But he wouldn’t have been so angry if Rush thought torturing you would have been okay? 
In the pantheon of offensive things Rush has said, this one’s very meanspirited… but it’s nowhere near as awful as pretending torture is nothing more than a frat prank.
I disagree. Limbaugh’s joke could (and perhaps did) cause deep and long-lasting harm to a specific individual, whereas no one has been harmed in the least by his assessment of prisoner treatment in Iraq.
And when I was 13 I tried to kill myself because I thought I would never be happy in life because I was so ugly … thanks to being told it repeatedly by my classmates. Rush’s comments about torture were asinine, but I really really doubt they made anyone suicidal.
Well, your point would only be valid if indeed it did cause deep and long-lasting harm to Ms. Clinton. Do you have any evidence that this has occurred?
At any rate, the effect isn’t the only criterion we should use in deciding which remark is more heinous. My opinion is that jokingly calling someone ugly - a cruel joke - pales in comparison to comparing torture to a frat prank. The former shows the speaker to be a mean, hateful snot; the latter belies a preference to physical cruelty.
I would say that the latter belies an indifference to physical cruelty, while the former is itself a form of mental cruelty.
No, I don’t think it’s an indifference to it - it’s a promotion of it. Big difference.
His remarks about Ms. Clinton were aimed at a public personality. No, I’m not saying she’s fair game - that’s a weak argument in itself - but his remarks don’t have nearly the impact they would have had if he’d aimed them at, say, his parents, people he knows intimately, and so forth. If I say I think Janet Reno is butt ugly, that’s kind of cold, but ultimately irrelevant. If I say my mom’s butt ugly, now I’m a hateful, ungrateful sonofabitch.
Rush didn’t say either of those things to me as an individual, so I can compare them by gauging my reaction if he’d done so.
Rush: Torturing dan is okay with me. It’s nothing more than a frat prank. He should suck it up.
Rish: dan is a dog.
If he’d said either of those to me, I really would have a much more visceral reaction to the former, not the latter. Maybe it’s just me.
Who was 13 years old at the time, and almost certainly very insecure and sensitive to comments about her looks. This is a crucial part which you seem to be missing, possibly since you have never been a 13-year-old girl.
But he didn’t say the torture comment to anyone as an individual, which is another important part.
I’m not “missing” it. It’s not important how old she was, and her gender is irrelevant. Are you saying a 13-year-old boy wouldn’t have minded the comment?
Second, unless you actually are Chelsea Clinton, you really aren’t in any position to state how insecure or sensitive to comments about her looks she may have been. She was not an ordinary teenager growing up in an ordinary household. Although I have no doubt she had many of the same problems that others her age, I also believe she had a strong, supporting family, which could have allayed at least some insecurities.
Third, the comments were made by a public enemy of the Clintons. If I were in a public position and one of my mortal enemies made a rotten, disparaging comment about my looks, I wouldn’t lend it any weight at all. My guess is that’s the advice she received from those around her, people who had been in the public eye for years and had suffered the slings and arrows of smaller minds.
Yes, but it’s not the only relevant aspect here. The best way to look at things that do not directly affect me is to view them through a neutral lens, or change variables in each of the two comments in equal fashion.
What if Rush had said Macaulay Culkin, circa 1993 (when he was 13) was ugly? Would you still think those comments were worse than his pro-torture comments?
Good God. You are so far from understanding what it’s like to be a 13-year-old girl, I’m almost wondering why I’m wasting my time replying to this.
I’m saying that women, in general, are more prone to deep hurt about comments made about their looks and that adolescent girls in particular are. And when they’re unattractive adolescent girls (or think they are), reminding them of this is just about the worst thing you can do to them. I am speaking from experience here–painful, scarring experience that two decades later I still suffer repercussions from.
You had no problem comparing Rush’s comments in terms how you would have felt had he made them about you, did you? I’m doing the same.
But she was a 13-year-old girl growing up in a society which prizes women’s looks above all else about them. And, in fact, this almost makes it more likely she’d care about her looks - precisely because of the fact they were seen and commented on more than nearly any other girl in the world at her age.
I had a strong supporting family as well.
She was 13 for crying out loud. I doubt her self-confidence would have been highly developed enough to shrug things off that easily.
I think it’s incredibly unlikely that Macauley Culkin would have been anywhere near as sensitive about his looks as Chelsea would have been.
Is there really a need to be so condescending? Does this really bother you?
What is your evidence that women are more prone to be deeply hurt? Do you have anything to back this up? Other than your own personal experience, of course, since I think we can assume you have not had the same experiences of Chelsea Clinton.
What is your evidence that Chelsea Clinton thought she was unattractive?
[/quote]
Actually, no. You’re not. You’re comparing them in terms of how you think she felt. I’m comparing them in terms of how I felt. A big, mighty difference.
But you don’t really know how the comments affected her, do you? You’re speculating on the simple basis of your own experiences when you were younger. Don’t you think that’s a tad disingenuous? This is why I am saying it’s best to consider how you would feel if both sets of comments were made about you personally. If Rush had said, “Boy, that ruadh sure is a dog. They should torture the crap out of people like that!” would you really be more offended and hurt by the first comment?
And yet you don’t know. It’s possible.
Why? Because he’s male?
You know, when he was young (Home Alone young), he was cute. Then he hit this awful, awkward age that most of us hit, and he had a lot of trouble with the switch. There was a lot of malicious talk about how uncute he’d become. I’m sure he was just as self-conscious then as Chelsea Clinton was at that age.
Again, I’m not at all saying either of his comments were good. What he said, on both occasions, was utterly heinous. I am simply saying that promoting the torture of a group of people is far worse than saying one girl is a dog. It was argued above that his Clinton comments were worse because they targeted an individual, whereas the other comments targeted a group of people. But I’d go the other way - the others are worse because more people were directly affected.
I’m not trying to be condescending, I just genuinely think you have no idea what it’s like.
Well, your replies in this thread, for one thing. The fact that you don’t seem to even register how painful comments like Rush’s can be.
They weren’t made about you, though, so how can you say how “you” felt?
Yes, actually, I would. By a long shot.
If there was really “a lot” of malicious talk about him at that age then yes, he probably was very self-conscious and yes, it would be absolutely horrible for someone to contribute to that by calling him a dog on air.
I disagree that anyone was “directly” affected in this case, actually.
And neither do you, having not been in Chelsea Clinton’s shoes. You may think you have a vague idea, if you were once a 13-year-old girl, but you can’t possibly know precisely what she thinks unless you’ve lived her life.
My comments in this thread prove that young girls are more prone to being hurt by comments of other people?
You specifically said, “I’m saying that women, in general, are more prone to deep hurt about comments made about their looks and that adolescent girls in particular are.” My question to you is, what is your evidence that this is true?
I’m presenting a hypothetical situation. Unlike you (apparently), I cannot determine how another person would react to a situation; I can, however, predict how I would to the same situation. I can most certainly say that if the same exact comments were made about me, I would react a certain way.
Then I hope you are receiving the help you seem to need very badly, especially if you’re still coping with problems you suffered 20 years ago. I’m sorry that it happened, but you must realize that your situation, while certainly not rare, is not the experience of every other person. And, I hasten to add again, your having lived through your own situation does not in any way mean Chelsea Clinton lived through the same situation when Limbaugh made those comments. Sounds to me like your projecting your fears and anxieties on a different situation.
That’s your opinion, and I respect it.
I’m not going to discuss this any further, though. I’m not convincing you, you’re not convincing me, and I don’t want to upset you or myself by continuing what seems like a futile exercise. Again, I’m sorry for whatever happened to you in the past.
I meant “you have no idea what it’s like to be a 13-year-old girl”.
Your comments in this thread lend weight to the idea that looks-related insults aren’t as hurtful to males as they are to females. I’m mindful of course that you’re a sample of one.
Are you disputing that teenage girls are peculiarly sensitive about their physical appearance? I always thought that was axiomatic of child development.
And this is exactly what I’m doing! I’m not saying Chelsea definitely reacted that way; I’m just saying that I expect she would have reacted that way, based on my own experience (and that of many other girls).
I am, thank you very much.
Given the recent increase in plastic surgery, eating disorders, etc., I’m inclined to think it’s the experience of a lot more people than you realise.
If he said it about an individual person, yes.
This time, Rush made it personal. He made fun of a CHILD, in effect, by all accounts a shy young girl who was shoved into the spotlight, having everyone making fun of her looks, and then made a personal remark about her LOOKS. Not her personality. Not anything she did.
But her LOOKS.
I have been where Chelsea was and it hurts. Thirteen is probably the worst age for a female. At least it was for me.
Yes, she was technically a public persona. But not by choice, as Culkin was.
Oh, and Rush-you ain’t exactly Cary Grant, either.
Look, dantheman, suffice to say, maybe it’s just a female thing, but trust us on this. It’s hurtful. VERY hurtful.
I never said otherwise.
And let’s cut the “female thing” crap, okay? I’ll certainly grant it could just be a “teenager thing,” but one thing it most emphatically is not is a “female thing.” That insinuates that it’s only possible for females to be genuinely hurt by someone else’s words, and that’s plain malarkey. I realize perfectly well that teenage girls can be badly hurt by the words of others, but rest assured such cruelty is not limited to their gender.
And I meant you have no idea what it’s like to be Chelsea Clinton, who has certainly not led a normal life. You have a better idea than I do, but only in the most general of terms.
They do not. If you are inferring that, you’re grossly mistaken and are misinterpreting my words.
Are you even reading what I am writing?
I’ll repeat it: “You specifically said, ‘I’m saying that women, in general, are more prone to deep hurt about comments made about their looks and that adolescent girls in particular are.’ My question to you is, what is your evidence that this is true?” (bolding mine)
Again, what is your evidence that women in general and adolescent girls in particular are more prone to being deeply hurt about comments made about them?
This being MPSIMS and all, you don’t have to come up with a cite. Just tell me why you feel this way. Or retract it, if you wish.
And what I’m saying is that your experiences and those of most other girls don’t mirror the experiences of Chelsea Clinton.
It’s possible, of course, but without hard facts it’s tough to say. I don’t know anyone personally with an eating disorder or who has had plastic surgery, so I’m out of touch in both of those areas. If there is an increase, I don’t know if it’s due to mental abuse those people suffered as teenagers.
Can’t we all just get drunk or somethin? Sheeze! Maybe we can get drunk and torture some 13 year-old girls that might grow up to be semi-hot drunks with famous parents.
Then Rush L. can insult them and ruin their tortured futures.
Or not.
dantheman, are you being contrary just to be contrary? Just because you personally have not experienced something doesn’t make it less of a fact. Thirteen year old girls base their self esteem on their looks. Having been one, I can tell you that is a fact, not just hearsay. Whether you are the daughter of the President of the United States, or the daughter of a cop in a small town.
As for the “girl thing” … yeah. It exists. Boys express themselves physically, and usually after a confrontation, end up if not friends, at least no longer enemies. There have been several books written on the subject of it, most notably Odd Girl Out, The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls. Teenage girls are not directly or physically confrontational; for the most part it’s passive aggressive and verbal. The cruelty has to be experienced to be believed. The slights, the half-heard insults, the sneering looks… these are things teenage girls take very seriously.
When you are expected to go through life 20lbs underweight and made to believe, based on media, peers, and the opposite sex, that your looks are the first and best things you have to offer, then you can tell me all about how untrue the previous statements are.
In the mean time… John Carter, that suggestion sounds lovely. First round on me.
Hey Maureen! Believe this or not, about midnight Saturday I was shootin’ nine-ball in the Flori~Bama Bar, blew a shot, and I started talkin’ to myself: “I bet Maureen wouldn’t have missed that one.”
I suppose it was some kind of weird mental reaction caused by withdrawal from the SDMB (I was away from 'puters for several days) plus lots of Jack & Coke.
Anyways…
So stop comparing it to the torture quote. We’ve explained time and time again WHY it’s more offensive, and you just seem to want to argue just for the sake of arguing.