Full disclosure, I haven’t listened to political talk radio in years. It sounds like Rush announced that he’s been diagnosed with lung cancer and will be out sporadically for treatment. I wish him the best, and that he’ll become closer to God during this time.
Having said that, here’s what one leftist had to say.
“Good. I hope it's painful and slow and he loses his voice so he can stop spewing the same poison for 30 years.”
I don’t understand the desire to publicly wish additional pain and suffering on another human being.
At least Tulsi Gabbard has a little class and compassion.
“To Rush Limbaugh: I and my family send our love and best wishes to you and your loved ones at this difficult moment in your life. May your hearts and minds be filled with and strengthened by God's love.”
So much better than hate.
59 comments:
Normal people: “Raping the 4 year old twin daughters of your girlfriend and giving them an STD is a horrible, evil act. Perhaps it would be appropriate to sentence the perpetrator to s quick and relatively painless death.”
Liberals: “Ohhh no, that’s cruel and mean.”
Normal people: “It’s horrible to hear that Rush was diagnosed with lung cancer, I hope they can do something for him.”
Liberals: “I hope he dies a long, slow, painful death.”
Anyone who’s pushing the fantasy that liberals are caring, inclusive, tolerant people is having a severe disconnect with reality.
No doubt we'll hear from Dan about how it isn't typical of lefties. But that isn't quite accurate at all. I'd say it's not typical of lefties to refrain from such based on what we see with far too much regularity in the news and on social media. Given the slant of the media, we don't even see tons of right-wing examples that later turn out to be false. We know they're looking for excuses to disparage the right, yet still there's very little to present. In the meantime, there's tons of stuff demonstrating the hatred and vitriol coming from the left toward the right. It can't be debated it's so common.
When John Wayne Gacy was nearing the time of his execution, there were many who gathered to celebrate his demise. On a local radio station, there was a mostly conservative talk show host who was outright gleeful about it. I couldn't stand it coming from someone who seemed to otherwise be right-wing, and tried unsuccessfully to call his show to tell him so. We're talking Gacy, bin Laden and now that Iranian general...I take the same attitude we're told God has...that no one should perish. Some should be put to death because they refuse to repent of their evil ways. But I don't think it proper for anyone to find joy in it. In general...and that's how this is done...the left is shamefully open and proud of their hatred for their opponents.
I think it’s ok to feel relief or a sense of justice being meted out when a Gacy or Bin Laden dies, but I’m not sure glee or celebrations are in order. Just look at the reaction of Muslims when their “enemies” are killed.
Anyone who spends any time on social media knows that this sort of response from the left is incredibly common. It’s the same people who want Dana Loesch’s children murdered or raped, or call her and others “c###s”. The same folx who spew racist vitriol at young black conservatives.
By the same token, I can’t think of how many times I saw conservatives wish Ginsberg well as she battled cancer.
I just don’t see what the upside is (although my deleted comments make it clear that some idiots think there is an upside), or why attacking the victims of a disease is somehow virtuous.
First and foremost, it is absolutely wrong to say such cruel, harmful and cutting comments as your stranger on the internet made. It's a wrong, cruel mean thing to do. Shame on that person. Are we clear?
Secondly, if you are a Limbaugh or a Trump, someone who has spent a literal lifetime of mocking people,a bullying people, of demonizing and oppressing minorities, abusing their wealth and power to cause harm to others, to demonize, to attack, to be oppressive... To be that kind of person your whole life, you might expect that some people will have equally harsh judgments on you. As the Bible says, he who sows the wind reaps the whirlwind.
By the measure you judge, so shall you be judged. Do you see how this kind of remark is, if not good, to be expected?
I see you talking out of both sides of your mouth.
The simple reality is that everyone has the choice of how, or if, it’s appropriate to publicly respond to something like this.
I’d say that if someone has actual been directly harmed by someone, then it might (might) be somewhat understandable if they responded harshly. But for someone who doesn’t have any actual reason to, there’s absolutely nothing positive to be gained by wishing a slow painful death on someone they have no connection to.
No, I don’t see how this hateful, cruel remark is to be expected, justified, or excused.
Just like it’s not appropriate to call young black conservatives “house niggers” or “uncle Tom’s”, or to call conservative women commentators “cunts”. Yet this sort of language is commonplace on social media from liberals directed to conservatives.
I guess that’s something that y’all just ignore.
Re, "if someone has been directly harmed..."
Of course, minorities, lgbtq folk, immigrants, Muslims, women, oppressed classes have been directly harmed by people like Limbaugh and Trump. That the privileged white male class doesn't recognize that harm doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Indeed, that's part of the problem. It seems to me.
Re, " no, I don't see how this is Justified or expected..."
So when the bible or Jesus speak of truisms like "what comes around goes around," you don't think that sending negative, hateful, attacking sorts of comments out is NOT going to come around? That's just the sort of a universal truism, don't you think? Whether it should happen or not, it should be expected... that's just human reality. Am I mistaken?
re: See you talking out of both sides of your mouth.
I don't see how. Was I not clear when I said, unequivocally, "It is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to say such cruel, harmful and cutting remarks..."? Did you not understand that my position is just simply that it's wrong to say such things? How is that talking out of both sides of my mouth?
Do I recognize that people who have heard the verbal abuse from people like Limbaugh and Trump for decades will sometimes speak in similarly abusive response? That "he who lives by the sword (or by the verbal attacks) will die by the sword (or verbal attacks)" is not a call to kill with a sword those who kill with their swords, just a recognition that, in this world, the sort of grace (or lack of grace) you dole out your comments and actions will often be met with a similar lack of grace?
Recognizing that "Karma happens" is not an endorsement of grace-less responses to grace-less actions, just the recognition that you can count on it happening.
if someone has actual been directly harmed by someone, then it might (might) be somewhat understandable if they responded harshly.
As I said, people with positions of power and privilege (like Trump/Limbaugh) DO cause harm with their words and policies and actions. On the other hand, some stranger on the internet engaging in a deprecatory prayer does not cause any harm to people like Limbaugh, so, by your measure, where's the problem?
RE, directly harmed. If these folx have been directly harmed, then let them speak for themselves.
FYI, neither the Bible nor Jesus teach Karma.
Yes, I realize that you wrote some words about the actions I mentioned. You then proceeded to write more words that excused/justified/minimized the very actions you condemned. The fact that you simply accept actions you claim to condemn as natural responses, is pretty much the definition of talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Rush has power, really? He’s a freaking talk show host. I guess your ignorant of the tens of millions of dollars he’s raised/donated towards blood cancers, I guess the beneficiaries of that don’t count.
Please prove that the comment (which you claim to have a problem with) is now elevated to a prayer. What gives you the certainty of that?
I’m guessing you can’t point to one specific harm Rush has done to one specific person by way of his radio show.
As to your last, it’s not helpful when you ask questions based on your twisted version of what I said.
I literally said that if this guy had been directly harmed, then his response would be understandable.
Of course, by focusing on this one specific incident, you can continue to pretend that the larger trend doesn’t exist or that you can avoid the increasing hatred spewed by “your folx”.
It is my belief and the understanding of many people that when one demonizes minority groups and traditionally oppressed groups (and women, racial minorities, religious minorities, LGBTQ folk, immigrants all fit in that category), one harms the whole group. Black men are stereotyped as dangerous, thugs, beasts, monsters... and, as a result, we see black men shot at greater rates than white men by police, for instance. Or how black people are treated by banks, by hospitals, etc.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/after-ferguson-black-men-and-boys-still-face-the-highest-risk-of-being-killed-by-police
This is a larger question and some research has been done on this, but many of us would say that it's fairly apparent on the face of the facts as we know them. Do your black friends think it's disputable that negative stereotypes cause them harm? How about your gay friends? How about women you know?
re: "neither the Bible nor Jesus teach Karma."
Karma: "is a word meaning the result of a person's actions as well as the actions themselves. It is a term about the cycle of cause and effect. According to the theory of Karma, what happens to a person, happens because they caused it with their actions."
Jesus said, " For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.” and in the OT we see the verse about "sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind"
Each of these three ideas (karma, by the measure you use, sow the wind...) is speaking of the idea that, in this world, to some degree at least, you tend to get back what you put out there.
I wasn't suggesting that Jesus was teaching the Buddhist term, "Karma," but the teaching is pretty similar between Karma and what Jesus said and what the Hosea said. Or that's how it seems to me. Do you disagree?
RE: Deprecatory prayer... I wasn't suggesting that this person was praying to the Judeo-Christian God a deprecatory prayer. I meant that this style of "hoping" or "wishing" or "cursing" an objectionable person is, in general, a deprecatory prayer. A curse. I was speaking in general terms.
"I literally said that if this guy had been directly harmed, then his response would be understandable."
I'm literally suggesting that we ALL are literally harmed by abusive, demonizing attack talk such as are uttered by Limbaugh and Trump. Feel free to disagree.
It seems you agree at least in the sense that you feel this stranger on the internet's comment is causing harm or is, at least, wrong.
As to people speaking abusively, it happens on all sides, to be sure. I see it much more commonly amongst those on the right and suspect that, if it could be measured, we would see it more on the right, but I don't know that it has or can be measured.
As to when it happens on the left, the examples I've tended to see of it is in response to abusive, oppressive public people like a Limbaugh or a Trump. And, while I don't condone such harsh attack language, especially in times of death and sickness, I do acknowledge that this is what happens to people who engage in abusive, harsh attack language.
For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.
It's a truism, it seems to me.
Do you disagree?
Let me ask it this way. Where you say, "So much better than hate."
Limbaugh has said...
In 1988 he called Amy Carter "the most unattractive presidential daughter in the history of the country," and in the early 1990s he called Chelsea Clinton the "White House dog."
"It's preposterous that Caucasians are blamed for slavery when they've done more to end it than any other race,"
[about a football game] "looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons"
He called the Georgetown Law student Susan Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" in 2012 when she argued before Congress for contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
He's repeatedly joked that Hillary Clinton castrates men and has a "testicle lockbox" and said in 2009 that she didn't become a US Marine because "they didn't have uniforms or boots big enough to fit that butt and those ankles."
He mocked Michael J Fox (who has Parkisons) about a commercial Fox made, with Limbaugh swaying and flailing his arms about and saying "Either he didn't take his medication, or he's acting."
For starters. In ALL those comments, it could be noted that he could have made comments about Clinton, about Chelsea Clinton, about a woman, about Fox, about black athletes ALL without engaging in those hateful and demonizing and marginalizing comments. And that would have been so much better than the hateful comments he made. Yes?
My concern is that it seems some conservatives want to go on an attack against Pelosi for merely tearing up a Trump speech, but remain silent when Trump does so much worse. They want to criticize some random stranger on the internet for saying something hateful, but remain silent when Limbaugh goes on for years attacking "feminazis" and "thugs" in the NFL, etc.
It seems (to many of us on my side) that the vitriol coming from the right is led by leaders and privileged, wealthy white men who are in positions of power (and yes, having a radio show with millions of devoted followers DOES give one a seat of power) and then complain when random no-name liberal commenters ALSO respond in a harsh manner. The teaching "First, remove the plank from your own eye..." comes to mind, as does, "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness..."
By being in the public eye, people like Limbaugh and Trump are "teachers" and in a position to be judged with greater strictness, it seems to me.
RE: "I don’t see how this hateful, cruel remark is to be expected, justified, or excused."
Let me ask this, respectfully.
Jesus said that the measure you judge, so shall you be judged.
That seems to say to me that IF you have judged harshly, you WILL be judged harshly. That if you attacked someone and demonized someone, you WILL be attacked and demonized.
Does that mean that Jesus was condoning attacking and demonizing others? Or was he merely stating a truism that, this is the kind of thing that happens in this world?
More quotes from Limbaugh...
“Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.”
“Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?”
~Rush Limbaugh, while holding up a photograph of 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton on his 1993 television show
“They’re out there protesting what they actually wish would happen to them sometimes.”
~Rush Limbaugh, on women who protest against sexual harassment
“What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.”
"...So Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
“Let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do — let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.”
“I’m a huge supporter of women. What I’m not is a supporter of liberalism. Feminism is what I oppose. Feminism has led women astray. I love the women’s movement — especially when walking behind it.”
“We’re not sexists, we’re chauvinists — we’re male chauvinist pigs, and we’re happy to be because we think that’s what men were destined to be. We think that’s what women want.”
~Rush Limbaugh, claiming that women want men to be assholes, April 15, 2004
“[S]ome people are self-starters, and some people are born lazy. Some people are born victims. Some people are just born to be slaves. Some people are born to put up with somebody else making every decision for them.”
“You just gotta be who you are, and I think it’s time to get rid of this whole National Basketball Association. Call it the TBA, the Thug Basketball Association, and stop calling them teams. Call ’em gangs.”
"[T]he nags … the national association of gals, that’s our pet name for the NOW gang … the nags are a bunch of whores to liberalism."
=====
Does that suffice or should I continue?
Do you agree that these are obscene, disgusting, filthy comments?
Do you agree that such demonizing and attacks of black folk, of women, of liberals, of oppressed groups, when blasted out to millions of devoted followers who, in turn, laugh about Limbaugh's "wisdom" and "wit," can and does have an effect on culture and society at large. If you add to Limbaugh, the Trumps, the Alex Jones, etc of the world, as well as the guys at the bar, your racist uncles and cousins and deacons at church, etc... you have all these millions of people demonizing people of color, women, liberals, LGBTQ folk, etc... do you see how that could have an effect on their ability to be hired? Their safety when confronting police? Their rights being upheld in courts of law?
Have you seen the movie or read the book, Just Mercy yet? If not, I encourage you to do so. These are true stories that not only happened in our lifetime (stretching back to the 60s), but our CHILDREN's lifetime. Stories like this happen today.
I believe that some words and taught beliefs DO cause harm, even if they're mouthed by a buffoon who considers himself a comedian. Or by Limbaugh.
You'll recall what the apostle James had to say about the great damage that can be inflicted by "the tongue."
“Proximity has taught me some basic and humbling truths, including this vital lesson: Each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done.
My work with the poor and the incarcerated has persuaded me that the opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice.
Finally, I’ve come to believe that the true measure of our commitment to justice, the character of our society, our commitment to the rule of law, fairness, and equality cannot be measured by how we treat the rich, the powerful, the privileged, and the respected among us.
The true measure of our character is how we treat the poor, the disfavored, the accused, the incarcerated, and the condemned.”
~Bryan Stevenson, from Just Mercy
Impressive use of some random, out of context quotes taken from a 30+ year career in broadcasting.
As to the rest, it’s just self serving blather, so you can justify your, and other liberals vitriolic, vile attacks on conservatives and pretend that it’s all justified.
I do want to thank you. You’ve once again demonstrated that you are unwilling or unable to unequivocally criticize those on your side of things without in some way trying to legitimize those attacks. I do like how you base all of this on your “belief”, not on objective proof.
I’ll end with this. As someone who’s lost 2 family members to cancer, I can see no circumstances under which wishing an even more painful and slow death on someone already suffering a slow, painful death is something that s decent human would engage in. Further, to attempt to co opt Christ and His teachings to justify this sort of behavior is quite the opposite of Christ’s example and teaching.
I must compliment you on your use of out of context texts as proof texts to advance your pretext.
Craig... "you are unwilling or unable to unequivocally criticize those on your side of things without in some way trying to legitimize those attacks."
Dan... "First and foremost, it is absolutely wrong to say such cruel, harmful and cutting comments as your stranger on the internet made. It's a wrong, cruel mean thing to do. Shame on that person. Are we clear?"
I hope you can see that it seems like it doesn't matter how clear I try to be, you can read something else into it.
I THINK SUCH COMMENTS ARE CRUEL AND WRONG.
Dan, what is your position on saying things like this?
I THINK THEY ARE CRUEL AND WRONG, especially in times of sickness and death.
But do you think it's sometimes right, Dan?
NO. I THINK IT'S CRUEL AND WRONG.
But really, what is your position about such comments?
???
Do you agree that Limbaugh is wrong for calling a 13 year old girl a dog?
Come on. We can agree on that much. It is an extremely hateful awful thing to do, yes?
Let's find SOME common ground.
Do you agree that it is a TRUISM of human nature that when one sows harsh, attacking comments, one is likely to reap the same and even worse?
Can we agree that Jesus wasn't condoning responding even more harshly, just saying that it's a truism of human nature and that one can note that truism while not condoning it?
Craig, you recently lamented about the rancor that others might see in Christians disagreeing with one another. You lamented that people might see us, "Putting our differences of politics ahead of our commonalities in Christ?"
I worry about that, too. I'm striving to find some common ground and to make it exceedingly easy, I'll reduce it to those last two simple ideas that I think everyone should be able to agree with wholeheartedly.
It is a human nature truism that what we send "out" into the world, in terms of attacks, hatefulness, mean-spiritedness, etc, will often be sent back to us. By the measure we use, so will we too be measured. When Jesus said this, he wasn't saying that we SHOULD respond mean-spiritedness back to mean-spirited people, just that it's often the way things happen. We sow the wind and reap the whirlwind, in the words of Amos.
Do we agree on that?
And just like we don't take Jesus' words there as endorsing mean-spiritedness, neither am I endorsing mean-spirited comments when I note that Limbaugh's own harsh words will sometimes be returned in his direction. I can BOTH recognize that karmic interaction AND be opposed to it.
Do we agree on that?
Finally, when Limbaugh calls a 13 year old girl a "dog," that is amazingly, diabolically cruel.
Do we agree on that?
Come on, we can find some common ground with respect. This should be easy.
1. Having listened to Limbaugh for a while, I understand that a big part of his shtick was “illustrating absurdity by being absurd”, given that truth it’s virtually impossible to analyze one small out of context sentence (or part of a sentence) without seeing the broader context of the quote.
Given the indisputable fact that I don’t know if your out of context “quote” is accurate, nor do I know the broader context of the quote, it would be irresponsible of me to pass judgement with incomplete information. Given the virtually indisputable fact that you probably just pulled that line from a social media post bashing Rush, and that you are ignorant of either the context or the accuracy of the line, I’d suggest that it’s a bit irresponsible of you to treat that line as you are.
Given the lack of accurate information. I’d say that if, I’m fact, he was actually calling a 13 year old a “dog”, then I’d agree that it is completely inappropriate. Unlike you, I try not to attack people from a position of ignorance.
Finally, given your silence when folx on your side have said some inappropriate things about Trump’s young son, are you sure you’re ready to condemn those comments with as much vigor as this?
What the hell is a “human nature truism”, and how does one objectively measure one? Are you suggesting that a “human nature truism” is objectively true?
My thought, which was in the post/thread you reference, is that we as believers (new creations) should be striving to rise above “evil for evil”, and follow the example Jesus set for us. “Love your enemies.”, “Pray for those who persecute you.”, “Father forgive them...”.
You seem more interested in “returning evil”, than in “turning the other cheek”.
What is a human nature truism? A truth about human nature. If one is constantly abusive and degrading to people around them, one can expect, as a truth of human nature, that people will respond in kind.
Do you think I'm mistaken?
Do you think noting that this is a truth - a common trait or trend in human interactions - is the same as endorsing or supporting in kind responses?
You seem more interested in “returning evil”, than in “turning the other cheek”.
Again, I point you to my position:
I THINK SUCH COMMENTS ARE CRUEL AND WRONG.
How is noting that they are cruel and wrong indicate an interest in returning evil?
"Have you seen the movie or read the book, Just Mercy yet?"
Not yet. My wife has spent some time with him and I'm waiting until she's back in town.
"But really, what is your position about such comments?"
It seems that this quote sums up your position.
"For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you."
That anyone (given the silence of you and other liberals when it's one of "yours", I'm led to conclude that this is exemption only applies to conservatives) who says things that offend people, or that are controversial, should expect and deserve to have people respond in kind.
"Do you agree that Limbaugh is wrong for calling a 13 year old girl a dog?
Come on. We can agree on that much. It is an extremely hateful awful thing to do, yes?"
Without some more context, it's simply impossible to accurately judge a small snippet.
"Do you agree that it is a TRUISM of human nature that when one sows harsh, attacking comments, one is likely to reap the same and even worse?"
Sure,, there is some level of our sinful human nature that will sometimes move us to respond to someone in kind. The fact that this exists doesn't make it right, acceptable, or appropriate.
"Can we agree that Jesus wasn't condoning responding even more harshly, just saying that it's a truism of human nature and that one can note that truism while not condoning it?"
No, because by taking one small snippet of Jesus teaching out of context, it makes it difficult to ignore everything else He taught. It's amusing that this snippet is part of a larger teaching that many on the left use to condemn "judging" in general. This is used to suggest that it's wrong to judge anyone for anything. You've chosen to selectively suggest that judging is appropriate in some circumstances. Again, if only you weren't silent when folx on you side say and do similar things.
I applaud your flexibility and your commitment to both condemning and simultaneously understanding/excusing this conduct.
FYI, when you reference my post on how Christians should relate to other Christians as a way to understand/excuse the behavior of non Christians, you are missing the point. Intentionally or not, I don't know.
"Of course, minorities, lgbtq folk, immigrants, Muslims, women, oppressed classes have been directly harmed by people like Limbaugh and Trump."
Liar. Unless you consider hurt feelings as legitimate harm. I don't, necessarily, because one can't account for how sensitive another might be before speaking truthfully, even if crudely. But actual harm? No. Not at all.
"That the privileged white male class doesn't recognize that harm doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
That the pandering, conservative hating lefty sees what doesn't exist doesn't mean it does.
"First and foremost, it is absolutely wrong to say such cruel, harmful and cutting comments as your stranger on the internet made."
I would suggest that for Christians, this holds regardless of the victims of such comments. You've made vile comments about Bush, Reagan and certainly Trump. The comments you've made about these people go beyond merely critiquing their policies or, especially in the case of Trump, personal or professional behaviors.
"Do I recognize that people who have heard the verbal abuse from people like Limbaugh and Trump for decades will sometimes speak in similarly abusive response?"
A cheap rationalization. What's more, more than merely recognize it, you've indulged in it often, even using Christ's displeasure with Pharisees to justify it, as if it does. Further, the rationalization insists that the tit-for-tat response was based on a truthful representation of what a Rush Limbaugh or Donald Trump allegedly said which is rarely the case.
"It is my belief and the understanding of many people that when one demonizes minority groups and traditionally oppressed groups (and women, racial minorities, religious minorities, LGBTQ folk, immigrants all fit in that category), one harms the whole group."
I'm sure you misspoke here. You're saying that when one demonizes a group, one hurts the group. DUH! Of course, it doesn't take into account that generalizing has its place and may be appropriate if the context is honestly considered. To say that Democrats favor abortion is true without having to mention that exceptions exist.
"Black men are stereotyped as dangerous, thugs, beasts, monsters... and, as a result, we see black men shot at greater rates than white men by police, for instance."
This ignores the FACT that percentage-wise, we see a far greater frequency of criminal behavior. Thus, they are largely responsible, certainly bear some responsibility, for the perpetuation of that stereotype. You PBS link doesn't take that into account.
"Do your black friends think it's disputable that negative stereotypes cause them harm? How about your gay friends? How about women you know?"
Honest members of any of these groups recognize the reason for stereotypes. For example, when I was a teen, I didn't like that I'd be considered likely to be high or in possession of drugs based on the way I was dressed and the length of my hair. But I understood that for the cop, for example, it was a safe bet that anyone who looked like me had more than a passing familiarity with drugs. That reality tainted all who dressed like the Woodstock generation regardless of whether or not a given individual...like Ted Nugent, for example...was a user. Ted looked like every other freak. He must use, too. But he never did.
Groups are harmed by stereotypes because of those within the group that engaged in behavior that led others to presume all in the group acted the same way. If one's only experience with members of a group was negative, it is natural and understandable that one would expect the same treatment from any other of that group. I didn't like being treated according to my appearance, but I understood why I was. I didn't whine about it like some wussy progressive snowflake. That's life.
Now, with regard to Limbaugh's "hateful" rhetoric, what makes you think he hates any of the people who were the targets of his comments? I would submit that you are now engaging in the very same behavior of which you accuse Rush. Mockery doesn't denote hatred. It isn't an automatic indicator of hatred. I infer more hatred from you when you speak of conservatives like him, or Bush or Trump than I ever do from anything any of these say or do. And it's really quite easy because I actually listen to what they say and given the context in which it is said there is no reason for me to assume hatred. Making fun of someone's appearance, while unnecessary and cheap...especially with regard to minors...doesn't mean one is hateful in the least. Just not particularly nice for doing it. Hoping Rush dies painfully because of his cancer, however, definitely implies hate.
And most of the quotes you listed do no more than indicate he's being nasty. Little of it is untrue, however. Carter and Clinton, for example, aren't at all attractive in the eyes of most people. (Only Clinton was a minor at the time. I recall when I heard him say such things about her, and objected to the point that I attempted to call in to his radio show to tell him. Next to impossible given how many are trying to talk to him.) Rush calling Fluke a slut was, in context, an appropriate conclusion. She spoke of the cost of birth control and how it should be covered by a Christian university's insurance plan. But the pills aren't expensive and unless they are prescribed for an actual disease, there is no logical reason their cost should be prohibitive UNLESS one is getting jiggy constantly. And to expect others to pay so that one can engage in sex makes one a slut or prostitute. That's the context and it is reasonable.
Rush hadn't seen Michael J. Fox recently (at the time he made his comments) and simply wondered about the stage of his condition. He is, after all, an actor, so was he acting or had he skipped his meds? He later was informed that Fox's shaking was pretty much his life now, and apologized. It is not out of the ordinary to wonder if an actor is being sincere because IT'S AN ACTOR and acting is what they do. Who better to appeal to a viewer's emotion than an actor.
I could go on about all of the quotes and put them in the context that isn't considered by those who seek to demonize him, and by doing so engage in the very behavior to which they claim to object. I don't but it. I think if a lefty is criticizing a conservative, the lefty cares more about demonizing than protecting the alleged victim of the conservative. That's a stereotype that seems legitimate to me based on my experiences with lefties. YOU, Dan Trabue, do nothing to alter than opinion except to cement it.
"Do you think I'm mistaken?"
Yes. I think that we see too many examples of people choosing not to respond to attacks with more attacks to suggest that it's True.
"Do you think noting that this is a truth - a common trait or trend in human interactions - is the same as endorsing or supporting in kind responses?"
Yes. I think that your constant insistence that "returning evil for evil" is a truism, is accepting and encouraging it. If you insist that it's natural, that's it's an inevitable consequence, then your just normalizing it. You're claiming to say that it's bad, while simultaneously saying that it's normal, true, and inevitable.
"I THINK SUCH COMMENTS ARE CRUEL AND WRONG."
Yet you repeatedly claim that the "return evil for evil" response is normal, and inevitable. Essentially you're asserting that such comments are IN YOUR OPINION "cruel and wrong", but they are inevitable and to be expected. You're now saying that it's a "human nature truism" that "cruel and wrong" is simply to be accepted as normal.
"How is noting that they are cruel and wrong indicate an interest in returning evil?"
That doesn't. Unfortunately, insisting that "returning evil" is a "human nature truism" and to be expected undermines your protestations.
"Of course, minorities, lgbtq folk, immigrants, Muslims, women, oppressed classes have been directly harmed by people like Limbaugh and Trump."
Then, by definition, the classes of people ridiculed by the likes of Rachel Maddow, Sanathha Bee, and Stephanie Miller are also harmed. Yet, the silence is deafening.
"First and foremost, it is absolutely wrong to say such cruel, harmful and cutting comments as your stranger on the internet made."
I don't think that you realize what you've done here. !. You've asserted an "absolute" standard of right and wrong. 2. You haven't asserted the standard by which you consider something "absolutely wrong". 3. You've asserted that it's a "natural human truism" that people are going to engage in, and should be expected to engage in, behavior that is "absolutely wrong". You have also admitted that you've engaged in behavior that is "absolutely wrong". Will be be seeing an apology for that?
"Do I recognize that people who have heard the verbal abuse from people like Limbaugh and Trump for decades will sometimes speak in similarly abusive response?"
Do you realize that most people who respond to Rush's comments are responding to second hand retellings of his comments? Or, like you've done, to out of context edited versions of his comments. If someone edits or removes context that makes something sound worse than it actually was, haven't they engaged in disseminating "fake news", or distorting the Truth, or simply lying?
"It is my belief and the understanding of many people that when one demonizes minority groups and traditionally oppressed groups (and women, racial minorities, religious minorities, LGBTQ folk, immigrants all fit in that category), one harms the whole group."
Of course, this is your hunch. The problems are lack of objective evidence, defining harm as broadly and vaguely as possible, ignoring anything else that might account for the alleged harm.
"Black men are stereotyped as dangerous, thugs, beasts, monsters... and, as a result, we see black men shot at greater rates than white men by police, for instance."
Where to begin. Black men are shot by other black men far more often than they are shot by police. The problem is, how do you separate that objective data about young, black men, from the stereotype? Is simply citing objective facts, spreading a stereotype? You do realize that the your statement about black men being shot by police is worded in a way that is misleading, don't you? It doesn't distinguish between justified shootings and unjustified shootings. It doesn't differentiate between black cops and white cops who shot black men. FYI, I've never heard you raise the slightest issue with the affirmative action black cop that shot the innocent white woman.
""Do your black friends think it's disputable that negative stereotypes cause them harm? How about your gay friends? How about women you know?"
The black friends I've talked about this with don't seem to feel particularly harmed by stereotypes. Ditto for the other groups.
The problem you have is that you are assuming that entire groups of disparate people all respond the same way to stereotypes. It ignores the human nature truism that individual people respond in individual ways to individual circumstances. It ignores that fact that the "blacks aren't able to be quarterbacks in the NFL" stereotype has led us to an increasing number of black quarterbacks who are redefining what it means to be an NFL quarterback. In large part because the stereotype motivated them to prove it wrong. Finally, what about blacks who acknowledge the realities of their community? Are Cosby, Thomas, and Carson perpetuating racist stereotypes? Are they racist?
Art, thanks for formatting that the way you did. I'm simply expanding on your rational and appropriate comments.
As for your context, thanks. The problem is that so much of Rush's context accumulates over years. For example, he has always bee critical of those who attack the children of politicians over things like appearance. So, while it's possible to edit down something he said to make it appear one way, it doesn't take the larger context into account. Wouldn't it be amusing if the line Dan has been referring to was actually Rush quoting someone else?
I just realized that over the last few years that we've seen cops stereotyped and violent, racist, oppressors, based on the actions of a minuscule number of officers. Yet, that sort of stereotyping doesn't seem to concern folx like Dan. What's even more interesting is that the incidents that resulted in these sorts of stereotypes have mostly come from urban cities where the local governments have been mostly controlled by the Democrat party for decades, if not longer.
Just something to consider.
One last thought.
While thinking about responding to a perceived or real attack might be a “natural human truism”, actually following through is not.
Saying or posting these sorts of comments is 100% a choice made by the individual. They choose not to exercise self control, kindness, grace, or compassion. They choose the very opposite. If you’re really saying that the choice to engage in this sort of response in an inevitable truism, then it sure doesn’t sound like how people whose nature is essentially good would engage in.
So much to unpack!
I'll take a stab with this...
If you’re really saying that the choice to engage in this sort of response in an inevitable truism, then it sure doesn’t sound like how people whose nature is essentially good would engage in.
I'm not "really saying that" and the way you can tell is by the way I didn't ever say it.
What I said, in case it's not clear, is I THINK SUCH COMMENTS ARE CRUEL AND WRONG. and thus, WE SHOULDN'T DO IT and WE CAN CHOOSE NOT TO DO IT.
Noting that it is a natural thing that tends to happen is not the same as endorsing it. Right? Or do you think I'm mistaken? That by noting that this happens it's the same as supporting, encouraging or endorsing it... is that the conclusion you're drawing? Because it's not what i said or believe.
Craig... The problem you have is that you are assuming that entire groups of disparate people all respond the same way to stereotypes.
I'm not assuming that. I didn't say that, I don't believe that and thus, I'm not assuming that. You can tell I'm not saying that by the way I've never said that or suggested that.
Is that clear?
I said, If one is constantly abusive and degrading to people around them, one can expect, as a truth of human nature, that people will respond in kind.
Do you think I'm mistaken?
And you responded...
Yes. I think that we see too many examples of people choosing not to respond to attacks with more attacks to suggest that it's True.
? I didn't say that it HAS to happen that people MUST respond in kind. I said that it's not unexpected to see it happen. It will often tend to happen. It does not ALWAYS happen, as we have both noted, but it often happens that people "fight fire with fire" or sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sow_the_wind,_reap_the_whirlwind
Now that I've clarified, do you think that it's NOT true that if one sows the wind that one will likely reap the whirlwind? That is, do you think that proverb is wrong? Or are you interpreting it some other way?
I’m not the one trying to argue that attacking people because they say things that might be perceived as an attack on a group that ....
Never mind, it’s too convoluted to summarize.
I’ll leave it at this. As long as your arguing that it’s in any way; normal, understandable, acceptable, a truism, to respond to an “attack” not aimed specifically at the person “attacked”, then you’re going to come off like you’re supporting returning evil for evil. When you edit scripture to proof text your hunch, it just gets worse.
As far as your “sow the wind”, it’s not a proverb it’s part of a prophecy aimed specifically at Israel. Given your previous stance on laws and things specifically directed at Israel, I’m not sure you want to extrapolate this into something broader,
Marshal's response to the suggestion (supported by research) that racist and sexist commentary/promotion causes harm...
Unless you consider hurt feelings as legitimate harm.
Racism and sexism cause harm. Those who promote harmful, harsh, belligerent racist/sexist/LGBTQ commentary promote racism and sexism. Here's some of the research that touches on this (the idea that racism being promoted causes actual, measurable harm)...
"First, because of the prevalence of racial discrimination, being a racial minority leads to greater stress. Not surprisingly, Anderson found that 18.2 percent of black participants experienced emotional stress and 9.8 percent experienced physical stress. Comparatively, only 3.5 and 1.6 percent of whites experienced emotional and physical stress, respectively.
Second, this stress leads to poorer mental and physical health. But this is not only because stress breaks the body down. It is also because stress pushes people to cope in unhealthy ways. When we feel stressed, we may want a drink and, if we want a drink, we may also want a cigarette. But discrimination is not just any form of stress. It is a type of stress that disproportionately affects minorities."
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/03/how-racism-is-bad-for-our-bodies/273911/
“As much as you want to keep it in the background, it’s not in the background. It’s having direct health effects on kids.”
Their report comes at a time when racism is dominating headlines, driven by racist tweets from President Trump, which have inspired chants at his rallies, and also by the rise of white nationalism.
Other pediatricians welcomed the report, which drew on 180 key studies and includes specific recommendations, and said the danger to their patients has become acute."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/racism-has-devastating-effects-on-childrens-health-pediatricians-warn/2019/08/02/ce5fc96a-b313-11e9-8f6c-7828e68cb15f_story.html
More...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4181672/
https://www.wbur.org/npr/560444290/racism-is-literally-bad-for-your-health
Now, I know those aren't tying directly to the sorts of harsh rhetoric used by people like Limbaugh, but it's pointing to the reality that racism has physically harmful reactions in people, and the same is true for sexism for women and oppression of LGBTQ folks.
Now, many white folk often react by saying, "So, what? If someone says something negative about me being a cracker, it doesn't hurt me. Get over it!" But that fails to take into account the reality of being raised in a place where minorities have a centuries long history of oppression and repression.
The story in the aforementioned Just Mercy is that in the LATE 1980s, a black man was arrested for murder and sent to death row NOT because of evidence, but because he "looked like" what the white justice system thought a murderer looked like. That may be overplaying it a little, but not much. He didn't get out/cleared until the 1990s, my own children's lifetimes. The reality is that in many places, black people have a hard time getting justice. And how much do privileged white men like Limbaugh demonizing black men as thugs and criminals? We don't know. But to say that there is no reasonable contribution to the racism in stories like McMillian (Just Mercy) is just too much to swallow and an argument that is primarily only going to be made by white people, not black folks.
then you’re going to come off like you’re supporting returning evil for evil.
So, saying, "IT IS WRONG" doesn't count?
As far as your “sow the wind”, it’s not a proverb it’s part of a prophecy aimed specifically at Israel.
And the meaning is NOT that if you sow trouble you will reap even more trouble?
And Jesus' comment about the measure by which you judge, you shall be judged is not speaking of being judged harshly if you've judged harshly?
I would disagree respectfully with such understandings of these texts. I would further disagree, respectfully, if you think that it's not a general truth that people often bring harsh responses upon themselves when they offer harsh responses to others.
But okay, you're free to think as you wish. I thought we could find some easy common ground on the great evil of attacking a teenaged girl's looks or calling a college woman a slut. I thought we could easily find common ground on the notion that those who offer harsh attacks on others will often bring harsh responses on themselves, as natural human nature AND that noting that reality is not an endorsement of that.
But I guess we don't.
I tried.
Peace.
Oh, in case you're not familiar with the ugly, evil nature of Limbaugh's attacks on people, here's more context of the Clinton and college student, Fluke, attacks...
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/chelsea-clinton-sandra-fluke-unite-over-rush-limbaugh-attacks
Also, for what it's worth, keep in mind I grew up conservative and was clearly conservative through much of the 1980s. I was a regular listener to Limbaugh for several years and I'm well aware of his ugly attacks on people. I at first laughed at some of his childish "humor," but the more I listened, the more I was turned off - and that, as a conservative. Reagan is largely responsible for pushing me away from conservatism, but Limbaugh and other conservatives like him also played a role. (And the other thing that even more pushed me away from conservatism? The conservative teachings I embraced over the years themselves convinced me of the wrong-ness of much of modern conservatism. For what it's worth).
Well done, you make a claim then offer “evidence” that you acknowledge doesn’t relate to the claim you made. Effective.
I’m just looking at the origin of the “reap the whirlwind” saying.
If you’re suggesting that there’s been a morphing of that meaning into some less specific, sure. But to claim that because something turns into a saying, doesn’t mean that it’s objectively true.
As to the lines you referenced, in the absence of context, they’re really meaningless in the sense your trying to claim.
If you can provide context and evidence, then it might be possible to have a conversation, since you can’t...
While your personal anecdotes are always special, they don’t actually prove anything or make your case.
I’d have much more sympathy for your position if you were this worked up when it’s folx on your side doing the same types of things and you pretend like it’s not happening. I don’t recall you even mentioning the attacks on Trump’s youngest son over the last few years.
I’ve been clear that I’m not defending Rush, and have no doubt that he’s crossed the line. It’s just that you quoting some unknown Facebook post of someone posting out of context lines isn’t persuasive.
I understand that all the pushback and questions have you looking for a way out, that’s expected. So, pease, stop the excuses and go if you want.
Who should I trust about Trump and race? Dan or Van Jones?
I'm opposed to any abusive, bullying, oppressive con person who uses that sort of abusive language, but here's the thing:
I have limited time. Given that reality, I'm MUCH less concerned about an anonymous guy on the internet using bad, abusive language than I am about a Limbaugh or a Trump. They have bully pulpits and are using them.
I think it's reasonable that we strongly condemn the language of the Limbaughs and theTrumps and THEN, once they're reined in or removed, THEN we can worry about the anonymous little people on the internet anonymously responding harshly in response to the harsh words of a Limbaugh or a Trump.
I would think that reasonable people could agree on that, but maybe not.
I'm not sure what your Van Jones reference is about. Here's what I read from Jones on Trump...
"While Jones has repeatedly called out Trump for being a bigot and a bully, he caught major heat from fellow progressives when he publicly praised Trump and the Republican party for their work on the First Step Act.
“Well, let me just say, with Trump, I got 99 problems, but prisons ain’t one,” Van Jones tells Washington DC bureau chief David Corn on this week’s episode of The Mother Jones Podcast. “It’s possible to literally oppose someone on every issue. But on the one issue, you agree with them, try to get something done.”
I support prison reform, too, as do nearly all progressive types and the Democrats in office. Doesn't mean I support Trump. Just that he got at least one thing more right.
I’d have much more sympathy for your position if you were this worked up when it’s folx on your side doing the same types of things and you pretend like it’s not happening.
No one on the level of a Limbaugh or a Trump has attacked Trump to the same degree that Trump/Limbaugh have attacked others. I've politely asked if you can simply agree that calling a 13 year old girl a dog and a college student a slut are wrong and hateful and evil things to say. Nothing from you so far.
If you can point to Obama calling Baron bad names or Joe Biden or E Warren calling a college student a slut, you know what? I GUARANTEE I will condemn it strongly. Apples and oranges.
I haven't seen you calling out the anonymous conservative trolls on the internet for calling Michelle Obama a monkey, or otherwise being racist and horrible. But I haven't cared that you haven't taken on the unknown, anonymous racist/conservative/misogynist trolls out there because they're nobodies. They're human waste who have serious problems.
I'm more worried about what our leaders and people in power have to say. This seems reasonable to me.
WoW!! It's just too much! I read only Dan's offering from the Atlantic before realizing he posted three others...at least one of which suggests it relies on the same studies as the Atlantic...which means Dan likely posted anything according to its headline without actually reading it. But while I meant to actually seek out the actual studies cited in the article, it provided much that suggests the visit would be fruitless, though comical. The excerpts certainly were! Here's a "for instance" or two:
The article cites data referencing a period in New York City where Stop&Frisk laws resulted in a greater amount of young black men stopped than the number that actually lived in the city. I saw nothing that spoke of the possibility that that number would include either visitors or some number of citizens being stopped more than once.
This particular study (I checked out a couple of sites that spoke to it) highlights the very large percentage of innocents among those stopped. But that only means they were not found to have anything illegal on their persons at the time they were stopped. The thing is, this policy was meant to focus on high crime areas. The word gets out that the policy is in effect and being practiced, what are the chances that the usual suspects will adjust their criminal behavior to avoid detection? With that in mind, that number of "innocents" may include a high percentage of punks who simply changed the way they do business...which means the policy had a beneficial consequence if they now find it more difficult to "work" than it was before the policy.
You know who would be stressed by Stop&Frisk policies? Those who are carrying something that would lead to arrest. The stress of being inconvenienced is not likely debilitating to one's health, no matter how often it occurs. And you know what? The beat cops in your neighborhood aren't likely to continue stopping and frisking people who continue to prove they aren't likely to be carrying.
Considering this policy focused on high crime areas, and the beat cops know the people who populate their beat, the police aren't likely to want to worsen relations by stopping and frisking without legitimate suspicion...even if some of them ARE racist. Who wants the grief...unless one doesn't care about the stress a cop endures by being presumed to be racist.
The article cites two journals that each devoted an entire issue to studies related to health issues of the black communities, including the impact of racism. Yet it's difficult to know which of the many studies were prime sources for the article. I wasn't about to dive in until I found where its claims originated. So I read a bit further and came upon another study of more recent vintage by someone named Kathryn Freeman Anderson. She mentions names I recognized from scanning the studies the previously cited journals listed. So she cites earlier studies as is common. But what stood out was in the first couple of paragraphs (of a 27 page report) she uses the term "perceived racism" with regard to health outcomes for blacks. "Perceived" racism. Can you say "subjectivity"? I suppose it's far more difficult...no doubt, in fact...to establish for one's self a specific definition of racism, follow however many subjects one chooses to use for the study (after establishing how long each must be followed around) and then act on how many were ACTUALLY victims of ACTUAL racism, rather than just what they perceived to be racism. But just asking the subjects is definitely easier. Self-reporting is not a reliable means of establishing much of anything, even when the subjects intend to be honest and sincere. But racism is too often assumed these days in the black community. Many black children are taught to assume racism. And race hustlers maintain a level of power and control by perpetuating the myth of a racist police force, to say nothing of a racist America.
And many white people come to believe it as well, including young sociology students doing research papers...like perhaps Kathryn Freeman Anderson. This was apparent early on the second page of her report wherein she refers to the "hostile racial climate" in America today (the Atlantic article citing her was from Mar 2013, so if Anderson's study is "new" at that time, it likely came out no earlier than sometime in late 2012). But there is not "hostile racial climate" under which blacks are burdened. She was more correct in sticking to the "perceived racism" as that is more often than not the case wherever the average person suspects he/she has been so victimized.
From there I jumped to the conclusion in order to get to the punchline. The disparaging attitude toward the nation remained, but the "perceived racism" did not seem to be there anymore. So between her attitude about the character of the United States and the self-reporting of her subjects, I have a hard time taking this study seriously. The negative effects of racism on health outcomes of black people was not at all established. The negative effects of the perceptions of racism may have been.
Am I racist for pointing out the problems of this study? Depends upon who is asked. Dan? Very possibly. His troll? Without a doubt. A black friend of mine at work with whom I have these types of discussions? Also very possibly. Why? Because all three perceive this nation as inherently racist and thus anything that casts doubt on work rightly or wrongly intended to correct the perceived problem must be regarded highly or else to object is to be a racist.
I went through all the above trouble to make the point that perception has more to do with negative attitudes toward Rush than legitimate and objective knowledge of the man. Claims that his rhetoric does any tangible harm to those who don't like it is outrageously absurd. It's a ploy to shut him up, in this case by shaming those who listen to him or regard him well. Of course it doesn't work, because the majority of his listeners are rational, honest and intelligent (if his callers are any indication). Even allowing that he occasionally crosses the line with some of his choices of expressing his thoughts, he isn't any of the nasty things lefties who don't listen to him say he is. The problem is that just as Rush won't let the whiny libs affect how he does what he does, the whiny libs will never stop trying to make far more of it than it is, because saying hurtful things is what THEY do when faced with superior arguments.
Moving on...
I have a fear that my previous two comments were not properly submitted due to a technical glitch. I hope that's not the case. Anyhow...
Craig made a point that I think is sterling, though I think it requires more emphasis. Dan claims that it is reasonable to expect that if one person says (or in this case is perceived to say) something nasty, that person can expect others to respond in kind. That makes the other person nasty. How then, can it be true that man is basically good if he is compelled...not even act on the compulsion, just compelled...to respond in kind? Do basically good people have a propensity to act like bad people so easily? And given that in this case the response is from the "nicer" left, there's a whole lot of 'splainin to do!
I don't buy a damned thing Dan says when citing his alleged past conservatism. Nothing he ever says about conservatives and conservatism now implies he was paying much attention back then, or had any understanding of what he wasn't paying attention to. Worse, however, is how he claims that the antics of people like Rush played a role in his "conversion". Yet to what ideology did he turn? To that which promotes sexual immorality, the murder of the unborn and the freewheeling demonizing, in the crudest manner of conservatives by those he supports who with whom he has aligned himself. As you say, Craig, and I believe it's easier to prove than we both already have, the left is the without a doubt, worse...and that's conceding there may be true bad among us. And of course, Dan rejects Reagan and the contras while embracing Daniel Ortega and the communist Sandinistas.
"And how much do privileged white men like Limbaugh demonizing black men as thugs and criminals? We don't know."
Yes we do. There is no such thing as privileged white men who demonize black men as thugs and criminals unless they're referring to black men who are actually thugs and criminals. You see, white people have their perceptions, too, except that they're influenced by actual things going on TODAY, not 75 or more years ago. The wildings that led to the rightful arrest and conviction of the Central Park 5, the more recent "knockout games", the plentiful examples of large groups of black youth terrorizing shopping malls, districts and summer festivals...and of course the high crime rate perpetrated by blacks against blacks. Thus, there's little in the way of "perception" by whites so much as wondering if THAT guy is like those in the news. But there are indeed whites to conjure such suspicions. Those that emulate the look of biker gangs are often feared to be gang-members themselves, and until actual biker gangs come around, they're not adverse to allowing that perception...just like some young black dudes.
I think that should cover a lot of misunderstanding Dan holds, though he's sure to object to having reality presented for his edification.
Dan,
I’ve pointed out 2-3 instances of people who aren’t “anonymous” people on the internet who regularly engage in the sorts of things you say you don’t like. Over the past few years I’ve pointed out specific comments that you’ve chosen not to condemn. I believe that it’s likely that you just don’t look for the people on your side who engage in actions you claim not to like, so you don’t have to criticize them. Just my opinion, but your ignorance whenever something is pointed out makes me think I’m on to something.
Dan,
Here’s why I think your ignorance of so many things is intentional and your demands for sources are just because you’re lazy.
I literally googled “Van Jones”, and the very first thing in that shower up was an article that covered what I was talking about. The fact that you couldn’t accomplish that feat doesn’t fill me with confidence that you’re as clued in as you think you are. One small sample.
“Warning to Democrats: what [Trump] was saying to African Americans can be effective,” Jones said following the State of the Union address. “You may not like it, but he mentioned HBCU’s [historically black colleges and universities], black colleges have been struggling for a long time, a bunch of them have gone under, he threw a lifeline to them in real life in his budget.”
“I've politely asked if you can simply agree that calling a 13 year old girl a dog and a college student a slut are wrong and hateful and evil things to say. Nothing from you so far.”
This is a flat out, bold faced lie.
I guess people like Rosie O’Donnell, Peter Fonda, and Katie Rich are all just anonymous internet trolls to you. Katie Rich is a SNL writer, a position that allows her a fair degree of power to shape public opinion from a position where she’s personally not well known.
I’ll say this, your ability to blithely write off social media influencers who have hundreds of thousands to millions of followers as “anonymous internet trolls”, is impressive. Because you choose to pretend these people aren’t worthy of your time, you ignore two things that will eventually come back to bite you.
1. The growing leftist culture of vile attacks and threats aimed at people they disagree with. Many times including wishes that people’s children are killed, raped, or tortured.
2. The increasing number of young people (including POC) who are choosing liberal politics as the thing they are rebelling against. There are a growing number of really intelligent, appealing young people who are conservative and are growing their followings significantly.
It’s like you just choose to ignore the impact social media (beyond FB) is having and instead just write people off as “anonymous internet trolls” with no idea of that label is accurate or not.
Art,
As you know, Dan is predictable in these sorts of threads. We’re at the point where we’ve parsed his comments, pointed out flaws, and asked questions at length. Usually after that happens, he’ll latch onto some minor things and gnaw on them for a few more comments, before coming up with an excuse to get mad and leave the conversation. The corollary to that, is he’ll focus on minutia long enough to complain that the stuff he’s ignored is too far back for him to find and deal with. Either way, I don’t think you’re going to get any substantive response to your points from this point forward.
Art,
After reading your comments in more detail, I can’t believe it. Are you seriously suggesting that Dan cited studies that don’t say what he thinks the headline indicates? That he’s citing studies based on subjective feelings?
I find this hard to believe because Dan has a history of only citing studies that he’s intimately familiar with and that are only based on objective data.
Are any of your comments still missing?
No, they all showed up, which is good because I never felt the need to save them at your blog as I often do at some others.
In the case of the study into which I actually spend some time, it wasn't so much that it wasn't saying what Dan said it did. It was more that having read it (a good deal of it), it doesn't actually prove what it says by omitting relevant data and factors that matter to its veracity. Again, there's a wide gap between "perceived" racism and "actual, distinct and unambiguous" racism.
"No one on the level of a Limbaugh or a Trump has attacked Trump to the same degree that Trump/Limbaugh have attacked others."
This is an absurd comment and demonstrates the likelihood (I actually think it's more concrete than "likely") that Dan agrees with those on their level who engage in the same degree of attack. Of course it could mean that Dan's preferred people do it to a greater degree, in which case he's absolutely correct. It could also mean that there's simply no one who has risen to the level of either Rush or Trump in terms of fan base/followers/supporters, or level of accomplishment (top radio host and POTUS). Of course, Obama had much to say about both that was less than complimentary.
More to the point is that Dan clearly believes that there is some line in his mind that makes one person's attacks less wrong than another who is ideologically opposite him. We know he has decided that things like the unjustified murder of millions of unborn ain't no thang, so it's difficult to know in advance just how bad a Trump or Rush comment is until Dan passes judgement. He does so in a vacuum without regard to the comments of "progressives" which routinely demonstrate more venom and hate than the nasty, yet more "playful" rather than hateful attacks by Rush or Trump. I'd be willing to accept the possibility that in either case, they actually do hate the people about whom they make their comments. I just don't feel it in the word choices, or tone of delivery...whereas by virtue of word choices, as well as often by the tone of delivery, left-wing commentators drip with hatred.
I refer again to the "dog" and "slut" comments. My problem with the former is that it was in reference to a minor and no negative comments should be of such a type with regard to any underage person. (For example, most conservative people withheld their nastiest comment for that Hogg character from the Parkland school until after he turned 18. And Greta Thunberg is still getting a pass.)
The "slut" comment was a different matter and while not his best expression of his take on the position of Fluke, it is a conclusion based on her position, and not a necessarily untrue conclusion. Once again, birth control isn't expensive, even for the most promiscuous, but if one is engaging so much that it is financially debilitating, it is reasonable and appropriate to apply the term "slut" to such a person, as the promiscuity level that makes BC pills or condoms expensive clearly indicates. More importantly, using the term now considered harsh for the purpose of demonizing Rush, is beneficial if chicks prefer not to be considered a slut (sadly today, some take it as a badge of honor). Don't want to be considered a slut? Stop acting like one. (Goes for guys, too.)
"I've politely asked if you can simply agree that calling a 13 year old girl a dog and a college student a slut are wrong and hateful and evil things to say."
"Inappropriate", "unacceptable"...those are terms that are...uh...appropriate and acceptable for objecting to Rush's behavior. "Wrong" is as well. "Hateful"? "Evil"? You demand people agree, again, to demonize Rush and anyone who follows him in this manner of your choosing. I don't believe you give a flying rat's ass about Chelsea Clinton. Both those words are more than just subjective. They're purposely selected by you out of your own hatefulness and evil attitude toward conservatives...because they so easily expose the flaws and sinfulness of "progressive" ideology. To combat that, you need to make conservatives out to be hellspawn. You're not fooling anyone here with that crap.
"If you can point to Obama calling Baron bad names or Joe Biden or E Warren calling a college student a slut, you know what? I GUARANTEE I will condemn it strongly. Apples and oranges."
Actually, it would then be an apples to apples comparison, but that's not important. What is important how you're straining to justify your hate by demanding that leftists have to say EXACTLY the same types of things in order to be "on the same level" of bad . That makes things so convenient for you to posture as morally superior or that Rush or Trump are just the worst. Pretty freakin' desperate. I would say this: it would be more likely that your people would call a college student a slut without the same level of thoughtful explanation (though, again, not Rush's best work). You lefties simply throw out epithets and expect everyone to agree they're appropriate. When you people call the defense of the unborn "a war on women", obviously you're lying rather than defending abortion. When conservatives call abortion proponents "murderers", it's because for the vast majority of abortions, that's exactly what it is by definition. And even Rush's opinion of Fluke's argument is justified in that manner.
I would also say that continuing to mention both Fluke being a slut with Chelsea being a dog is intentionally done by you so as to pretend they are of equal quality. They clearly are not because one is based on the choices of the college student while the other is just a crass shot at a girl who can't help she's unattractive. Talk about "apples and oranges"!!
"I haven't seen you calling out the anonymous conservative trolls on the internet for calling Michelle Obama a monkey, or otherwise being racist and horrible. But I haven't cared that you haven't taken on the unknown, anonymous racist/conservative/misogynist trolls out there because they're nobodies. They're human waste who have serious problems."
Personally, I haven't seen anyone call Michelle Obama a monkey...or any other form of primate for that matter. But she is racist and horrible. The former is obvious and that makes the latter appropriate. I also know you don't follow my social media feeds at all, so how would you know what I do when confronted by inappropriate comments by right-wingers or "anti-progressives" (a better term for some of them)? I can say with complete candor that I routinely caution fellow conservatives (assuming they truly are based on their disgust with leftists) about acting like lefties. I have no problem at all doing that. I've done it with those on my friends list as well as with total strangers. Haven't seen anything that justifies the terms "racist" or "misogynist", but like a typical lefty, you play those cards liberally instead of dealing with the real point being made. There's very little racism or misogyny in conservatism, if any at all.
Now calling total strangers "human waste" simply because you don't like their politics, that's another matter, but once again a clear expression of a "progressive" "Christian" "embracing grace". An example of consistency. Kudos.
"I'm more worried about what our leaders and people in power have to say. This seems reasonable to me."
I'm more worried about why they say it, though I also would prefer they take the time to say it in a better way, if for no other reason that it eliminates the low hanging fruit people like you so desperately need since you can't really disparage their positions. But so long as they're DOING the right thing, even when they're not saying the right thing, I can deal with it because, especially with a president, his time in office is fixed and few barbs tossed out are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
"So take your misogynist attacks to hell with you."
I guess that the kinder, gentler Dan is just a facade that he puts on when he leaves the safety of his own blog.
I’m certainly glad that Dan doesn’t actually get to determine who goes to hell. I can’t imagine someone so devoid of grace making those decisions.
Dan believes himself on par with Christ in His response to the Pharisees and such. He sees himself as having the same authority.
I don't know if you caught the comment of mine that he deleted, but it was in regards to the women who accused Trump and to whom he made hush-money payments during his campaign...a not unusual move by candidates to shut up those who would cause disruption to a campaign by fighting their allegations in court. The porn star and the other chick who posed in Playboy I referred to, appropriately, as whores and sluts. The hypocritical irony is manifested in Dan's ongoing labeling of Trump for perceived immoral/unethical behaviors. And of course, he doesn't care about these women except that they attack Trump. So Dan protects their "honor" by deleting my accurate comments about them.
Of course, calling a whore a whore isn't misogynistic at all, any more than his calling Trump the many pejoratives he uses is misandry. It's absurd and just another way Dan lies about those with whom he disagrees...a common behavior of which he is often guilty. He really knows how to embrace grace.
“Marshal, you are a coward and a pig and a defender of rapists. You are the enemy of women and shame on you, you low life rapeboy.”
“Do you kiss your mother/daughter with those filthy lips, you pig?”
Oh! I haven't seen that little gem yet. I'm off to read it personally!
Comments closed at that thread. What a shock.
I can’t believe he’d do that, he’s usually so brave.
Post a Comment