|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
 Posted - 05/05/2009 : 21:14:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Rush said: "We can find one. Whether they're qualified to be on the court doesn't matter, because their qualifications -- Obama just said what they are."
(Bolding mine)
How many of Rish Limbaugh's listeners (fans) are smart enough to understand sarcasm or irony anyway? |
Almost all of them. Just as I would expect almost all of any demographic to understand sarcasm and irony just fine.
I don't believe that leveling insults at people who disagree with you makes them look bad. If you honestly think calling people who disagree with you stupid is a winning debate tactic, then the person lacking in mental facilities is you, not them.
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Rush is an entertainer. |
I'm not laughing. In fact, Limpbaugh ended up on my hatelist long ago, and qualified the the short list when he made fun of Michael J Fox's parkinson.[/quote]
Rush was certainly out of line in those statements, but you fail to see that your own statements place you on the same level as him. |
 |
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 21:20:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Maybe, just maybe, could Rush have some valid criticism? I certainly would say Obama is pandering to his audience (Planned Parenthood), but that is to be expected. |
Obama made it pretty clear he wants judges who will be pro-choice and generally liberal. I think Rush's criticism is valid on that point. Certainly it's valid to anyone who doesn't want Supreme Court justices preselected on that basis. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 21:32:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
It's a major part of what a demagogue does; taking a statement, or part of one, and spin it. Or even use it verbatim as a sarcasm. Limbaugh knows his audience and plays, even panders, to it shamelessly. He uses a voice of pseudo-authority that strikes a chord in that part of their minds that deny reason -- he'd make a hell of a preacher if he could put forth a complete sentence with a little less hysteria. |
I don't know what all demagogues do, but that's an accurate enough description of Rush. I'll point out, however, that the other propaganda outlet involved in this story but not yet discussed is Media Matters. Why do you suppose they quoted Rush directly, but failed to quote Obama's statement its verbiage was copied from? That's pretty important to the context, so why would they omit it?
Because Media Matters has a purpose. It's purpose it so discredit or silence conservative voices.
Originally posted by filthy
Anyhow, the long and short of it is that Limbaugh has proven himself to be a bloated bag of flatulence with a festering anus at either end. His fellow-travelers, from Beck to Savage to Dobson and Tony Perkins, et al., are more of the same. They contribute nothing to the well-being of this country. They sow mendacity and reap stupidity, and thereby enhance their own wealth and reputation. For now....
|
I disagree that they have added nothing. Even when they're wrong, they still bring people into the dialogue and push the debate forward.
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2009 : 21:43:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Absolutely. Didn't you even read what Limbaugh said? |
Of course. I also noted that he managed to say it without actually denigrating any of the groups mentioned.
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Politics ain't science, and there's no way to definitely support a political proposition as there might be in a discussion of a biological hypothesis. Like you, all I can do is call 'em as I see 'em. I see Limbaugh as using the Nazi Big Lie technique of constantly repeating grand falsehoods loaded with fear-mongering in the hope that they will be believed. He appeals to the gut, not the mind, and that is the essence of Nazi-style propaganda. |
You know, there is a reason why people talk of Godwin's law and proclaim that there is a rule that the person who first person who makes a Nazi comparison loses the debate. It's because people understand that Nazi comparisons are absurd hyperbole, that people who make them are generally hysterical and that it cheapens the comparison for times when such a comparison might be apt.
Rush is not using any Nazi Big Lie. All he did here was make some snarky sarcastic comments about a political leader he doesn't like. Were the comments fair? No, not in the slightest, but then most political talk isn't fair either.
|
| Edited by - Mycroft on 05/06/2009 08:31:03 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 05:31:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Originally posted by filthy
It's a major part of what a demagogue does; taking a statement, or part of one, and spin it. Or even use it verbatim as a sarcasm. Limbaugh knows his audience and plays, even panders, to it shamelessly. He uses a voice of pseudo-authority that strikes a chord in that part of their minds that deny reason -- he'd make a hell of a preacher if he could put forth a complete sentence with a little less hysteria. |
I don't know what all demagogues do, but that's an accurate enough description of Rush. I'll point out, however, that the other propaganda outlet involved in this story but not yet discussed is Media Matters. Why do you suppose they quoted Rush directly, but failed to quote Obama's statement its verbiage was copied from? That's pretty important to the context, so why would they omit it?
Because Media Matters has a purpose. It's purpose it so discredit or silence conservative voices.
Originally posted by filthy
Anyhow, the long and short of it is that Limbaugh has proven himself to be a bloated bag of flatulence with a festering anus at either end. His fellow-travelers, from Beck to Savage to Dobson and Tony Perkins, et al., are more of the same. They contribute nothing to the well-being of this country. They sow mendacity and reap stupidity, and thereby enhance their own wealth and reputation. For now....
|
|
The thing about Media Matters is that they check their facts before they publish, and, to my knowledge, they have yet to be caught intentionally lying. That doesn't mean it's never happened; it just means I don't know of it if it has. | I disagree that they have added nothing. Even when they're wrong, they still bring people into the dialogue and push the debate forward. |
Indeed. I marvel daily that they somehow have yet to get shot.
On a (distantly) related matter, whilst doing my morning stumble through the news sites, I happened upon this: Median Age of Fox News Viewers is 65 - Average Dittohead Is a 67 Year Old Man
Jon Ponder | May. 5, 2009
About two-thirds of the way into media writer Michael Woolf's Vanity Fair column, “The Man Who Ate the G.O.P.,” on the conundrum of Rush Limbaugh's dual role as GOP party boss and hate radio megastar, this demographic nugget about the conservative media audience caught my eye:
- Variety
Arguably no message apparatus like [Limbaugh's show] exists in the nation, except, perhaps, at the White House (or in Oprah — whose position with American women is curiously analogous to Rush's position with American conservatives). It is concentrated and extraordinary power.
Except that this power ought to be ending. It ought to all be on the wane. It is not just the Obama victory and the magnitude of his approval ratings. It is not just that the gravity of the economic crisis, with historic unemployment rates, means it's a lot harder to get people excited about Reagan-and-Rush-esque hands-off government.
It is, rather, a crueler demographic point. The dirty little secret of conservative talk radio is that the average age of listeners is 67 and rising, according to [Jon Sinton, founding president of Air America] — the Fox News audience, likewise, is in its mid-60s: “What sort of continuing power do you have as your audience strokes out?” |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 05/06/2009 10:34:48 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 08:47:09 [Permalink]
|
You know, there is a reason why people talk of Godwin's law and proclaim that there is a rule that the person who first person who makes a Nazi comparison loses the debate. It's because people understand that Nazi comparisons are absurd hyperbole, that people who make them are generally hysterical and that it cheapens the comparison for times when such a comparison might be apt.
|
Godwin's law isn't about losing the debate. Sometimes it makes sense to use an analogy to a situation everyone is familiar with. Invoking Godwin's Law in an argument is a good sign that you've got nothing to bring to the argument.
Not talking about you or even this discussion, just this idea. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 12:43:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
The thing about Media Matters is that they check their facts before they publish, and, to my knowledge, they have yet to be caught intentionally lying. That doesn't mean it's never happened; it just means I don't know of it if it has. |
The best propaganda is always perfectly truthful, just shaded towards the point of view you want. In this specific example Media Matters is being perfectly truthful in quoting Limbaugh, the lie is a lie of omission in not quoting the Obama quote Limbaugh took his verbiage from.
It's worked too. A google search of that Limbaugh quote brings up all sorts of blogs and internet forums where people are quoting Media Matters to bash/discredit Rush Limbaugh. Even better, the quote is just different enough that it doesn't hit on Rush Limbaugh's site where the transcript is printed and it's context is much more easily understood.
Mission accomplished: people are bashing Limbaugh without ever having heard the show he's being bashed for.
Originally posted by filthy
Interesting, if factual. I'll look for conformation before commenting, though. |
I'd be interested in seeing confirmation of that.
I'd be inclined to believe the statistics as far as television viewers, that would reflect how people are shifting to the internet as their primary source of news. But the typical radio listener is someone who listens on the job or in the car, and that doesn't suggest a retirement aged demographic.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 14:30:11 [Permalink]
|
mycroft said:
The best propaganda is always perfectly truthful, just shaded towards the point of view you want. In this specific example Media Matters is being perfectly truthful in quoting Limbaugh, the lie is a lie of omission in not quoting the Obama quote Limbaugh took his verbiage from.
|
LOL @ you apologizing for Rush.... that is high comedy.
Seriously Mycroft, Rush's comments constitute a deliberate distortion with the intent to mislead and slander Obama. He changed what Obama said, and is ranting against his made up version of Obama's statement.
You should do yourself a favor and stop defending lies and the liars who tell them. It makes you just as culpable (morally) as those liars are.
If you like I can start playing that game with you, it isn't all that difficult to create straw-men and set them on fire. Just to make sure you understand the concept.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 22:36:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Seriously Mycroft, Rush's comments constitute a deliberate distortion with the intent to mislead and slander Obama. He changed what Obama said, and is ranting against his made up version of Obama's statement.
|
Here Dr. Mabuse was taking heat for claiming Rush Limbaugh's fans were incapable of reason or recognizing sarcasm, and then you come along and insist that Limbaugh's words must have been meant literally?!
Awkward.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 23:29:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Originally posted by Dude
Seriously Mycroft, Rush's comments constitute a deliberate distortion with the intent to mislead and slander Obama. He changed what Obama said, and is ranting against his made up version of Obama's statement.
|
Here Dr. Mabuse was taking heat for claiming Rush Limbaugh's fans were incapable of reason or recognizing sarcasm, and then you come along and insist that Limbaugh's words must have been meant literally?!
Awkward.
|
Since when can sarcasm not be used to make a point that is meant to be taken seriously, if not literally? When did sarcasm and racism or slander become mutually exclusive? Exactly where was I when a rule was passed that sarcasm couldn't be used to mislead? It doesn't matter whether Rush's fans take his words at face value or understand the sarcasm behind his words. Either way, his point is made.
Mycroft, you're just being silly.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2009 : 02:50:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Originally posted by Dude
Seriously Mycroft, Rush's comments constitute a deliberate distortion with the intent to mislead and slander Obama. He changed what Obama said, and is ranting against his made up version of Obama's statement.
|
Here Dr. Mabuse was taking heat for claiming Rush Limbaugh's fans were incapable of reason or recognizing sarcasm, and then you come along and insist that Limbaugh's words must have been meant literally?!
Awkward.
|
See? Even you know how to do it! Congratulations! Learning to create straw-men must be a skill they teach all the little 'tards in "conservative" land these days.
Now that you have demonstrated your grasp of the straw-man, you can move on to apologizing for defending Rush's use of the technique and admit that your defense of him is indefensible in this instance. Well, you will if you are a rational person anyway. A fact you have yet to demonstrate on these forums, btw.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2009 : 10:49:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Since when can sarcasm not be used to make a point that is meant to be taken seriously, if not literally? When did sarcasm and racism or slander become mutually exclusive? Exactly where was I when a rule was passed that sarcasm couldn't be used to mislead? It doesn't matter whether Rush's fans take his words at face value or understand the sarcasm behind his words. Either way, his point is made.
Mycroft, you're just being silly.
|
Sarcasm can certainly be used to make all sorts of points. I suppose it's possible for a sarcastic comment to also be literally true, but it's clearly not in this case.
I never claimed sarcasm, racism or slander are mutually exclusive.
Certainly sarcasm can also be used to mislead, but I don't think it's misleading in this case. Rush is claiming Obama will cherry-pick his nominations for their liberal views and being pro-choice, which is very likely true. |
| Edited by - Mycroft on 05/07/2009 10:49:59 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2009 : 11:13:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Originally posted by Kil
Since when can sarcasm not be used to make a point that is meant to be taken seriously, if not literally? When did sarcasm and racism or slander become mutually exclusive? Exactly where was I when a rule was passed that sarcasm couldn't be used to mislead? It doesn't matter whether Rush's fans take his words at face value or understand the sarcasm behind his words. Either way, his point is made.
Mycroft, you're just being silly.
|
Sarcasm can certainly be used to make all sorts of points. I suppose it's possible for a sarcastic comment to also be literally true, but it's clearly not in this case.
I never claimed sarcasm, racism or slander are mutually exclusive.
Certainly sarcasm can also be used to mislead, but I don't think it's misleading in this case. Rush is claiming Obama will cherry-pick his nominations for their liberal views and being pro-choice, which is very likely true.
|
And so what if he does? Do not all presidents do the same? Was it not Bush who gave us two conservative parrots in the forms of Alito and Chief Whitebread? The president makes his choice and from there, it's up to Congress.
Who would you prefer to make the choice, Mycroft? Rush?
If what I'm reading is correct, and I think it is, the general populace has had it with political, mainly conservative, bullshit and Obama is smart enough to realize it. I think his pick will be as he has stated, and will be confirmed. After the usual useless, Congressional fulminations, of course.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2009 : 13:27:02 [Permalink]
|
Mycroft:
I suppose it's possible for a sarcastic comment to also be literally true, but it's clearly not in this case. |
What I said was:
| Since when can sarcasm not be used to make a point that is meant to be taken seriously, if not literally? |
Added bolding.
Changing what I said and then arguing against it is a strawman argument. When backed to the wall, just go for the fallacy, eh?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2009 : 13:28:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
I don't believe that leveling insults at people who disagree with you makes them look bad. If you honestly think calling people who disagree with you stupid is a winning debate tactic, then the person lacking in mental facilities is you, not them.
|
Emphasis mine.
I can only interpret this as an admission from you that you're a Limbaugh-fan, since it was you (and Machi4velli) I was debating.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Another steaming barge-load of sewage.....
