Yeah, you don’t have an agenda here, do you? You are total walking bullshit. Total.
Well, my statement needs refinement. I meant that just because someone thinks “Rush is trying to make people think liberals are as bad and murderers and rapists” doesn’t mean that Rush meant for the listener to draw that conclusion and used innuendo to get there. So that statement says more to me about the listener than it does about Rush.
Go fuck yourself.
You fucking liberal douches on the SDMB cannot think beyond simple mantras and slogans. I actually care about words and arguments. I don’t simply think RUSH GOOD or RUSH BAD or OBAMA GOOD or OBAMA BAD like you and your fucking idiot liberal douche buddies do.
You mean mantras like “you fucking liberal douches”? I guess you probably meant some other mantras.
Yeah, pretty much.
He regards liberals and liberalism as a huge threat to everything that has made this country great, and a huge threat to individual happiness, character and quality of life by making everyone subservient to the dictates and largesse of a nanny state government. He feels that it doesn’t matter why liberalism wants what it wants, the results are harmful and bad and should be resisted mightily without regard to benign or charitable intent.
I can see where it would be offensive to liberals and divisive to society at large, but I wouldn’t agree that it’s misleading. Limbaugh isn’t equating liberalism with physical or sexual violence, he’s taking the view that wrong is wrong and intent doesn’t mitigate that.
I had a whole long post (well, long for me, which isn’t all that) written out clearly breaking down what Limbaugh said to clearly and convincingly make the case that Limbaugh thinks Liberals are, in at least one very important respect, comparable to rapists and murderers.
Then I realised I’d spent ten minutes writing out clearly breaking down what Limbaugh said to clearly and convincingly make the case that Limbaugh thinks Liberals are, in at least one very important respect, comparable to rapists and murderers. And that Limbaugh is an addled, repulsive, habitually disingenuous cunt. And that there is nothing less productive than parsing the painfully bleedin’ obvious for the benefit of posters who won’t change their minds and don’t give a fuck what you have to say. So I deleted it.
Your refinement is really, really weird. I mean, do you think anyone disagrees with it? Do you think I believe that Rush’s meaning is determined by what anyone thinks? That’s even more pomo than your original post: it’s a sort of “perception determines reality” business, whereas your original was a “reality cannot be determined” thing.
Do you believe that
- People have an intended meaning they wish to convey through their words;
- THat meaning may be conveyed both directly and through innuendo; and
- Other people may determine what that intended meaning is, with a success rate greater than random chance?
If you believe all three of these things, I cannot see what you’re getting at with these posts of yours. If you disagree, you should really read up on deconstructionism: you’ve got a great career ahead of you in our nation’s philosophy departments.
Daniel
. . . thus providing additional evidence for my assertion that you don’t care about particular arguments and words, you just know that RUSH BAD!!! PEOPLE WHO NO SAY RUSH BAD ALSO BAD!!!
Christ man. I do believe all three of those things. What I am saying is that just because some poster says “Rush meant x” it doesn’t mean that Rush actually meant x. I realize that that is obvious, but ithe original post of yours I was responding to didn’t take that into account.
Here’s what you originally wrote:
This says: Rand and SA are focusing on denotation. Stoid and everyone else are focusin on connotation.
I just wanted to point out that just becuase Stoid et al are focusing on connotation it doesn’t mean that Rush actually intended to connote that meaning.
Given that Rush Limbaugh thinks all Democrats but Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman are the scum of the earth, I think it’s entirely reasonable that he intended that meaning.
Good move, that.
Because like luci upthread, you insist on using the false premise that Limbaugh is comparing them rather than listing them. If I say that while I’m at the grocery store I need to pick up bacon, eggs and milk, I’m equating what I need to do when I get to the store; I’m not comparing milk with bacon and eggs.
There are lots of people I think of as scum but not as rapists and murderers.
I’m sorry, I’m fed up with this. Yours is a deliberately obtuse and convoluted reading. I have two points:
- The bottom line is that Limbaugh believes there are at least three groups of people whose actions are so heinous that he cannot bring himself to consider their motives. These groups are: rapists, murderers, and liberals.
That is all that we can infer from the words that Limbaugh actually said. We can’t infer that he believes that “wrong is wrong” because he didn’t give enough elaboration. If he had said "I don’t care why liberals do what they do. I don’t care what murderers, rapists, or any other kind of criminal do what they do", then you might have the beginnings of a point. But he didn’t say that. He restricted himself to ‘rapists’ and ‘murderers’.
Why, if Limbaugh was merely trying to say that liberals are wrong, would he compare his disdain for their motives to the disdain he felt exclusively for rapists and murderers?
- Nobody really believes that “wrong is wrong”. Everybody believes that there are degrees of wrongness. Everybody agrees that shoplifting is a lesser wrong than murder. Limbaugh wouldn’t make the point you argue he is making, because that point would be fucking stupid even for him.
Edit: Moreover, none of this changes the fact that he blatantly lied about what NOW said about the specific murder he referenced. At the very least, the statement quoted in the OP clearly proves that Limbaugh lied.
Good grief. I didn’t take into account because it’s so amazingly blindingly obvious. I also didn’t point out the language Rush was speaking.
We agree on this blindingly obvious point. It does nothing to take away from my point, which is that arguing about the denotation misses the point entirely.
Daniel
Aw, and here I tried to take you seriously and treat you with respect and shit.
Like I said upthread, Limbaugh could not possibly parse everything he says so as to account for every possible variation on how people who are mostly his critics are going to interpret everything he says. He’s on the radio and has to fill airtime. The conservatives here know what he actually said and the point he was trying to make; the liberals here know what he actually said and are assigning to it ridiculous interpretations.
If you honestly think that Limbaugh was saying that there is no difference between liberals, rapists and murderers, you are far more stupid than you could ever accuse me of being.
I have as much regard for your opinion as I have for the opinion of a rapist or a murderer. Make of that what you will.
Like I said above, I’m done with this ridiculous, trivial argument. I will, however, point out that if you seriously expected me to swallow the garbage you’re peddling in this thread then the level of respect you had for me must have been pretty fucking low to start off with.
I thought your preceding post was to be your last.
Well, let’s make this simple for everyone. Do you think that RUSH GOOD?
I know, I know. But then I just had a thought. Judging by your abrupt change in tone, it seems you took offence when I said: “Limbaugh wouldn’t make the point you argue he is making, because that point would be fucking stupid even for him.”
You probably thought I was calling you stupid. Well, I do think you’re stupid, but you had absolutely no right to come to that conclusion and be offended on the basis of the words I actually used. After all, I merely said the point was stupid. I said nothing at the time about you.
I bet you feel silly now, don’t you?
Zzzzzzzzz…