?
If so then by whom?
I don't know of any black people who have expressed horror that white people should be proud of who they are. Unless they're serial killers or (actual) Nazis, or KKK members. Why should it be horrifying to you? Pride in self does not mean hate towards others. It's an old idea that's long been played out.
A little off topic, sorry, i just wanted to respond to RK.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
It's almost by definitions that libertarians and science don't mix; if you think you've 'pummled' this guy, you're seriously delusional.
1) why didn't you put this comment in with the rest of the actual thread?
2) I did not intended pummeled to mean that I destroyed Steve's arguments but rather in terms of his feeling bruised by others' responses. I mostly wrote my comment to try and show Steve that he was making a lot of the same errors he attributes to others. It is a little unrealistic for him to paint himself as some sort of victim of unreasoning aggression and therefore to worry about the state of our society based on how his comments were treated. His style of argument is passive/aggressive. If he wants better engagement he should amend that.
3) what do you mean about libertarians and science not mixing? I haven't noticed a strong luddite, flat-earth component or anything like that in these comments.
Aaah - I see why you put your comment where you did. The Reply function is busted.