When You Assume, You Make an Ass of U and Me

by hilzoy

Andrew Klavan in the LA Times:

"If you are reading this newspaper, the likelihood is that you agree with the Obama administration's recent attacks on conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh. That's the likelihood; here's the certainty: You've never listened to Rush Limbaugh.

Oh no, you haven't. Whenever I interrupt a liberal's anti-Limbaugh rant to point out that the ranter has never actually listened to the man, he always says the same thing: "I've heard him!"

On further questioning, it always turns out that by "heard him," he means he's heard the selected excerpts spoon-fed him by the distortion-mongers of the mainstream media. These excerpts are specifically designed to accomplish one thing: to make sure you never actually listen to Limbaugh's show, never actually give him a fair chance to speak his piece to you directly.

By lifting some typically Rushian piece of outrageous hilarity completely out of context, the distortion gang knows full well it can get you to widen your eyes and open your mouth in the universal sign of Liberal Outrage. Your scrawny chest swelling with a warm sense of completely unearned righteousness, you will turn to your second spouse and say, "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate, and I'm tolerant of a wide range of differing views -- but this goes too far!""

I started listening to talk radio in 1985. (Gene Burns : he endeared himself to me by beginning every show by saying: "The Gene Burns show is brought to you by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.") I first heard Rush Limbaugh in late 1988 (possibly early 1989.) He was substituting for someone else, and I remember thinking: this guy is too obviously an idiot even for talk radio. Plainly, I was wrong.

I can't say I have often listened to his show in its entirety, but that's because for the past decade or so, I have mostly listened to talk radio in the car, and I very rarely drive for three straight hours. I have, however, listened to a lot more than snippets I get from "distortion-mongers". 

Also, I'm not a guy, I don't have a second spouse, and my chest is not scrawny. 

Since Klavan is "certain" I have not listened to Limbaugh, he wants to know why not:

"Let me guess at your answer. You don't need to listen to him. You've heard enough to know he's a) racist, b) hateful, c) stupid, d) merely an outrageous entertainer not to be taken seriously or e) all of the above.

Now let me tell you the real answer: You're a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You're terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do.

I listen to Limbaugh every chance I get, and I have never heard the man utter a single racist, hateful or stupid word. Do I always agree with him? Of course not. I'm a conservative; I think for myself. But Limbaugh, by turns insightful, satiric, raucously funny and wise, is one of the best voices talking about first principles and policy in the country today.

Therefore, I am throwing down my gauntlet at your quivering liberal feet. I hereby issue my challenge -- the Limbaugh Challenge: Listen to the show."

Been there. Done that. Don't particularly feel the need to do it again. 

However, I have a few questions for Mr. Klavan, starting with the most obvious: What makes you so certain you know all about me? 

Moreover: your contempt for your imagined audience drips off the page: my chest is scrawny, my feet quiver (??), I am "spoon-fed", I don't think for myself, I make little moues of outrage on command, and, of course, I am "a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward." Why my second spouse has anything to do with me is a mystery that passeth all understanding, or would be if I had a second spouse.

If this were accurate, we would not need to ask why you think this way about me. However, truth is one, but error is infinite; and since you're wrong, it is worth asking why, of the infinitely many misconceptions available to you, you chose this one in particular. Unlike you, I don't care to make pronouncements about people I don't know, but I'll venture a few guesses. 

For one thing, you are "certain" you know all about a large number of people you've never met. You could have written this piece about many of your readers, or liberals you have met; instead, you chose to write about all your readers, and to claim certainty about us. That was unwise -- I mean, what are the odds that not one of your readers has listened to Limbaugh? -- but you either didn't notice or didn't care about the likelihood that you were wrong. I imagine, then, that you do not make epistemic caution your watchword. 

Nor does it seem likely that you make it a habit to be generous, or to give people the benefit of the doubt. You certainly didn't do so in this case, and it seems unlikely that you would exercise charity towards people most of the time, but then abruptly switch to contempt when you get an opportunity to publish your thoughts before a very large audience. 

You probably don't listen very well, if this essay is anything to go by. Listening well requires not assuming that you know in advance everything the person you're talking to is going to say. Again, most people start by not listening to individuals, and only gradually work their way up to not listening to the entire readership of a major national newspaper. So I'm guessing this is not an isolated episode.

By the same token, I'd guess that you do not have the kind of intellectual curiosity that would lead you to listen, above all, to people you disagree with. Those are the people who challenge you; the people from whom you are most likely to hear something you would never have thought of on your own. You dismiss them out of hand -- an odd thing to do in an op-ed devoted to lecturing others on their closed-mindedness.

Which is why I'd also guess that you do not have a lot of insight into yourself. If you did, it might have occurred to you to notice the rather striking fact that your column displays the very intellectual failings you are complaining about. You might also have noticed the hatred that jumps off the page, and wondered what it says about you, and how you found yourself in a position in which you are so much as tempted to insult a large group of people who are, for the most part, quite unknown to you. 

Maybe you picked it up from Limbaugh. He is certainly the most obvious source for your view of liberals. Since you're a conservative and you think for yourself, though, I'm sure you didn't just accept it because you were 'spoon-fed'. There are any number of other possible explanations: hasty overgeneralization from a few liberals you met at parties, a projection of your own flaws onto others, unacknowledged anger, or a need to think of yourself as a lonely island of reason in a sea of idiocy. The one thing I do know is that you could not possibly have arrived at your certainty about what your entire readership is like based on careful reflection and close examination of the evidence. Because it's just not true.

***

Why go on about this? Because it's a danger for all of us, on any side of the political spectrum. It's easy to see what's wrong with making uncharitable assumptions about people you don't know when someone else is making assumptions about you. But it's always worth stopping and asking yourself: do I ever do this to the people I disagree with? 

Because it's no more justifiable to do this to conservatives than it is to do it to liberals.

Comments

[ed]

Rush Limbaugh is a racist asshole. Andrew Klavan is a dildo.

[hilzoy]

Heavens: what an illuminating comment -- and phrased with such flair!

[Josh]

I used to listen to Rush on the seven-hour drive to and from college to keep me annoyed and thus awake. One day someone from my school, absolutely coincidentally, happened to call to argue with him about something. The caller mentioned philosophy.

"Philosophy?!" Rush sputtered. "What does philosophy have to do with right and wrong?"

There was stunned, momentary silence on the caller's end, and then he finally said, very quietly, "Ethics is one whole branch of philosophy. That's the study of right and wrong."

I don't remember what Rush's reply was (except that he ended the call very quickly after that), but I do recall that he actually, briefly sounded embarrassed -- which is something I'd never heard before and haven't since.

[Gary Farber]

You know, Ed, I'm a liberal, but I can't say you're making a terribly good, or impressive, or thoughtful, argument for "our" side.

[Gary Farber]

Sigh. The little icon spun round and round for 20 minutes without connecting. I wouldn't have posted my redundant comment if Hilzoy's had been there when I hit "post."

[Hans]

More contributions to the radical fragmentation of American society. I did not know that the major newspapers were copying the fact-deficient, vitriolic, alternative reality generating habits of the blogosphere.

Perhaps it is a symptom of the decline of newspapers. Very sad.

[harmfulguy]

Is this a real op-ed, a paid advertisement for Rush's show, or something in between? Could Rush be losing enough market share to need planted "advertorials"?

[Gary Farber]

"Is this a real op-ed,"

Yes.

"a paid advertisement for Rush's show,"

No.

"or something in between?"

No.

"Could Rush be losing enough market share to need planted 'advertorials'?"

No. What on earth makes you think any of these things is remotely true?

"I did not know that the major newspapers were copying the fact-deficient, vitriolic, alternative reality generating habits of the blogosphere."

What year was it, exactly, that there were no stupid op-eds one disagreed with?

[russell]

I used to listen to a fair amount of talk radio, including both Gene Burns and Rush Limbaugh.

I stopped listening to Burns because he doesn't have a show in the Boston market anymore. It's a damned shame, because he is the epitome of what talk radio can be.

I stopped listening to Rush after he broadcast a piece parodying "Luck Be A Lady Tonight" from Guys and Dolls. His rendition was "Lick On A Lady Tonight", and it was supposed to be a duet between Janet Reno and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Rush thinks they're both lesbians, see, and it's fun to make fun of lesbians, so it's kind of joke. Get it?

At that point I realized that listening to Rush Limbaugh was kind of like listening to the pervert Charles, portrayed by J.T. Walsh in Sling Blade. Imposing his creepy disease on other people is the only kind of conversation he knows how to have.

I can't speak Andrew Klavan, but ed's characterization of Limbaugh is right on the money, except 'racist' is the just the tip of iceberg regarding his social pathologies.

He's a sick human being.

[harmfulguy]

The primary purpose of the column appears to be to convince more people to try out a consumer product. Sounds like an advertisement to me.

And I honestly don't know what Rush's ratings are doing; I'm really curious. Does radio have rating periods like Neilsen's "sweeps" that stations use to determine advertising rates?

[The Crafty Trilobite]

As usual, Hilzoy makes good sense. It's just a shame that stuff like that column can even get published in the first place.

I too have listened to Rush Limbaugh, and watched his TV show (and I have a hazy recollection of reading a paperback by him as well). Not often, and in the last decade just for a minute or two to confirm it hasn't changed. Back in the 80s, it seemed wise to check out something with such a big audience, and arrive at my own opinion. For similar reasons, I've flipped through a few of Coulter's books and the same with other leading lights of conservatism as it exists today.

So it is on the basis of observation that I reached the considered opinion that the fellow should be horsewhipped, and that anyone who is still a dittohead after age 25 does our gene pool grave damage if permitted to breed. I strongly recommend that anyone NOT a dittohead do read/listen to/watch Rush for a few hours. Not only will you find new inspiration for civic participation, it will help you understand what the cleaned-up, Orwellian discourse of the national GOP means, when translated back into plain English.

A word of caution: you may indeed find that he makes sense at times. Lest this disturb you, please be assured (and by all means confirm this on your own) that he uses sound logic ONLY when his data are grossly incorrect.

[Rebecca]

Rush once spent almost an hour making fun of a friend of mine's name, while barely mentioning why she was in the news in the first place. I think that's fairly hateful.

[Roger Moore]

I'll admit it; most of my listening to Rush is when some outrageous snippet makes it into the broader news. But I did actually watch a segment of his TV show once. It involved him tearing a page out of a book written by some Democrat- I think it was Earth in the Balance but I don't remember for sure- crumpling it up, wrapping it in ground beef, and trying to feed it to his dog. When the dog refused to eat it, he used this as evidence that even a dog wouldn't swallow what the author had written.

That one experience was enough for me. He actually went to the trouble of setting this demonstration up by bringing a dog, a book, and a bunch of ground beef onto his set. Anyone who would try that kind of thing is simply not worth serious consideration.

[Xanax]

harmfulguy@ 12:06 - Radio stations certainly have rating periods but their "sweeps" periods are not as well defined since they rarely have specific, coordinated seasons wherein they're introducing new programs. Radio ratings are mostly the domain of a service called Arbitron. Arbitron breaks down audiences by demographics similar to those used by TV media but - in addition to age and gender - their rating categories (referred to as Rankers) divide and rank radio station listenership in terms of Average Quarter Hour (AQH) and Cume (cumulative) audience. And stations are very, very sensitive to where their property falls in the pecking order particularly in local markets. As you intuited, it is that order that determines comparative advertising rates & promotional prices, stimulates sales and ultimately generates profits.

As to Andrew Klavan: Ann Coulter in drag.

[Josh in Philly]

While I understand ed's critique of Hilzoy (I suppose he's saying, Why waste our intelligence on analyzing these idiots and not just call a shovel a shovel), once "dildo" and "Ann Coulter is masculine" crowd (refugees from The Eschaton ca. 2004) come out, I wonder what's going on here. And I start thinking that Hilzoy's way of expressing her outrage, and her decision to write so well and incisively about it, is the ideal way to address these problems in the public discourse and really beats banging on one's high chair and saying "Kaka doodoo peepee eheh." Maybe just my personal taste: certainly there's a place for The Rude Pundit, but "dildo"? Geez, when did Eric Cartman's diction become a model for people?

[Jesurgislac]

harmfulguy: The primary purpose of the column appears to be to convince more people to try out a consumer product. Sounds like an advertisement to me.

Sure, but Rush Limbaugh isn't just a "consumer product": he's the acknowledged spokesman of the Republican Party, a Republican of such stature and significance in the party that when the elected leader of the Republican Party presumes to say he's "just an entertainer", Limbaugh can identify that as "launching an attack" and can force him to apologize to Limbaugh.

This op ed may be an advertisement, but not for a consumer product, as if Limbaugh were a mere entertainer: it's for the Republican Party's public - if unelected - leader and spokesman.

Ed and russell are right, and I say that without ever having listened to Limbaugh at all. (Read quite a few transcripts, though. Yuck.)

[Hob]

Hilzoy, there's a fine line between classy and overly generous, and I prefer to think that you're just being classy. But I think there's a much simpler way to read something like what Klavan wrote. He's not making assumptions about you or me, because he's not really writing to or for you or me in any way. He's writing for right-wingers who are amused and encouraged if he makes fun of you and me.

[rea]

A classic example of a troll committing a threadjacking--Hilzoy gives us a lovely, well-reasoned rant about Limbaugh, and thanks to Ed we all wind up talking about civility on the internets . . .

[cleek]

this is the second time this month the LAT has published a pro-Rush opinion piece.

for the record, i've never voluntarily listened to Rush. but the bus drivers at RIT used to play him on the busses, so i'd get a good 20 minutes of him every day. and, it's pretty easy to find businesses around here that play him, so i know he hasn't changed much in 20 years (and Raleigh is big enough that it's also easy to then avoid those businesses... tada!)

Klavan's an idiot.

[Geoff G]

Rush is a provocateur. His goal is not reasoned debate, but the frustration of it. He incites anger - his listeners get angry at liberals and liberals get angry at him (and possibly other conservatives by association). Although I have not listened to his show enough to know for certain whether the following blanket allegation is true (nailed me, Klavan), I'll nevertheless venture that he has never once, even by accident, listened in good faith to an opponent and sincerely tried to understand his/her point of view. Instead, he strenously tries to do the opposite. As Hilzoy says, he never gives opponents the benefit of the doubt, and in fact creates doubt where none exists to assure that his audience is left with the impression that there can be no good faith basis to hold an opposite view and that any opposition can only come from people whose values are totally out of line with those of decent Americans and decent human beings.

Put more simply - Klavan's thesis is that as a liberal, I'm unwilling to consider any viewpoints other than those of my fellow-travelers (or, to paraphrase Lenny's remarks on Birch Barlow - "his politically-incorrect opinions make me uncomfortable"). The way to test this would be for Rush to actually try to persuade doubters, rather than demonize them. He might even set an example for Klavan (and Ed at the top of the comments) to follow.

[ed]

You know, Ed, I'm a liberal, but I can't say you're making a terribly good, or impressive, or thoughtful, argument for "our" side.

Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

Any and all discussion of Rush Limbaugh ought to begins with his being (correctly) labeled as a "racist asshole" because his to most prominent character traits are:
1) He's a racist.
2) He's an asshole.
Starting anywhere else is intellectually dishonest and otherwise unhelpful. He's David Duke with a bullhorn.

I regret using the word "dildo" for Mr. Klavan. I like that word. Divorced from its meaning, it's a funny word. That's where I was coming from. I said "jackass" in the other thread.

Mr. Farber, I'm sorry to have upset you, but as dear old Mama used to say: "Motherfucking racist asshole shitbag fuckwit is as motherfucking racist asshole shitbag fuckwit does." Hard to argue with that. You dig?

[ed]

begin

[Gary Farber]

"The primary purpose of the column appears to be to convince more people to try out a consumer product. Sounds like an advertisement to me."

Ads are paid for. Op-eds are op-eds, whatever we think of them.

"And I honestly don't know what Rush's ratings are doing; I'm really curious. Does radio have rating periods like Neilsen's 'sweeps' that stations use to determine advertising rates?"

Arbitron.

Limbaugh:

[...] As of 2006[update], Arbitron ratings indicated that The Rush Limbaugh Show had a minimum weekly audience of 13.5 million listeners, making it the largest radio talk show audience in the United States.

[...]

In 2007, Talkers magazine again named him #1 in its "Heavy Hundred" most important talk show hosts.

[...]

On July 2, 2008, Matt Drudge reported that Limbaugh signed a contract extension through 2016 that is worth over $400 million, breaking records for any broadcast medium — television or radio.

One can't see Arbitron numbers without paying. So:

How many people actually listen to Rush Limbaugh, the radio talk titan White House officials have spent the past week characterizing as "the head of the Republican Party"?

According to what Limbaugh delights in calling "the drive-by media," the number varies wildly. Is it 30 million (Pat Buchanan on MSNBC), 20 million (Time magazine, ABC News), 19 million (Fox News), 14 million (CNN), or "14.2 million to about 25 million" (The Washington Post)?

Answer: Maybe.

Limbaugh is widely acknowledged to be the most popular talk-radio host, as evidenced by the record $400 million, eight-year contract he signed with his syndicator last July. But estimates of Limbaugh's nationwide (and overseas) audience are exercises in guesswork, slippery methodology and suspect data. Limbaugh himself has muddied the water with the claim that he reaches 20 million people a week, although there's no independent support for that figure.
ad_icon

Arbitron, the radio industry's dominant audience-measurement company, has never publicly released a national estimate for Limbaugh, and it says, in effect, that the job is too complicated, expensive and time-consuming to bother with.

The difficulty comes from the vast patchwork that is Limbaugh's radio empire. His three-hour daily program is carried on more than 600 domestic stations, but these stations don't all carry the show at the same time or even for the same duration. Most air all three hours of Limbaugh's broadcast each weekday, but some carry only two hours. Arbitron has never attempted to aggregate all of this audience data for this many stations and times. "There is no economic motivation for any objective third party to do that kind of analysis," says Thom Mocarsky, an Arbitron spokesman.

And there are no ratings at all for a constituency of Limbaugh listeners: U.S. military personnel stationed overseas. Limbaugh's program is carried to these listeners on about 400 stations of varying audience sizes via the Armed Forces Radio Network, which Arbitron doesn't monitor.

The ratings service can say with some precision how large Limbaugh's audience is in a particular city and at a particular time. In the Washington region, for example, Limbaugh's program -- carried from noon to 3 p.m. on WMAL (630 AM) -- attracted an average of 167,700 unique listeners per week during January. Limbaugh has never been a huge draw in Washington; his show ranked 14th overall during January, far behind ratings leaders WTOP-FM (567,500 weekly listeners), soft-rock station WASH-FM (526,300) and Top-40 station WIHT-FM (349,300).

Premiere Radio Networks, Limbaugh's national syndicator, estimated last year that 3.59 million people were in Limbaugh's audience during an average quarter-hour of his program, based on a review of Arbitron's piecemeal data about hundreds of stations.

Because people typically tune in and tune out of stations, however, that number doesn't reflect how many individuals cumulatively listened at some point during the week. What's more, Premiere's figure is based on data from the first three months of 2008, a virtual lifetime ago in the fast-moving radio business.

[...]

Harrison's own calculation -- that Limbaugh typically attracts about 14.25 million listeners weekly -- is based on Arbitron figures from about 30 cities and spot checks of a similar number of stations. Harrison stands by his guess even though Limbaugh's program is heard on more than 600 stations across the country. "Once you get below the big markets, [the audience] doesn't add up to critical mass," he said.

Harrison said his estimate of a big spike in Limbaugh's audience this week -- some 25 million, a figure quoted in The Post -- was also based on his discussions with station program directors around the country. Although there's no actual survey data to support such a figure, Harrison said "it's what we're hearing, based on the e-mails, the calls, all the buzz this controversy is generating. We put a little bit of our interpretation on it, added it all up, and that puts you in the ballpark."

No matter the exact figure, Harrison says Limbaugh's weekly audience eclipses all other nationally syndicated personalities, including conservatives Sean Hannity (13.25 million), Michael Savage (8.25 million) and Laura Ingraham (5.5 million), according to the magazine's "rough projections."

"Mr. Farber, I'm sorry to have upset you"

Oh, yes, I'm terribly, terribly, upset.

"Hard to argue with that."

Posting rules. You dig?

[ed]

Mr. Farber:

My bad. I hadn't read the Posting Rules in a while and forgot what the deal is in this particular comment section. But my comment seemed appropriate (and appropriately civil) given the subjects. I stand by them but understand that they may be deleted, even thought the whole pearl-clutching "blogger civility" nonsense is, well, nonsense. Besides, swearing is funny. Well, it is. (And "@#$%&" is kinda lame.)

From the Posting Rules you cited, please take heed:

Small cut n'pastes are fine; entire articles are not: when in doubt, it's too long.

And Posting Rules or no, it's still hard to argue with Mama's time-tested wisdom. You dig? Well do you?

[ScentOfViolets]

Does anyone besides me watch pro football? I was watching the show, along with several others in my family, when Limbaugh made a certain comment about the Eagle's quarterback. In the midst of all the commentary, that remark sort of jumped out at us, not the least because it was a non sequitur. And while my relatives are not exactly liberal(an understatement), they did take exception to this remark.

[Gary Farber]

"But my comment seemed appropriate (and appropriately civil) given the subjects. I stand by them but understand that they may be deleted, even thought the whole pearl-clutching 'blogger civility' nonsense is, well, nonsense. Besides, swearing is funny. Well, it is. (And "@#$%&" is kinda lame.)"

Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

In any case, I don't care how much you swear or not. The point is simply that swearing is not an argument. Neither is name-calling, however well deserved.

You're free to write comments consisting of nothing but name-calling. And others are free to point out that such comments are juvenile, content-free, and don't further interesting discussion.

Of course, perhaps your idea of interesting discourse is "neener-neener, X is a doody-head. You dig, man?"

If not, you're also free to demonstrate otherwise.

[Nell]

Klavan: listen to Limbaugh every chance I get, and I have never heard the man utter a single racist, hateful or stupid word.

"Feminazi."

Stupid and hateful at once.

Rush's racist bits are well known and documented, and they don't become any less so in context. Quite the opposite: he keeps performing new versions...

My first and last exposure to full-length Limbaugh was in 1990. The painters re-doing the exterior of the building next door had it on full blast while they worked, every day for months, during a period when I worked from home.

Hate radio as entertainment. What a country...

[ed]

In any case, I don't care how much you swear or not. The point is simply that swearing is not an argument. Neither is name-calling, however well deserved.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure my point was that with Mr. Limbaugh, that's where you start. Because it's important. I'm not convinced it's name-calling as much as reiterating the truth.

If not, you're also free to demonstrate otherwise.

Yeah, OK, but is it really worth my time? Do I have to go into full battle research essay mode, or should I merely (correctly) identify Limbaugh as a [bad word adjective] [bad word noun] and if some Wingnut Dittohead calls me on it cut 'n' paste Limbaugh's Top 100 horrible transgressions and move on? It's definitely a good idea to note that Limbaugh is the heart and soul of the modern Republican party, but let's not make this too difficult or otherwise legitimize that [bad word] person in any way, such as Mr. Klavan does. It ain't worth it.

[J. Winger, erstwhile cab driver]

Of course, perhaps your idea of interesting discourse is "neener-neener, X is a doody-head. You dig, man?"

It's a little cute! Come on!

[Jesurgislac]

Ed: while agreeing fully with your assessment of Rush Limbaugh, the posting rules are meant to ensure that this blog remains SFW so long as readers can refrain from LOLing, or worse yet, ROFLMAO. (John Thullen and his kid bitzer are the two main threats.)

Exercise some creative thought about how to express yourself: sometimes it's necessary just to say "The nouns and verbs I would use to describe that person contravene the Posting Rules."

[russell]

Exercise some creative thought about how to express yourself

Look, you don't even have to work that hard. You can just dial up any of the freely available online insult generators.

Think of the things Limbaugh could be:

A crap squeezing tree rider!
A hamster riding dung pile!
A nose licking turd lotion!
A contemptible glob of idle electric donkeys! (ed. - WTF?!?)

Shakespeare's the best:

He's a bawdy base-court scut!
A frothy tickle-brained death-token!
A lumpish brazen-faced coxcomb!

Actually lumpish brazen-faced coxcomb is pretty much on the mark.

And all of that is not even getting into the dozens.

I'm as fond of verbal salt as most anyone I know, but not everyone feels that way, or is free to engage in that kind of wordplay where and when they read this blog.

So it's nice to find a way that everyone can play.

Dig?

[Slartibartfast]

THOU VENOMED ILL-NURTURED CLOTPOLE!

[ed]

So it's nice to find a way that everyone can play.
Dig?

Why yes, I do dig. I'm pretty sure my above posts, which included such nuggets as "My bad" and "[bad word adjective] [bad word noun]," made that abundantly clear.

As I recall, the Shakespeare insults were played out back in 19 and 94.

[Tony P.]

Rush Limbaugh is immense. His gravitational pull captures stray Congressmen. As they circumnavigate him, swirling in ever-tightening orbits within his potential well, regular bursts of radio waves are emitted. You can set your watch by them. The radiation is shifted toward the Right, owing to the space-time distortion in Limbaugh's vicinity. Rush is that huge.

Astrophysicists might someday harness the power of massive black holes in the physical universe. Advertisers have already succeeded in harnessing the power of Rush Limbaugh in the mental universe. This can be deduced from the flux of money into the singularity that is Limbaugh's salary.

That does raise a question, though: to what end is all that radiated power being put, by Limbaugh's advertisers? Does it heat up the sales of Cheetoh's or something?

In plain English: does anybody who has ever listened to the Big, Fat Idiot remember any of the commercials on his show?

--TP

[Old Soldier]

TP, ask the people at Snaple if anyone remembers his comercials. While I don't think he is any of the foul evil things he has been called here, I no longer listen. He is just not funny anymore. By the way, I remember hearing him say ( many years ago) "I'm just an entertainer"

[russell]

As I recall, the Shakespeare insults were played out back in 19 and 94.

What can I say, I'm old school. I still say stuff like "dig".

[ed]

I still say stuff like "dig".

Not ironically?

[John Spragge]

After thinking about it, I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Klavan's arguments have much more wrong with them than the crass insensitivity that Hilzoy criticizes.

The basic problem, as I see it, lies with the following statement:

...it always turns out... he's heard the selected excerpts... designed to accomplish one thing: to make sure you never actually listen to Limbaugh's show, never actually give him a fair chance to speak his piece to you directly.

As I parse this, it seems to me to mean that criticism of Rush Limbaugh's ideas should not affect their reception; that to believe a bad review of Rush Limbaugh, and to act on that belief, makes anyone who does it spineless, a bad spouse, and various of the other characterizations used in the Emperor's Tailors fallacy.

So far, this looks like another bad argument, but the implications concern me, because they touch on one of the foundations of free speech: the notion that by the entirely non-violent process of discussion and debate, we can drive bad ideas to the margins of the public square. But to do that, arguments against a set of ideas, or bad reviews of the expressions of those ideas, have to work. The world has to move on. A decent person does not have to give full and fair consideration to all of the bad ideas in history, and come up with completely original reasons to reject them. Not having read all the pro-slavery speeches given in American history, or all of the works of Lenin or Madison Grant, does not indicate a deficiency. The idea of free speech supposes an open competition; a competition implies losers; and the losers in the marketplace of ideas wind up with a diminished audience.

Rush Limbaugh does not have a right to three hour of my time. In fact, he does not have a right to a nano-second of my time. And if someone persuades me to spend my time on something else, that makes them successful; it does not make me foolish or cowardly. I would love to have someone tell me how free speech can work in a culture where anyone has a "right" to an audience (C. S. Lewis once drily referred to a captive audience as something "last enjoyed... by Nero").

[Mike Schilling]

Limbaugh made a certain comment about the Eagle's quarterback. In the midst of all the commentary, that remark sort of jumped out at us, not the least because it was a non sequitur.

It was an extremely clever remark, actually. While its intentions were clearly racist, it could be defended as an attack on the media, not on McNabb himself. And it couldn't be disproven: it's difficult enough to rate a quarterback sensibly, since his success depends so heavily on the rest of the offense, including the coach's play-calling; it's completely impossible to say that one is or is not overrated. (Is Joe Montana overrated? If you think a large part of his success came from Bill Walsh's offense, you might say yes. If Jeff George overrated? Perhaps you think the million-dollar arm was worth only a few hundred thousand and the ten-cent head only a nickel.) And since Limbaugh sprung it on a group of men who knew far more than he did about football but were not one tenth as skilled in rhetoric (and, unlike Limbaugh, had no arguments prepared), he could claim to have won his debate against a group of experts.

But the main clever thing about that remark was that it got everybody talking about Rush. Which, I have to think, was the whole point.

[russell]

I still say stuff like "dig".

Not ironically?

Sadly, no.

[Jesurgislac]

As I recall, the Shakespeare insults were played out back in 19 and 94.

Shakespearean insults never go out of date... thou clouted beetle-headed haggard!

[russell]

Last but not least there is always the SFW vocabulary of epithets from Johnny Dangerously.

Farging icehole!
Bastages!

[bedtimeforbonzo]

I don't listen to the radio much other than in the car, like Hilzoy, and since my commute to work is a stone's throw, that isn't very much.

But when we have offsite sales and have to move all of our inventory, which takes more than half a working day, I've checked in on the other side in the past. Rush strikes me as the worst kind of hateful blowhard and I am constantly puzzled as to how he has such a large following.

We were moving cars on Monday and I was changing stations and listened to Glen Beck for a couple minutes, all I could stand. He always strikes me as stupid and juvenile. Limbaugh is shrewd, and I would never call him stupid, although Josh's comment showed he has no time for philosophy or anything that requires patience.

---

"The little icon spun round and round for 20 minutes without connecting."

Gary: Now I know I am not the only person who has experienced that time-warp feeling. I've also discovered if you begin a comment and walk away from your desk to do actual work the comment won't be accepted, so there must be some sort of time limit.

[Bernard Yomtov]

I have never heard the man utter a single racist, hateful or stupid word.

I last listened to Limbaugh about twenty years ago. I heard him describe all opponents of the Vietnam War as "subversives." This is not racist, but it is certainly both hateful and stupid. I changed stations and haven't listened since.

I have read some of his transcripts or articles from time to time. The most recent was something he said about the idea of increasing taxes on people with incomes over $250,000. He was talking about the impact on small business and didn't distinguish between revenue and profits. His claim was that most small businesses would be hit because their revenues generally exceed $250K. In other words he said (or wrote) something very stupid.

Klavan hasn't been paying attention, or else he's quite stupid himself.

[Mike Schilling]

Comments are post more quickly if you preview them first.

[Gary Farber]

"Comments are post more quickly if you preview them first."

My problem of late hasn't been the ObWi/Typepad software, but the cable internet connection here going very intermittent, or failing, for a couple of hours a day, for some unknown reason. It's not ObWi-specific. (Yes, we've tried restarting the router a bunch.)

[Gregus Scottus]

I did a web search for the phrase "assuming makes an ass out of you and me" and found this thread on this blog. I have been reading these responses...

What exactly is the difference between what is said on left-leaning talk radio and shows like Limbaugh's? I've listened to both. Perhaps it is mere chance and circumstance, but it always strikes me that, overall, the right-wingers are more light-hearted than the leftists. The leftists are always nasty and bitter. They say unkind things, they aren't sensitive to others, they call people names and deride their opposition. They have an anger to them, as well. Right-wingers do these things in a joking way, with the exception of a few of them.

Granted, I am not an expert on talk radio... I've been forced to hear some in my day, though.

So, left-leaners— why throw stones at Rush when your own radio people aren't any better? Why does each side fault the other for the very things they themselves are guilty of, though in a slightly different way?