No! Why the hell did you think I brought up Clinton in the first place? I don’t like him, yet I DON’T think it would “poetic justice” if he were afflicted with some serious and permanent physical problem.
Why do I keep having to repeat this?
And we can go around in circles about whether or not Clinton did or didn’t do this thing, or Nixon, whatever. But the main issue is - do you think it’s “poetic justice” when someone whose politics you dislike is stricken with some serious physical problem?
I say “no”. A lot here say “no”. A lot of self-confessed “conservatives” say “no”. Some self-confessed “liberals” say “no”. But many self-confessed “liberals” say YES, and are trying to find a way to rationalize it (I guess). “Well, you’d do the same thing if it happened to Clinton!” No. NO, I wouldn’t.
When you start going down that road, you might as well start gloating because your “Archie-Bunker-esque” Uncle Charlie has a stroke. I mean, why not? Every time someone who has offended you has some devastating physical problem, why not kick back and enjoy the “poetic justice”? Why not? Obviously it’s OK! If they are enough of an asshole to you! (BTW, my Archie-Bunker-esqe Uncle Charlie had a stroke a few years ago. He has said some really mean things to me over the years. No, I DIDN’T think his stroke is “poetic justice”. That’s just SHITTY.)
For cryin’ out loud! Did you read my second post! I admint a mea culpa for not reading the whole damn thread before I posted. Cut down on the caffeine!
All I am saying is that the dictionary definition of “poetic justice” would be exactly those types of things. I.E. Clinton is seen as a womanizer and then becomes impotent for life. I have do not think Rush is an asshole (but thanks for attributing that to me anyway). I also do not think Clinton is an asshole. I would however describe both incidents as apparent poetic justice at least in relation to how they are perceived and the particular fate that befalls them.
The phrase “poetic justice” exists. It is not meant to be cruel but descriptive. You seem to be misinterpreting it. I hate to be a quoter of dictionary definitions but perhaps it would help us to work with one. Here is Miriam-Webster’s definition :* “an outcome in which vice is punished and virtue rewarded usually in a manner peculiarly or ironically appropriate”**
If we can agree that Rush Limbaugh was perceived as a person who was metaphorically “deaf” to the liberal (or Leftist) viewpoint, then his loss of hearing (in his left side from what I understand–I could be wrong here) does seem to be a peculiarly appropriate punishment. The same goes for Clinton. If we can agree that Clinton is perceived as a womanizer, then the loss of his schlong hardening ability would be a peculiarly appropriate punishment. Please note that this is distinctly different then just some random bad thing befalling a person who exhibits non-specific “assholish” behavior. Note that I am not saying that these punishments are deserved or that I am happy they happened. The “poetic justice” comes from the way they fit together.
I hope I am being clear.
To sum up:
Rush Limbaugh’s hearing loss is sad.
If Rush Limbaugh were to have had a heart attack, it would still be sad but it would not be “poetic justice.”
Please don’t attribute things to me that I did not say. I didn’t say: “Boy that Rush is an asshole and he gets whatever is coming to him. Any bad thing that happens to him is poetic justice.”
Life is full of comic tragedies. I hope that if something simlar were to happen to me I could look at it with a wry humor. I probably wouldn’t be able to as it is very difficult to admit to one’s own faults. But I can always hope.
For the record, I’m beginning to be sorry I started it. Damn, folks, read the OP! I merely said I didn’t trust the veracity of his claim. Nothing else, no joy, no mention of “poetic justice,” etc.
Hmm, I thought December was an adult. Guess he goes into the “teens using a computer as a social life, pretending to be someone else” category. You never know, with these pseudonyms.
Dude. Ever hear of simulposts? I wrote my response and pressed “submit” before you had posted your second post. I didn’t see your second post when I wrote what I did.
What is “admint”? Some new flavor of coffee? One with lots of caffeine?
OK, I understand where you are coming from. So in other words, my sister’s blindess is also “poetic justice”. That’s the way it is, that’s all it means, according to your definition.
I guess my main bone to pick with the sentiments of some on this thread is that they are a little too gleeful about this man’s “poetic justice”. If my sister’s blindness was indeed “poetic justice”, I sure as hell didn’t have trouble feeling sympathy for her. I sure as hell wouldn’t have even uttered the phrase “poetic justice” in regards to her condition. (It’s quite tacky.)
But some of these folks do have no trouble enjoying the “poetic justice”, in regard to Limbaugh’s deafness. Their callousness is evident. (Not all of them, but definitely some of them.) And I think that is inappropriate. To revel in someone else’s personal misfortune is most inappropriate.
yosemitebabe- I think you’re missing a huge point:
There is no “poetic justice” to your sister’s illness and eventual blindness simply because she was mean to you. If you were a bitch, you might say “She got what she deserved for being mean to me.” That’s not the same as poetic justice. (And I doubt you’re a bitch.)
There is no correlation between her loss of sight and what she did to you as a child. Thus, no “poetic justice”. If, say, she beat you as a child, and then lost the use of her hands, that perhaps would be poetic justice.
There is, on the other hand, a close correlation between Rush’s deafness and the attitude he has expressed towards disabled folks. Not to mention the fact that he yells a lot.
Same with Clinton and his pecker. I think that was the point made before. I hope you get it now.
No, I think you missed a detail that I outlined earlier. My sister sometimes was a bitch to me about my artwork. She destroyed one of my paintings once. She was an artist herself. And she destroyed one of my paintings. It’s a little more complex than just being a “bitch” to me. See? Get it? Eyes = art = destroying my artwork = artist = blindness. I think the case can be made that is was “poetic justice”, if one really wants to put that spin on it. But doing so would be warped, IMO. Just like this whole thread.
Like it or not, it’s part of human nature to want to rejoice when one’s enemies have something tragic happen to them. One of the most famous songs from MGM’s The Wizard of Oz is “Ding-Dong! The Witch is Dead!”
Harlan Ellison once said that the fault with Americans is that we’ll forgive anyone. Some people simply do not deserve forgiveness; their crimes are too great. Nixon, Limbaugh and Reagan did not and do not deserve forgiveness. They DID know what they were doing.
While I feel that my original comments about Limbaugh were inappropriate, I feel that yosemitebabe’s post still deserves a reply:
**
So, you didn’t call me an asshole- you called a group of people assholes, and I was one of the group. Right?
**
I never said any such thing. Don’t put words in my mouth.
**
This is, of course, a false dichotomy: either I am supposed to tolerate your insults, or I’m only interested in talking to people who agree with me. That’s dishonest, and manipulatively so.
**
My point is that some people are willing to publically discuss their tragedies, and others find their tragedies too personal for public discussion. The problem arises when the people who are willing assume that the people who aren’t willing must not have experienced any tragedy- because if they had, they’d be talking about it. This then leads to a number of further problematic assumptions, like the idea that one’s views lack credibility if one is unwilling to discuss one’s life. Or, in other cases, that people who discuss their tragedies can take out their frustrations on others, and we just have to accept their abuse because we have to understand how badly they’re hurting, and that they deserve special treatment.
A protester accidentally set himself aflame with the American flag he was trying to burn. The folks in that thread seemed to think it was poetic justice. I thought you might be interested.
Well, yeah. I thought I made that clear. Anyone who joyfully revels in someone else’s deafness like this is an “asshole” in my book. At least for the act of reveling. It doesn’t mean that they are assholes through-and-through. (I daresay that even Rush Limbaugh isn’t an asshole through-and-through.)
And I will remind you again, this is the PIT. Insults and profanity fly liberally around here. It helps to have a thick skin. But you already knew that, and I have no doubt that you already have a thick skin. If you don’t want to be exposed to “insults” when someone is significantly offended with your attitude, the Pit is not the place for you. People feel free to be blunt and frank here. That’s why it is the PIT.
I don’t understand why. I am not trying to be manipulative, I just thought - what’s wrong about talking about this with people who agree with you about Rush’s deafness? It’ll probably make for a much more fun conversation!
“Take out frustrations?” I’m not the one reveling in someone else’s deafness here. If that’s not an example of “taking out frustrations”, I don’t know what is.
I simply don’t think it’s appropriate, and am expressing that sentiment here. And where do you get the “special treatment” thing? I have been told to “back off” and basically told to take a hike from this thread, because I dare to take offense, and because I dare to mention that I witnessed my sister go blind. I am contributing my particular “spin” to this thread, just like everyone else on this thread. You can choose which “spin” you wish to contribute as well, that’s up to you. I have not asked for special treatment, and I don’t see where I’m getting it. (With being told to “back off” and all…)
Well, do you have any recipe threads or movie threads you think I “might be interested” in as well? I think I can find significance in other threads all by myself, thank you. If you have a point you want to make about that particular thread, spit it out. But I don’t care much for this “coy thread links” stuff.
On the monday morning show, TWO days after JFK JR crashed into the ocean, I heard Limbaugh say “well I guess he couldnt walk on water after all…”
I couldnt believe MY hearing at the time. I was amazed there wasn’t some uproar about that insensitive remark (and I didnt really like JFK JR).
I also heard him recently refer to gay women as “lezbos”.
So fuck Rush Limbaugh, who in my opinion, helped divide this country with his exaggerated takes on issues.
He is a very funny , talented guy, but first and foremost an entertainer whose main objective is RATINGS.
