Limbaugh, Remove Foot insert the Other

[Mephisto]

What harm has Rush done? I would say he has helped polarize the country moreso than other people have. He continuously fills the airwaves with an "us vs them" meme where he and his cohorts are the sole good guys. He continuously mischaracterizes the other side of the debate and gets his facts wrong, thus making his listeners more ignorant. He ridicules the other side and marginalizes those who disagree with him, thus providing lessons for his listeners to do likewise which keeps true debate from occurring. He continually lampoons those who look at complex issues and see shades of grey in them as Rush simplifies everything to a soundbyte summary despite the issue not being conducive to such simplification. He is anti-science with his regard to anything that casts the Republican party on the wrong side of scientific consensus. His ridicule of this only makes it harder for true scientists to be heard.

That's a start. I don't think it is worthy of death, but he ain't helping IMO.

Lurker

Thank you . . . and well said.

 

[RandFan]

What harm has Rush done? I would say he has helped polarize the country moreso than other people have. He continuously fills the airwaves with an "us vs them" meme where he and his cohorts are the sole good guys. He continuously mischaracterizes the other side of the debate and gets his facts wrong, thus making his listeners more ignorant. He ridicules the other side and marginalizes those who disagree with him, thus providing lessons for his listeners to do likewise which keeps true debate from occurring. He continually lampoons those who look at complex issues and see shades of grey in them as Rush simplifies everything to a soundbyte summary despite the issue not being conducive to such simplification. He is anti-science with his regard to anything that casts the Republican party on the wrong side of scientific consensus. His ridicule of this only makes it harder for true scientists to be heard.

That's a start. I don't think it is worthy of death, but he ain't helping IMO.

Lurker

Thanks, the question was what harm has Limbaugh done to warrant a death wish but that is at least a start. I had conceded that Limbaugh warrants scorn BTW.

So the question still stands.

 

[Mephisto]

That sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. How do you think the two premises differ?

Are you kidding? One is murder, the other might pass as a stunned onlooker.

 

[RandFan]

Thank you . . . and well said.

Damn, I'm guessing that means you are not going to give us an answer why you think Limbaugh warrants a death wish?

 

[RandFan]

Are you kidding? One is murder, the other might pass as a stunned onlooker.

You're not making sense. How does "stunned" enter into the equation? I don't think that was ever a premise. This can't be that hard Mephisto.

 

[senorpogo]

What harm has Rush done? I would say he has helped polarize the country moreso than other people have. He continuously fills the airwaves with an "us vs them" meme where he and his cohorts are the sole good guys. He continuously mischaracterizes the other side of the debate and gets his facts wrong, thus making his listeners more ignorant. He ridicules the other side and marginalizes those who disagree with him, thus providing lessons for his listeners to do likewise which keeps true debate from occurring. He continually lampoons those who look at complex issues and see shades of grey in them as Rush simplifies everything to a soundbyte summary despite the issue not being conducive to such simplification. He is anti-science with his regard to anything that casts the Republican party on the wrong side of scientific consensus. His ridicule of this only makes it harder for true scientists to be heard.

That's a start. I don't think it is worthy of death, but he ain't helping IMO.

Lurker

How is he worse than any partisan political commentator? I know, you can say that he's been more of a contributor to the polarization of America, that he's worse, but that's something that I would like to see proof of.

Couldn't a conservative make the exact same argument for someone like John Stewart or Al Franken or a liberal commentator? (Minus the anti-science argument.) Couldn't every partisan commentator be accussed of the same things?

If a right-winger came on here and said - I wouldn't help Al Franken if he were drowning. And then explained, when asked why, that Al Franken fosters an "us vs. them" attitude, mischaracterizes conservative arguments, makes his listeners more ignorant or dogmatic, and lampoons his opponents, I'd think that they were f***ing insane. Completely and utterly insane. I'd think of them as religious-righters who ascribed to a dogma and fundamentalism that worries more about their political party and ideology than about human life.

 

[Lurker]

How is he worse than any partisan political commentator? I know, you can say that he's been more of a contributor to the polarization of America, that he's worse, but that's something that I would like to see proof of.

Many political commentators can actually listen to the other side and consider the arguments brought forth. If your opinion is Limbaugh is no worse than any other political commentator you can hold that belief. Do you have any proof to support YOUR contention? ETA: My evidence would be the size of Limbaugh's audience is much larger than any other partisan political commentator and thus the potential damage he can do to our political discourse is much higher than others.

Couldn't a conservative make the exact same argument for someone like John Stewart or Al Franken or a liberal commentator? (Minus the anti-science argument.) Couldn't every partisan commentator be accussed of the same things?

I would say that both Franken and Stewart both have the ability to listen to an opposing view and not always demonize it. they actually seem to debate the issue more than I have seen Limbaugh do.

Lurker

 

[Katana]

Well, Phelps tries my compassion, on a regular basis. I would still consider keeping him from choking. mainly to tell him that he was saved by a goddess worshiping pagan, and that in exchange for his life he has to shut up.

Tell him you're gay and that doing the Heimlich on him was a nice way to get in a few good thrusts.

 

[senorpogo]

Many political commentators can actually listen to the other side and consider the arguments brought forth. If your opinion is Limbaugh is no worse than any other political commentator you can hold that belief. Do you have any proof to support YOUR contention?

Which contention? The quote you're addressing seems to be me asking for evidence of your original observations. Evidence which you haven't supplied. (edit: just saw your edit.)

If you clarify, I'll address what ever issue you're speaking of.

I would say that both Franken and Stewart both have the ability to listen to an opposing view and not always demonize it. they actually seem to debatethe issue more than I have seen Limbaugh do.

Yes, you would see it that way. But that's just your perception, your opinion. Many a right-winger out there would take the opposite stance and say that they perceive Rush as being fair and Franken as being unfair.

I don't want to defend Rush. I really don't find him entertaining nor insightful. But my point is that if you say "commentator X deserves a horrible fate because I feel he's doing all these terrible things" then someone from another political extreme can say that commentator Y deserves the same fate because they perceive the same crimes. And it's all based on a subjective, partisan perception.

 

[senorpogo]

My evidence would be the size of Limbaugh's audience is much larger than any other partisan political commentator and thus the potential damage he can do to our political discourse is much higher than others.

Okay, he has the biggest audience. Granted.

Potential damage? I thought he was doing real damage? Harm, I believe was the word. Can you show me that he has done damage to our poltical discourse?

 

[corplinx]

I hope one day to be so famous that I have to address the claims of a washed up AM radio personality.

 

[marksman]

As though emotions never flare in most of the Palestinian/Israel threads? I don't think you've ever made this point in other threads, have you?

Yes, I have.

You're right and the discussion in question was whether or not, Rush Limbaugh is an insensitive idiot who frequently says things he shouldn't. You won't begrudge me the same luxury, will you?

Double negative notwithstanding, if Rush were to post his opinions on Fox here, I'd take issue with him as well.

Fine, then quit making value judgements of things I've said and discuss whether Rush Limbaugh should be skeptical of any aid I might give him.

I have no idea whether he should or not. Nor do I care.

Is this specifically a forum for scientific reasoning?

As the banner at the top of the page states, "James Randi Educational Foundation: a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way."

Yes, I believe "skepticism" encompasses scientific reasoning.

If scientific reasoning is superior over a passionate response why do so many educated people still support Limbaugh or Bush or even war?

I doubt we're going to find answers to such questions in this forum until we put aside emotional rants.

 

[Lurker]

Okay, he has the biggest audience. Granted.

Potential damage? I thought he was doing real damage? Harm, I believe was the word. Can you show me that he has done damage to our poltical discourse?

Senrpogo, you know as well as I know that there is little to no analysis of the effect that a radio personality has on the discourse so you can quit with the innocent requests for evidence. I am providing my opinion.

I used the phrase "potential damage" in order to accomodate those who do not share my viewpoint. I merely pointed out that because he has the largest audience his potential to do damage is highest. Lacking peer-reviewed university studies with double blind tests I only have my perception to go on when it comes to his actual words. And I have listened to Rush on and off since about '89.

Anecdotally, I have met and argued with many a Limbaugh listener. I recall one who was adamantly against the Inheiritance Tax. Nothing wrong with that position although it is not one I share. This person had told me about Limbaugh talking about the tax and proceeded to demonstrate his complete and utter ignorance of the first $600k being tax exempt. Now, in the course of our discussion that was a very important point that he was unaware of and he was a bit surprised that in the radio show he listened to that Limbaugh had not mentioned it and instead made it sound as if all middle class people who inheirited money would be liable for the "death tax". I use that as one piece of anecdotal evidence that Limbaugh deliberately misinforms his audience.

Decry anecdotal evidence all you like, but in the absence of any real evidence it is all we have to base our positions on.

Lurker

 

[senorpogo]

Senrpogo, you know as well as I know that there is little to no analysis of the effect that a radio personality has on the discourse so you can quit with the innocent requests for evidence. I am providing my opinion.

Fair enough.

Yes, it is all ultimately based on the subjective experiences of the individual.

I use that as one piece of anecdotal evidence that Limbaugh deliberately misinforms his audience.

Decry anecdotal evidence all you like, but in the absence of any real evidence it is all we have to base our positions on.

I won't deny that Limbaugh deliberately misinforms his audience, but I've read, heard, watched, and experienced the same types of behavior from multiple pundits and commentators on both sides of the aisle.That doesn't make what Rush does okay, nor do Rush's lies make theirs acceptable.

But it also means that, if party X can use these lies and distortions as justification for villifying their opponents (and wishing their deathes) then it logically follows that it's okay for party Y to use the lies and distortions made by their opponents to villify them and wish for their deathes.

And I'm not okay with that.

 

[bluess]

You want reasoned, courteous discourse to be instrumental in shaping national policies and public opinion?

 

[Lurker]

I won't deny that Limbaugh deliberately misinforms his audience, but I've read, heard, watched, and experienced the same types of behavior from multiple pundits and commentators on both sides of the aisle.That doesn't make what Rush does okay, nor do Rush's lies make theirs acceptable.

But it also means that, if party X can use these lies and distortions as justification for villifying their opponents (and wishing their deathes) then it logically follows that it's okay for party Y to use the lies and distortions made by their opponents to villify them and wish for their deathes.

And I'm not okay with that.

I'm ok with that. You will note I was never one calling for Rush's head, I am just sticking mine in where nobody asked for it.

Lurker

 

[steverino]

I am of two minds in your "rush to kill Rush" dialogue.

#1) I like hearing a rational, non-Jewish voice sticking up for Israel. I agree with Rush's point, which is not that original anyway, that a cease-fire in Hamas, or Hezbo terms means pausing to rearm. I also think he is accurate to say that while Barack Obama is charming, he has no track record to be qualified for president in two years. (I know, I know. Bush is not qualified either.) I voted for Obama and it was a series of flukes that helped him get elected.

Rush also comments on non-political topics like motivation, which I sometimes find helpful.

#2) The more obvious argument against you torch-wielders ready to kill Rush, even symbolically is that it is book-burning-esque. Wire tapping and other "Patriot Acts" were used to try to hush the likes of MLK Jr and John Lennon. I cannot go along with your "now-it's-our-turn" mindset to shut off somebody's mike just because he is not preaching to your choir.

 

[Upchurch]

Michael J. Fox. A class act. See video with Couric on the right side.

Wow. That's hard to watch.

 

[RandFan]

I would say that both Franken and Stewart both have the ability to listen to an opposing view and not always demonize it. they actually seem to debate the issue more than I have seen Limbaugh do.

I listen to Limbaugh a lot. Sometimes his logic and argument are just maddening. But I don't see him always demonize. On the contrary. I would say he's demonized far more than I've seen him demonize. He's a partisan that believes he is right. He is often intellectually lazy but he justifies it because in the end he is doing the right thing. He mocks and satirizes all of the time. Just like SNL and Mad TV mock and satirize. It seems to me that satire to many is only what those who share an ideology do. Those who share a different ideology demonize.

ETA: I've seen you have responded to senorpogo along sort of the same lines so never mind.

 

[RandFan]

Wow. That's hard to watch.

Yeah, and it really does make Limbaugh look like a horses a**. My heart really goes out to him and his family. He's doing what he is doing not for politics but simply because he cares about this issue. He would not even get drawn into a political conversation.

I liked what he said about respecting the opposition pov and just wishing that they would respect his.

It bears repeating, class act.