It’s been a weird couple of weeks where comedy and politics intersect. Rush Limbaugh calls Sandra Fluke a slut and is roundly criticized, and within a week, Limbaugh lost a staggering 141 advertisers. That should’ve been the end of it, but of course, it wasn’t. The right immediately shot back, claiming that a series of liberal comedians were guilty of worst sins than Limbaugh. Check out Fox News or Big Hollywood, and the story is not about Rush Limbaugh anymore. It was at first about the left’s crusade against free speech, and when that didn’t score points, the right began claiming the left is just as guilty as Rush Limbaugh.
Jon Stewart attacked Fox News for playing the victim card, then Big Hollywood attacks Jon Stewart for attacking Rush Limbaugh. Louis CK decides not host the Correspondent’s Dinner because Greta Van Susteren called him a pig, and then Michelle Obama is called a hypocrite for going on Letterman’s show after Letterman called the Palin kid a slut several years ago. It’s all getting kind of ridiculous and out of hand.
Earlier this week, Bill Maher — who defended Rush Limbaugh — was attacked for his own past “misogynistic” comments. Maher’s response:
“Of course if you take out of context over 10 years snippets inside comedy bits you can make anyone look bad – and sometimes, I have been!” he added. “Not perfect, but not misogyny. In general, this is an obvious right wing attempt to dredge up some old shit about me to deflect from their self-inflicted problems. They are the kings of false equivalencies.”
The question is: Is that a false equivalency? Is the left, as Fox News suggested, “hiding under the helmet of comedy”? It’s not like Bill Maher is that much different than Limbaugh? Should Rush Limbaugh have even been lambasted? Does the right get a bad wrap in this simply because they’re less capable of hiding behind comedy (because they’re not very funny). If you take politics out of the equation, is this the sort of slippery slope that will lead to fear among comedians and commentators alike to speak their mind for fear of alienating advertisers?
Look: I’m a liberal heathen, but I’m trying to see this from a neutral perspective. Is the left being overly sensitive? Is the right being a bunch of whiners? Is that a false equivalency? Why should Bill Maher get a free pass? Does Louis C.K. escape criticism because he’s awesome? Is there a right/left double standard?
Is it possible, on the Internet, to have a rational discussion about this? Let’s see.
![[avatar]](http://p.uproxxcdn.com/photo/4006/thumb)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/Screen-shot-2013-05-14-at-8.55.22-AM-150x150.png)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/Screen-shot-2013-05-07-at-8.52.39-AM-150x150.png)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/trump-150x150.png)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/tumblr_mhtljzbfKA1qlix6mo1_250-150x150.gif)
Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos
How could you! Kang was the obvious choice for alien overlord.
I love you guys…..you make my boring job worthwhile cause I get to read this shiz.
Its a two party system, you have to vote for one of us!
Dustin why would you bring up politics first off? Second off they are both morons.
POLITICS!!! GRRRR!!!!!
The issue is the target. Humor becomes bullying when it’s against someone less powerful than you. Maher went after Sarah Palin. Rush Limbaugh went after a law student who spoke out about birth control.
Basically this. Marher’s attacks, while still misogynistic, are aimed at political figures who really should (and, other than the extra sensitive Ms Palin, usually do) have a thick skin. When you run for President, VP or really any major office, you know what you’re signing up for- you’re painting a target on your back for anyone who disagrees/makes fun of public figures for a living. Limbaugh crossed the line not so much because of what he said, but who he was saying it about- he attacked a politically active citizen testifying about something she believes in.
Oh so misogyny is ok as long as the figure is public enough. Cool!
Esteban, that seemed to be the rationale when Sean Hannity was praising Ted Nugent here.
Oh somehow my comment meant I was supporting Sean Hannity. I had no idea, but thanks for letting me know!
I’m assuming we are all lefty-pinko heathens in here.
Not everybody; wwtdobserver is an example of a righty tighty.
Standard post: wwtdobserver says something stupid, Otto Man destroys him with a reasoned and sound response, wwtdobserver calls him a fag with way too many ellipsises.
LastTexasFan……..
I’d say blow me….but I fear you’d be interested.
Where is your evidence for your sad “factoid”……??
You are wise to rely on Ottoman for your “logic”…..It saves you thr trouble on not thinking…
Does the left get away with more? Maybe. But there’s still a big difference between attacking a super-vocal public figure like Sarah Palin and attacking a private citizen who just took a stand on one issue that was important to her.
In my opinion, what Limbaugh did is way worse.
Private citizen? Fluke is a feminist activist who testified before Congress and specifically went to Georgetown because they didn’t have a plan to cover contraceptives.
Doesn’t mean that Limbaugh isn’t a dick, but you can’t do all that and then claim you’re a “civilian”.
So anyone who believes in an issue enough to speak on it = a woman who falsely claims the President pals around with terrorists?
Law student does not equal a woman who gets paid $500K for speaking.
That’s a pretty pathetic strawman.
All I’m saying is that Fluke made herself a public figure and it’s totally unreasonable to claim that calling her a cunt is worse than calling Sarah Palin a cunt.
Actually no it isn’t. Sarah Palin made herself into a public figure by being a public figure, nevermind her pretty much calling the President a terrorist who wants to kill the elderly. Fluke stood up for something she believed in, without getting paid for it, in a testimonial fashion. Those two are not the same things.
One of these women attacked the patriotism, integrity, honesty and character of her political opponents, and made millions of dollars in doing so. One of them didn’t.
Seriously, is that your line of argument — if a woman speaks her mind about medical issues, and only medical issues, never mentioning sex at all, then it’s fair game to call her a slut, to say she fucks so much that she can’t walk straight, and to fantasize repeatedly about how much you and your viewers want to watch her have sex?
And if she didn’t want to be called all that, then she should’ve kept her whorish mouth shut?
Good luck with the final days of your political party.
I like the argument is that Palin deserved it.
“Seriously, is that your line of argument — if a woman speaks her mind about medical issues, and only medical issues, never mentioning sex at all, then it’s fair game to call her a slut?”
My line of argument is not that, as I clearly stated in my posts. I’d love to have a serious discussion about this, but as long as you guys keep making shit up and debating the phantom Republicans in your head (which you wrongly seem to think I am), then I can’t help you.
That’s the internet for you, I guess.
I like the argument that Palin — like all conservatives — was a blameless little victim.
All she did was denounce her opponents as traitors who were intentionally trying to destroy the country and undermine “real America” and kill Downs Syndrome babies and euthanize the elderly and sell the country out to terrorists. How dare anyone ever call her an asshole for that?
This law student who pointed out that doctors prescribe the pill for medical necessities is clearly worse, right?
Please. Keep on digging.
Ottoman: Palin DESERVED it.
Being a public figure doesn’t mean you deserve scorn you fucking mouth breather, it means you can’t play the victim when someone says something mean about you.
Ottoman: Palin DESERVED it.
Keep digging, teatard.
Otto, I don’t think the strawman can take anymore. He gives up. Do you beat him because you love him. Maybe he deserves it too.
All I’m saying is that Fluke made herself a public figure and it’s totally unreasonable to claim that calling her a cunt is worse than calling Sarah Palin a cunt.
No, see that is a strawman. Because that isn’t what happened. This isn’t a case of both of them being called a cunt. One was called a cunt, and one was misrepresented as someone who had gone before Congress to demand that she be given taxpayer money because “she was having so much sex that she couldn’t walk straight.”
When the Far Right plays the victim it’s amazing to see, but when others claim to be offended by what they say they just scream “FIRST AMENDMENT” until they pass out.
Rational discussion on the internet! Ha Ha! Good one, Jay!
The thing that frustrates me about this (and just about every other “oops I shouldn’t have said that” scandal in recent memory) is that there’s a very vocal group of conservatives who immediately jump up and start screaming about first amendment rights (see: Sarah Palin, many Fox News talking heads).
The first amendment doesn’t guarantee you free speech. If you say something idiotic/racist/homophobic/etc. there will be consequences. The first amendment doesn’t give you license to be an asshole and not face the repercussions.
Not to people who don’t understand the Constitution. I can’t wait to own my own business and fire someone for saying something stupid to hear them scream how I’m infringing on their freedom of speech.
Not to say I don’t agree, but I’ve seen a KKK rally right here in my town on government property in one of those free speech zones. I mean that’s bold hate speech right there, but they didn’t face any consequences.
I think it’s easier to say something along the lines of free speech being like a highway. It goes both ways and I can say you’re wrong as much as you can spew out filth and lies or whatever.
He means consequences based on employment or ridicule. The government can’t punish you for anything you say, but your employer or peers are free to do whatever they want.
Actually it does give you the right to be an asshole and not to have governmental action as a consequence. It also gives others the right to call you out as being an asshole without governmental action as a consequence.
In reality…..
I gotcha. I never think of my employer doing anything because I just figure they’re going to fire me for walking strange one day.
Also I’ve been hit in the face before for saying certain bands suck, so I feel it.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. LastTexansFan did a good job of clearing up what I was trying to say. I never meant to suggest that the government could do anything to impinge upon your speech, as that quite nicely falls under the first amendment.
But the consequences faced by Rush (and Dr. Laura before him) are all from the public or companies. Government isn’t regulating anything about what they say, thus the first amendment doesn’t have anything to do with what’s been going on.
However; there are several statutes governing wrongful termination; as in the employer firing someone who has an Obama or a McCain bumper sticker on their private car getting fired.
@Moose: That could fall until discriminatory practices.
/shines J.D. frame
Being a moderate blows.
I prefer it. It means I can actually look at the substance of people’s arguments and decide for myself rather than just voting based on party. Both parties are a joke nowadays anyways.
I just meant for discourses sake. I want to argue, but I don’t want to yell at everyone.
/kidding
Moderate votes are more valuable.
Tim, I disagree. I love being able to pick a political fight with anyone at any particular time.
I hate politics, so here is a GIF of Slater kicking open Belding’s door while wearing a towel.
You just know how to brighten up someone’s day. Slater is my choice for team member when they do an American League of Extraordinary Gentleman.
Rush Limbaugh is extremely powerful in the Republican party with candidates vying for his support. Bill Maher is a jackass that doesn’t influence anyone. That’s a pretty big distinction.
coked_up_jesus is what’s wrong with America. Cleary, Zack is the right choice and not Slater.
DAMN YOUR MOUTH, TACO JONES!
Oops, put that first reply in the wrong place.
I think they are both blowhard windbags for their political sides and I dislike both, but I think past that the comparisons get a little murky. See Bobby Big Wheel.
Dustin,
I suspect you put these posts up just as a way to drive page views.
Quickly becoming the WG resident troll.
Thanks to our new commenting system, you don’t have to refresh to read comments so there are no additional page views. But yes, if trying to provoke a sensible conversation with an intelligent, diverse group of people about issues that have and will continue to affect the substance (or lack thereof) of what we view on television is considered trolling, then I’m guilty as charged. But if I wanted to gin the page views, I’d post more Alexandra Breckenridge GIFs.
Oh, and guitarjustin: This is not just about news and politics. It’s spilled over into comedy, and what comedians will be allowed to say. I take my dick jokes very personally. Now, you can contribute intelligently, make your own dick jokes, or you can be a douche bag. The great thing about WG is that we are accepting of all three options.
Provoking a conversation is code for “not writing.”
“trying to provoke a sensible conversation”?
How long have you been on the internet?
I don’t think such a thing can exist here, at least when the conversation is about politics. For every sensible comment there are 40 ad hominem attacks and 15 Simpons references.
Also, both are douches.
I don’t see what the big deal over all of this is. I guarantee the Fluke girl is a HUGE slut, just like Palin’s kid. Notwithstanding, who wouldn’t want to see Louis CK rub his father’s cock all over Sarah Palin’s fat tits?
Common sense people.
Theyre both assholes. Either everyone can say what they want, or no one can say anything. There is no middle ground on this one.
I think about 2% of all this outrage is sincere concern for women’s rights and dignity, and about 98% a cynical attempt to score cheap political points by out-victimizing the other party. That’s where we are today: lots of pretend indignation.
People need to get a thicker skin. Dr. Dre was right: bitches can’t hang with the street.
Agreed. I think it’s all a brilliant scheme from politicians to score points (and news personalities to drum up ratings), but also to dodge talking about real issues.
*realizes that comment was completely sincere without any humorous cynicism*…. uh… a-googily, doogily
Bill Maher took aim at a politician, someone who repeatedly attacked her political opponents as people who hated “real America,” who “palled around with terrorists,” who wanted to haul the elderly before “death panels” and all other sorts of vile shit, and he called her a cunt and a twat. If she’d been a man, he’d have called her a dick and an asshole. That was it.
Rush Limbaugh took aim at a private individual whose only offense was appearing before Congress to urge that private insurers cover birth control and noting that many doctors prescribe birth control for ovarian cysts and other disorders. She never once mentioned sex, but Limbaugh claimed that she testified that she was having so much sex that she couldn’t walk straight, called her a whore and a slut, and attacked her 53 different times over three days.
If you think these two things are remotely in the same league, congratulations, you’re a fucking moron.
Otto Man’s responses to political discussions keeps my faith in the human race.
I can never read these responses without thinking Kenny Powers is writing them. It’s also why I never comment unless I’ve been drinking because what would be the point, the best is here already.
Otto Man summed it up perfectly.
I read Otto in Kenny Powers voice and also take into account that Kenny Powers probably can’t read well, which makes Otto’s insightful posts all the more enjoyable.
100 interwebs to Otto. Just sign my name at the end of this.
I think the Far Right’s lesson in this was “if you believe in something, don’t become politically involved, else you’ll be called a slut.”
Wouldn’t that be the exact same lesson the far left gave about Palin?
You mean the woman who incited the “real America” that the “fake America” was planning to overthrow their government and kill their grandmas? That’s the same about a woman testifying for cancer-preventing contraception?
You’re missing the point. Both placed themselves in the public sphere for reasons they believed in. Why is it ok to refer to either in a derogatory manner? Wouldn’t ad hominem attacks on either chill the possibility of women from either side standing up for what they believed in?
So you’re saying anytime you stand up for something you believe in, without being compensated in anyway, to be ready to be called a slut and a whore on national radio? Sarah Palin accepted the risks by being a public figure. I don’t like what Maher said, but she knew that would be a part of the process of running for office.
You’d rather just every woman who was politically active keep their mouth shut in fear of being called a cock-gobbling whore?
Why is it ok to refer to either in a derogatory manner?
I don’t think either is OK, but there are wild degrees of difference here.
Palin made a career and a fortune out of acting like a dick, and she was called a term that is essentially the female version of “dick.”
Fluke made a single appearance advocating for women’s health issues, and for that, was singled out by one of the most powerful media voices on the planet, slandered repeatedly in that he said she testified about having tons of sex when she never, never said a single word about sex, called her a prostitute, said that he meant it literally not figuratively in that she wanted to be paid to have sex (again, she never said anything close to that), and then fantasized about watching her have sex on the internet.
If you can’t see the difference between those two, then you are beyond hope.
Damn close-italics tag.
Wait, how is that what you got from what I said? I said exactly the opposite. That it’s not ok for either side to go ad hominem because it chills the speech of women who want to speak up for things they believe in. I said nothing in favor nor against either, just that both sides take part in this bullshit and that it most likely prevents a lot of women from getting politically involved.
Oh damn it, I forgot to post this in reply. Copy and paste to the rescue…
1. I never said Palin was a blameless victim. Again, yet another strawman. I think she’s a joke of a politician, so there’s no need to list all the dumb things she said.
2. The issue is not getting called an “asshole”, as you well know. This is a very transparent attempt on your part to move the goalposts. Getting called an asshole is one thing, getting called a cunt or a twat or a slut is quite another.
3. I never claimed Fluke was “worse” than Palin. I’m not debating who is making the better political argument (becuase, quite frankly, I hold them both in contempt). Again, you’re either totally missing my point, or you’re being willfully ignorant about what I am saying.
Here is my argument as simple as I can make it: calling Sandra Fluke a cunt is just as immoral as calling Sarah Palin a cunt. Is that so outrageous?
You seem to think that because you don’t like Sarah Palin and you agree with Fluke politically, it is less immoral to call Palin sexist terms. Do I have that right?
Doc, let’s be careful who you’re painting with that “both sides” brush.
Maher is not the flag-bearer for the left.
Rush is the flag-bearer for the right.
Otto, there’s certainly a difference of degree involved, but that’s not my point. My point is that both sides do this, and by doing it both sides most likely make women stay away from being politically active.
Lothar of the Hill People: “Rush is the flag-bearer for the right.”
As much as I initially wanted to disagree with this statement, I will just add an amendment. “Rush is the flag-bearer for the (brainless) right.”
I sit on the right side (mainly libertarian) more than the left side, but I HATE pretty much everything Rush & Hannity say. They feed soylent green to all the lazy, idiot citizens of the Republican party to drum up anger. Its really just hate-filled diatribe for those who don’t want to think for themselves.
I’m a CPA, and I can’t tell you how many times my idiot relatives would ask me what to do when Obama “raises their taxes”…which they hear on Hannity. Or, “do I want to go to the fair tax rally with them.” NO! F***-off cousin Jethrow.
Roddy, without getting too wrapped up in it, I’d argue that the Right has become an entity unto itself, to the exclusion of Libertarians (who used to hold economic common-ground with the conservative Right).
There are those who equate the Tea Party with Libertarianism, but not me.
Ultimately, I think Libertarians are not really part of (what has become) the Right–hence why Ron Paul polls so low.
I don’t think Mahr can claim comedy based on what his show is, but his comments are usually about people who have said mean things themselves. Sarah Palin isn’t divisive just because people liked or hated her, she literally went around trying to pit “real” amurrica vs fake east/west coast America. I think there is a difference in calling her a name vs what happened to fluke. She wasn’t just called a slut, he tore into her for 3 days.
/puts on serious glasses
This is what we focus our time and energy on while our national debt is over 16 trillion dollars and we’re about to start another war in the Middle East.
/takes off serious glasses, laughs at video of skateboarder wiping out
I think Stewart and Maher both consider their shows comedy programming- but that’s not a blank cheque if large portions of your audience consider you to be a legitimate news source.
I think far too many people are getting their ‘news’ from people like stewart, maher, limbaugh. If you’re in that position, whether deliberately or not, you have to adhere to something that splits the difference between journalist integrity and freedom of speech as an entertainer or comedian.
Oh. and Keith Olberman is a diseased cunt.
Chazz, I don’t think you understand what “freedom of speech” means. It means the Government has to have a very compelling interest in order to limit your speech. It doesn’t mean that assholes like Mahr and Rush have to moderate their inherent assholishness.
Cool story bro. I didn’t once mention government involvement or freedom of speech. My point, is that maher, stewart, limbaugh et al should better recognize how their audience perceives their programming and hold themselves to something between the integrity of a journalist and the relative blank slate a comedian or entertainer should have.
Why should a comedian be responsible for an audience member misinterpreting their point? I don’t feel personally responsible when someone doesn’t understand my argument (assuming it made sense).
You can’t be responsible for stupid people who watch your show. Stewart repeatedly mocks people who claim the Daily Show is a news program.
House, I see what you’re saying but I think those particular shows (The Daily Show, Real Time) carry a format that blurs the lines. Of course the hosts are obligated to do anything about that, and I always appreciate it when Stewart does go out of his way to do so, but I do think it’s not quite as simple as it would be if they were both just doing standup. Same deal for Rush and other pundits- I think they should do more to make it clear that the platforms of their shows are founded in opinion, and should not be anyone’s primary source to stay informed.
shit- that second sentence should read ‘are not obligated’. Of course no one is scrolling down this far anymore so I’m really just talking to myself here.
Dixie Chicks vs. Ted Nugent. It’s ok to tell Hillary Clinton to sit on a machine gun and Barack Obama to swallow a bullet, but if you’re liberal and you speak ill of the Republican President you’re a traitor to this country.
Kind of like it’s okay to make sexist attacks against Republican women if you’re a liberal man?
I don’t think Democrats can claim superiority. Partisans and fanatics on both sides are pretty much equally guilty of shit like this all the time. Real issues take a backseat to Red Team vs. Blue Team tribalism.
I don’t think making threats to the lives of people you disagree with politically is the same as being ashamed of one President’s home state, and conservatives don’t either. The only problem is they think the latter is worth boycotting.
I don’t think Democrats can claim superiority
Really? Point me to the transcripts where Keith Olbermann or someone equivalent in the liberal end of the media called Sarah Palin a prostitute for three straight days, said she had so much sex she couldn’t walk straight, and fantasized about watching her fuck on the internet.
Go ahead. If Democrats are just as bad, then this exists. If it doesn’t exist, then Democrats are not just as bad. It is that fucking simple.
Here’s a thought: You don’t have to reflexively defend “your side” every time they do something bad. You don’t have to insist, with a knee-jerk reaction, that “both sides do the same thing” when clearly, both sides don’t. You could — and just hear me out here — denounce a bad thing as being bad.
If you have to look to see if there’s an R or D after the name before you decide how you feel about it, then you’re no longer a human being. You’re a fucking hack.
Point Otto.
To put it more simply, Ms. Fluke testifying about the medical necessity of birth control does not make her a slut; Sarah Palin’s words and deeds in the public eye over the last few years DOES make her a cunt, Q.E.D. So it’s really a matter of accuracy more than anything.
Or you can also say that Maher was bad and not say that Palin REALLY deserved what she got. That’s an option. I don’t see people saying Rush Limbaugh was right (here anyway)
Esteban, how do you NOT get this? You’re arguing that this is all about name-calling, when the thing that Limbaugh did was lie about & defame Fluke. Take out “slut” and “prostitute” and you still have him LYING for days about who she is and what she was saying.
Take out “cunt” and “twat” from what Maher said and there’s nothing remotely offensive.
In the end, Limbaugh’s apology was more an apology for what Maher did, not what Limbagh did.
Excellent point, Lothar.
Take out all instances of “slut,” “prostitute,” “cunt” and “twat” and you have Limbaugh committing what clearly seems to be an actionable case of slander and a broader act of misogyny, and Maher saying not much at all.
It is possible to agree that Rush was being a giant dick, but that Maher is being an only slightly smaller dick? I am not going to defend Rush’s idiocy, but Maher is pretty much on the same level of dickishness. Forget this one argument on these two women for a second, and based on the body of their work, they are both giant dicks.
But cunt and twat and wanting to hatefuck Bachmann were there. You can’t take it out because you agree with what Maher said.
“Here’s a thought: You don’t have to reflexively defend “your side” every time they do something bad.”
“If you have to look to see if there’s an R or D after the name before you decide how you feel about it, then you’re no longer a human being. You’re a fucking hack.”
Sigh. The points you just made are the exact points I’ve been trying to make this whole time. And the fact that you’re directing them at me is depressing, because it means I’m not getting through to you.
Or anyone else here either, judging by the comments.
I don’t comment here much, so I guess I don’t know the room. I’m sort of an independent libertarian-ish type, so if this place is a left-wing echo chamber (and I’m not saying it is…I honestly don’t know) I’m obviously not going to make alot of headway.
But the bottom line is that I appear to be talking right past everyone, and that’s too bad because most of you seem smart. Maybe everyone here doesn’t know how to take my arguments in good faith, or maybe I am just terrible at articulating myself. Guess it doesn’t matter that much.
So now that I’ve somehow convinced everyone I’m a blind Republican hack with no principles, I’ll quit while I’m behind and bid you gentlemen adieu.
Roman, I don’t think you’ve articulated yourself well, but I don’t think you’ve been painted as a hard liner either.
I certainly can appreciate what you’re trying to say in a lot of your posts – calling out a double standard, right? I think what’s important to note is just about every left wing poster here has readily admitted that Maher was out of line, but that in terms of public impact and in contextual logic what Rush said was considerably more irresponsible and misogynistic.
Am I on the right track to what you’re thinking?
Well Otto has said I’m a hack, no longer a human being, a fucking moron, and someone with no reading comprehension (which is ironic considering, as I mentioned, he has missed the main point of my arguments). That’s pretty hard-line!
I know it’s the internet and I have a thick skin, so I’m not gonna go cry or anything. I just think it’s a drag that even if you want to have a reasonable debate without insults and name-calling, you can’t.
Well, I can’t speak for Otto, but I think you’ve probably been unfairly lumped in with hardliners like esteban or trolls like wwtddobserver (who I got to engage in a well reasoned, intelligent debate).
If you keep at it, attitudes toward you will adjust accordingly. I’m not an every day contributor, but this is by and large a reasonable group.
Personally, I enjoy diversity of thought.
Keep at it? If everyone was like you, that would be great. You actually accepted my premises (even though you don’t seem to agree with it) and challenged me on the points I made, rather than points I never made. So thanks, let’s have a bromance or something.
But classy dudes like us are few and far between it seems. Otto and the rest reminded me why talking politics online is WAY MORE TROUBLE than it is worth.
Olbermann
About Hillary Clinton “Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.”
About Michelle Malkin “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it”
And he said that SE Cupp should have been aborted and when he was called on it he changed his mind and just said that her parents should have used counciling. [www.mediaite.com]
even if you wanna split hairs over what’s comedy and what’s news and blah blah blah, the biggest difference is that bill maher is on a premium cable network. you have to pay extra to see him. don’t wanna see him? don’t pay for hbo. simple as that. limbaugh is on your radio whether you like it or not.
There is the option of not tuning to the station that Rush Limbaugh is airing on, right? Or is someone forcing you to listen to him?
Otto Man, reading your rational, logical arguments gives me faith that our country has been completely taken over by crazy people. There are still intelligent, rational people out there that see through the b.s. (and there’s alot of b.s.) With more people like you, we MIGHT just avoid sliding into an ‘Idiocracy’. I totally have a man-crush on you. There I said it. Hahaha.
LastTexansFan – you’re fighting the good fight as well.
Big ups to both of you.
The finger pointing can go on all day. I try to look at both sides of the political argument. The country isn’t a result of one side being right or wrong more than the other, it’s a product of both Republican and Democratic values. Both liberals and conservatives have done fucked up things to one another and to the American people. I can’t judge an entire group of people based on two of the loudest assholes yelling at one another.
What I do respect and loathe about Limbaugh and Maher is that they have the courage to choose a side and stick to their guns, all at the same time exploiting the American political divide. People can disagree, but the fact that one side cannot own their faults nor admit the other side’s good points is frustrating as hell.
When I look at the punditry, right or left, I see two choices. You can watch the circle jerk in the government and choose to be angry about politics or choose to laugh at politics. I’ll take laughter over anger all day.
/Dick joke
Here’s the difference….one is intending to make people laugh the other is intending to inspire outrage and anger.
That’s why one is more acceptable (that and the private citizen vs public figure issue too)
The point is being missed here.
The issue isn’t the target (whether they are a public figure or not) or whether it’s bullying by the level of the target.
The issue is intent by the speaker. Maher, IMO, is trying to highlight what Palin was doing and get a laugh. Limbaugh’s intent is to mislead his audience and to distract them from the substance of the argument.
DING DING DING
And Limbaugh has YET to apologize for or recant the substance of his remarks–just for using two words.
BTW, only one of these accomplished his mission.
If you need a hint, ask yourself this…
Are we discussing the merits of covering contraceptives?
You know, I don’t think we really need to be discussing the issue.
Sort of like how we don’t really need to discuss the issue of whether murder is bad, puppies are cute, and football is fun.
I don’t mind the stupid sideshow becoming the center of attention, because the issue doesn’t need debate.
There was a reason why the Republican dudes-only panel was all (*ahem*) “theologians” and without insurers: insurers don’t have to be strong-armed into covering contraceptives. Covering contraception is, by and large, financially a good idea for insurers. So why don’t all insurers cover contraception 100%? Because insurers write plans based on what the employers/TP want. So government has to step in and referee.
In the end, there is no rational basis for denying contraception coverage–because ultimately it leads to lower plan costs (or, at worst, a tiny increase as sexaholics take 12 packs of birth control pills a month). And that’s why Rush Limbaugh’s rant was so ridiculous. Not only did he not have a clue who Sandra Fluke was or what she said; he had no idea how birth control works.
Is it any wonder why Rush Limbaugh’s been married four times? Why he has no kids? Can we be certain his rants weren’t fueled by a relapse of his pill addiction?
I agree with you. But the Right in this country clearly have a problem with it. But instead of making their case, they resort to misleading attacks.
And why? Because it works. Instead of talking about the merits of providing contraceptives, we’re discussing whether Limbaugh is a douchebag.
Distraction accomplished.
Squirrel!
Oh, I dunno if anyone’s discussing whether Limbaugh’s a douchebag.
This whole bringing-Maher-into-the-shitstorm is more an effort to distract from Limbaugh’s obvious douchebaggery, by prompting a “who’s the worse douchebag?” argument.
Maher is a douche, no doubt. But Limbaugh is a Level 11 Douchebag Wizard from the Laser Lotus temple.
Rush Limbaugh is not a comedian, he’s one of the most popular and powerful organs of the extreme right wing of the Republican party, otherwise known as the base. Limbaugh is a kingmaker shaper of conservative attitudes and rhetoric. Every elected official on the right is terrified of him, because if he decides they’re not conservative enough, he can kill their careers with a few hours of ranting.
Bill Maher is an actor and comedian with the 20th ranked late night talk show in his time slot. He doesn’t move the political needle at all, he’s barely a Democrat and his endorsement means nothing.
So yes, it’s a false equivalency.
False equivalency: when a rabid partisan refuses to hold their political party to the same standard they hold the opposing political party.
You’re super familiar with argumentative fallacies Roman. Ever hear of ad hominem?
Of course I know what ad hominem attacks are. Are you claiming I just used one?
Rush Limbaugh gets held to a higher standard than Bill Maher or Louis CK because his words mean much more, and have much greater impact.
There is no equivalent on the left to Rush Limbaugh. Keith Olberman, at his apex, didn’t even approach Rush’s influence on the political process, and even he was held to a higher standard than someone like Maher, who’s main business is still comedy.
No, I’m saying Rush used one and you’re poking holes in our arguments instead of his claims. That is what pisses me off about hyper partisans. Instead of admitting Rush was out of line with his ad hominem attack, you’re attacking his detractors.
Fuck Sarah Fluke. She deserves to be ridiculed.
[www.thebigquestions.com]
Or Sanda…
“Is the left being overly sensitive? Is the right being a bunch of whiners?”
Yes.
1. I never said Palin was a blameless victim. Again, yet another strawman. I think she’s a joke of a politician, so there’s no need to list all the dumb things she said.
2. The issue is not getting called an “asshole”, as you well know. This is a very transparent attempt on your part to move the goalposts. Getting called an asshole is one thing, getting called a cunt or a twat or a slut is quite another.
3. I never claimed Fluke was “worse” than Palin. I’m not debating who is making the better political argument (becuase, quite frankly, I hold them both in contempt). Again, you’re either totally missing my point, or you’re being willfully ignorant about what I am saying.
Here is my argument as simple as I can make it: calling Sandra Fluke a cunt is just as immoral as calling Sarah Palin a cunt. Is that so outrageous?
You seem to think that because you don’t like Sarah Palin and you agree with Fluke politically, it is less immoral to call Palin sexist terms. Do I have that right?
You’re wrong. Limbaugh’s rants weren’t “calling” Fluke anything. He was creating a false reality wherein she was defined by her sex life, and he defamed her repeatedly.
Maher called Palin a couple bad words.
Limbaugh apologized for what Maher did, not what he did.
calling Sandra Fluke a cunt is just as immoral as calling Sarah Palin a cunt.
I agree completely.
Except here’s the small detail: that isn’t what happened.
Palin was called a cunt, for saying things that were, well, cunty.
Fluke was characterized as a prostitute and a slut, not in a figurative slur, but literally. He said, and I quote: “What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke … who goes before a Congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.”
One said outrageous insulting things and was called a cunt. One advocated for women’s health and had that advocacy turned into a claim that she wanted to be paid to have sex, literally, and was, again literally, a prostitute and a slut for doing so.
THESE. ARE. NOT. THE. SAME.
Jesus. My arguments may work. My html does not.
This rules. Well done, Otto Man.
Otto Man in 2016!
His only weakness is his inability to close html tags! (Note: not a real campaign slogan)
Ok, you say it’s immoral to call Sarah Palin a cunt…then you turn around and say she said “cunty things”.
You say it’s just as immoral calling Fluke a cunt as it is calling Palin a cunt, but then you spend the rest of your post explaining why Fluke is more deserving of sympathy for the ad hominem attacks she endured than Palin is for hers. You use all caps and one-word sentences to clearly claim that they’re not the same.
That’s some pretty obvious contradictions right there…and that’s what partisanship does to people’s brains.
(And hey, don’t worry about your HTML fail…at least you can hit the reply button, unlike me).
The difference is that Fluke suffered more injury from the ad hominem attack than Palin did. Nobody gave a shit that some asshole on HBO called Sarah Palin called a cunt, because Bill Maher doesn’t have the power to impact anything Sarah Palin does other than inflame those who already have strong opinions on her one way of the other.
Fluke, on the other hand, suffered a great deal by being slandered and being turned into a evil hyper-sexed caricature because she was not a powerful public figure.
Think of it like this: everyone knows that some redneck sitting on his porch in rural Mississippi that calls every black person a n****r is an obviously horrible racist. But he’s a lot less dangerous to society than some asshole who owns a bunch of rental homes but refuses to rent them to black families, even though he’d never dream of calling them n****rs. Both are guilty of the same ‘crime,’ but one victim suffers a lot more damage than the other from the same act.
Ok, you say it’s immoral to call Sarah Palin a cunt…then you turn around and say she said “cunty things”.
No, I didn’t. I said it was just as immoral to call one a cunt as it was the other. That’s a comparative judgment. As to whether it’s immoral to call anyone a cunt, no, I never said that.
You really might want to work on your reading comprehension. I’m seeing a pattern here.
And what pattern are you seeing? I think I’m having trouble getting through to lots of people here…could you do me a favor and characterize how you see me and the argument I’ve been making?
Otto said that what happened to the two women are completely different things, so of course one is more deserving of sympathy than the other.
Roman, if you’re repeatedly having trouble getting through to people, maybe that says more about you than them.
That’s the thing, Taco. Never had that problem in my life until I commented on Warming Glow!
.
I see what you did there.
Yes, indeedy.
There is a big difference between the comments that each made….
Bill Maher’s comments apply solely to the politicians he was referring to. He called Palin a cunt. In no way can that be construed as saying all women are cunts.
Rush Limbaugh used sexist language to imply that women who have sex out of wedlock are sluts. He said that Fluke was a slut because she wanted birth control. Many, many women in this country are on birth control.
That is the difference. Being misogynistic means belittling women in general, not a particular woman. Rush was implying that there is something wrong with women who have sex but not men. That is mysogynist.
That said, who cares. Everyone knows what Rush is. He has a right to make all the sexist comments he wants, and people can feel free to listen.
I was told there would be miniature American Flags, are we not doing that now?
Abortions for some, miniature American Flags for all!!
Fuck this- I’m joining the AC Slater Kicking Doors In Party.. if only we had a .gif to rally around.
/scrolls down
Well then!
I don’t know Chazz- the way he always referred to Jessie as “Mama”. Kinda sexist, don’t you think?
Wait, I thought he did that because he was Latino. Was he not supposed to be latino? Am I racist for thinking that? Great, now I’m just like Rush Limbaugh.
Its obvious AC Slater is an illegal immigrant and he is here to bring crime and take your job.
Now wait just a second- I thought Slater was a Pacific Islander? He was captain of the football team, after all. Dammit- now I’m doing it!!!!
All this aside I, personally do like sluts and have nothing against prostitutes.
Also what does this have to do with Community?
How do you think Allison Brie feels about this kerfuffle, given that she was in that “Hot Sluts” webseries?
Alison could talk for hours on this and I wouldn’t hear it as it would take all my focus to maintain eye contact.
1) What TFBuckFutter said.
2) Bill Maher’s cliche is that whenever he rips someone he always say, “I kid (insert name).” Rush Limbaugh is never kidding until there’s public outrage. This is important because the nature of satire and irony is to improve society. It can be argued that both are dicks, but I’d argue Maher’s intentions for improving society are in good faith (no pun intended.) Go listen to Limbaugh’s attack on Fluke and point out where in his invective he was actually proposing some decent solution to a social problem.
Your last sentence hits on a point that is woefully lost in the outrage. Bravo.
I found his first sentence particularly insightful too.
I liked the fourth preposition.
“for”?
It was the context, really.
The only differences are:
1. Dems aren’t afraid to criticize Bill Maher, whereas GOP politicians crap their pants at Rush.
2. Maher is funny.
Okay, I’ll go back to my hippie, abortion-praising, communist meeting now.
Don’t forget to bring donuts with the sprinkles! I miss my sprinkles!
(I meant to imply that I’d see you at the meeting)
They’re both idiots on opposite ends of the spectrum of bullshit.
Abortions for some; no abortions for others.
Those no abortion folks are going to want American flag pins…
Let’s go through these one by one, shall we?
Is that a false equivalency?
Yes. The name calling was wrong on both accounts, but Maher’s was based in fact, whereas Rush’s was based on fabrications.
Is the left, as Fox News suggested, “hiding under the helmet of comedy”?
That’s waaaay too broad a statement to answer. Seeing as I know MANY liberals who hate Maher, I seriously doubt it. Also, comedians don’t wear helmets.
It’s not like Bill Maher is that much different than Limbaugh?
As far as being an asshole, no they’re pretty much the same. As far as recognizing the existence of other opinions, yes he is very different (just about every episode of Real Time has an articulate right winger).
Should Rush Limbaugh have even been lambasted?
Absolutely! Is this really debatable? If he would have printed what he said in a newspaper, he would have gotten sued.
Does the right get a bad wrap in this simply because they’re less capable of hiding behind comedy (because they’re not very funny)?
Probably. Name one funny Republican comedian. You can’t (Dennis Miller and Colin Quin aren’t funny).
If you take politics out of the equation, is this the sort of slippery slope that will lead to fear among comedians and commentators alike to speak their mind for fear of alienating advertisers?
I doubt it. Limbaugh’s comments were SO outrageous and misogynistic that he managed to piss off right wing women. Still, I bet his ratings go up because of this. Long term, it’ll help him.
Look: I’m a liberal heathen, but I’m trying to see this from a neutral perspective. Is the left being overly sensitive?
Probably. The left is prone to sensitive reactions.
Is the right being a bunch of whiners?
Also, probably. The right are quick to accuse the left when they have no basis to defend their actions (and I say their as including Rush in the right, not to infer that all members of the right agree with him).
Is that a false equivalency?
Yes.
Why should Bill Maher get a free pass?
He doesn’t. Plenty of liberals chastise Maher, especially Christians.
Does Louis C.K. escape criticism because he’s awesome?
Yes. Awesome, and far to reasonable to be drawn into the mess.
Is there a right/left double standard?
Absolutely. People are blinded by their own beliefs all the time. But in this specific instance, it’s hard to say what Rush did isn’t much, much worse.
Is it possible, on the Internet, to have a rational discussion about this?
No, but this site is one of the best when it comes to rational discussion (thank you Otto and Texan).
I went through the first 3 points, then saw a post about a Corgi puppy. Sorry, puppy wins.
That’s a point no political ideology can argue with.
I swear to God that I literally went on PetFinder to look for Corgi’s after that post.
You’re WRONG sir! Will Farrell wore a comedy helmet on Daily Show. What’s funny is that I watched just the interview without reading any news or seeing the lead-in, so I didn’t get the joke until the end of my vacation
Yes
yeah, but didn’t Rush get singled out and rewarded on the floor of congress for his “service” to america? the GOP put him up on the pedestal. if his immense weight causes that pedestal to crumble, then you gets what you gets.
Here’s the other thing….if the outrage isn’t there it’s because people aren’t outraged. If you’re upset about something Bill Maher says, comment. Complain. Contact his sponsors. People do that to Rush because they don’t like Rush, and so they act. If you can’t get enough people together to be mad….what the fuck do you want?
Run your own shitty campaign.
It is amazing how conservatives profess to trust the invisible hand of the free market but then bitch like crazy when it goes into action against one of their own.
Oooh. Are we pointing out right wing hypocrisies? Can we talk about religion and government regulations next?
Nah, we don’t have the time. Hell, I want to watch some basketball this weekend.
Following the suggestion of Lothar, let’s reprint their comments with the bad words changed and see which sounds worse.
Bill Maher: “Did you hear this – Sarah Palin finally heard what happened in Japan and she’s demanding that we invade ‘Tsunami.’ I mean she said, ‘These ‘Tsunamians’ will not get away with this.’ Oh speaking of dumb people, did you –”
Rush Limbaugh: “What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke … who goes before a Congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? [terms deleted] She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.”
If you’re having trouble with this one, you probably shouldn’t be on the internet without adult supervision.
Taking a tame comment from Maher and the worst comment from Limbaugh only shows your bias, not prove your point.
I used that because I couldn’t find the exact wording, but apparently he said Palin was “a cunt, there’s no other word for her.”
So, she’s a [horrible person], there’s no other word for her.” Happy?
Limbaugh used his term literally, to say that this is a woman who has sex for money, who wants to be paid to have sex, and who I would personally like to watch on the internet having sex. Take away “slut” and “prostitute,” and those statements stand on their own. If anything, they become worse.
When Maher called Palin a cunt, he did not mean that literally. He did not mean that she was a giant anthropomorphic vagina, a flesh and blood body part that served as a sexual organ.
Once again, the real Demosthenes had the marbles in his mouth, not in his brain.
It’s interesting that you would rather make this about my screen name then your own points. Almost as if you already know your points either don’t hold weight or are wrong in the first place.
No, my points clearly stand up on their own. Which is why you still haven’t countered them with even the slightest argument of your own.
I mocked your pompous screen name merely as a bonus.
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
Chicken for us to no eat.
I don’t even think the outrage is about the particular language used. The right always pretends to be the bastion of morality and civility, so things like this tend to make them look like hypocrites. And the whole “well they did it too” argument doesn’t grant them any sort of absolution. Feigning outrage over the comments of COMEDIANS is stupid.
Conservative comedians (is there such a thing? maybe those Blue Collar guys *shudder*) aren’t playing to a “smart” crowd. I mean Larry the Cable Guy goes from being a normal guy from Nebraska to a “GIT-R-DONE” deep south redneck in cutoffs and a camo hat. And that’s only funny because he thought “Hey, what is the stereotypical definition of a redneck?” and his audiences now relates to him. They can’t even understand that he’s punking them 24/7. I don’t love Louis CK because I think he’s just like me. I love him because he is hilarious; whether it’s talking about how we gloss over slavery and history in general or how he talks about fucking his wife’s disgusting cunt. There’s nuance. There’s depth. It requires a level of deeper thinking. I mean, there’s a reason why he is one of the few white comedians who can use the n-word.
So yeah, if you cherry pick the comments of comedians, you can easily say that they are misogynistic, homophobic, racists. Unfortunately in the area of today’s “news,” we only get the soundbite. We never get the context. And if you put your life in the public eye with reality shows, and book tours, and Fox news appearances (looking at you Palin), you’re gonna get fucked with. It makes you no different than those fucking Kardashian whores.
“Is it possible, on the Internet, to have a rational discussion about this?”
Nope.
I only threw that out there because I don’t have the time to put up an honestly reply at the moment and the comment counter is going nuts, so I’d like to read those before I chime in. It’s amazing to me that we have some funny funny people here that rage rage whenever someone suggests Obama is anything other than god’s gift to mankind. He’s Bush 2 for all intents and purposes.
I think you’re misguided in your perception of Democrats and their allegiance to Barrack. I rarely see anyone fawn over him….defend him for wild inaccuracies and his inability to fix the mess he inherited (which is now frequently blamed ON him.) and lack of credit he gets for things he has accomplished…..
But at this point, it’s more an issue of how awful the Republicans politicians, and the terrible terrible bigoted legislation they keep passing trying to overwhelm the Supreme Court which is going to have to waste time and money striking all this shit down…..than it is about unconditional love for the president.
I’m not even 100% sure he could even win a Democratic primary right now.
Hell, I keep seeing morons say “Gas was $1.80 when Obama took office, and now it’s almost FOUR DOLLARS”…..Yeah, it’s ALMOST back to the point it was two months BEFORE Obama took office.
Seriously, if you think liberals fawn over the president, you’re spending too much time reading conservative blogs misrepresenting the left and not enough time reading liberal blogs.
When I smack down someone here, it’s not because they’re not worshiping the president, it’s because they are saying things that are demonstrably not true, like “the economy is worse under Obama” or “he’s alienated all our allies in Europe” or whatever the tardery of the week is.
Disagree with the president all you want, but you’ll have to get in line behind a shitload of liberals who are upset about a variety of things he’s done or failed to do.
Call him a secret soc!alist Muslim appeaser, and yeah, I’m going to point and laugh.
I agree wholeheartedly with every point you just made TFB.
If it were 2008, Hillary would get the nomination right now. I’m no Obama lover – rather critical when you get down to it actually – but I attack a lot of the criticisms coming from the far right on the basis having common sense and a notion of context.
Would you consider [www.cnn.com] liberal or conservative?
Fairly moderate, actually. Most of my liberal friends think it’s too conservative; most of my conservative friends think it’s too liberal.
Personally, I think it’s become too TMZish.
WOOOOOO PAGEVIEWS
That’s my only issue with this post is that there really wasn’t anything close to an equivalency between the two sets of comments to begin with- and I say that as a moderate republican (although if things keep going the way they’re going I’m going to give the AC Slater kicking doors party more serious thought).
I do think there is a interesting discussion to be had on the topic overall; that liberal comedians can get away with more inflammatory remarks that conservative pundits but hold significantly less power (obsiously) in their respective parties. Should that be the tradeoff?
For me it’s hard to tell because there aren’t any conservative comedians as smart or as funny as Stewart, and to a far lesser extent Maher, and there aren’t really any liberal pundits who wield the same power as Limbaugh.
So you’re saying it’s like comparing apples and oranges….
Or as that dumb cunt Sarah Palin would say, comparing the red vegetable to the yellow vegetable (she’s not great with colors either).
Not attacking, because I think the position you take is actually reasonable (I don’t necessarily agree, but it’s a reasonable position nonetheless), but are you inferring that Maher and Stewart say more inflammatory things than Rush? That seems inaccurate to me.
“For me it’s hard to tell because there aren’t any conservative comedians as smart or as funny as Stewart, and to a far lesser extent Maher, and there aren’t really any liberal pundits who wield the same power as Limbaugh.”
This man speaks the truth. (Even if he is a Nazi racist warmonger homophobic gun-toting Republican lol). And that’s what I have an issue with. All the outlets attacking Maher seem to think he has some power as a liberal leader. He’s on HBO on a Friday night at 10 o’clock for an hour. Not even a million people tune in. He’s not on 5 days a week for a few hours a day in front of 15 million people.
Mushroom, no, not at all. I think ‘inflammatory’ is somewhat subjective, and the Palin / Fluke it’s not even close.
What I find interesting is that there’s not conservative equivalent to Stewart or Maher and no liberal equivalent to Rush- yet there seems to be a need by both parties to compare the level of outrage and scrutiny their comments receive.
Very astute. I agree with the insight.
Murdermitten, I’m marrying a jewish gal so I had to end my affiliation with the national socialist party but everything else is spot-on. (except if Martin Sheen’s character from West Wing was real I ‘d totally vote for him and not tell my friends).
You’re completely right on Maher. Honestly it’s funny- so much of the time we’re having the wrong arguements. The whole concept of liberal hollywood is absurd. Publicly traded companies like Viacom run hollywood, and their executives and board members could give two shits what some asshole actor or comedian is rambling about.
I hope everyone commenting here realizes that they’re not going to change anybody’s mind.
Oh my God.
You’re right!
Which makes you wrong!
Congratulations. You just broke the internet.
I know I’m the minority here, but if I’m blatantly proven wrong, I’ll adjust my thinking. Intellectual integrity is more important to me than ideological identity.
Case in point: despite my gut feeling and opinion about the intelligence of the American populous, I support concealed carry. Too much positive data from non-partisan sources.
People commenting on the internet just want to be agreed with. Agree or disagree?!?!?
Both.
I support gun ownership with only one limit….
Anyone who wants to have a gun doesn’t get one. Because most of those people are lunatics.
Left-wingers either don’t have minds or they choose NOT to use them anyway……
…therefore your comment is moot…
oooh categorical statements
For all the people who say that speaking in front of Congress makes you a public figure, do you know how many people speak in front of Congress on a single day? And how many of those are famous because of it?
Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube aren’t popular because people want to remain private. We are all public figures. Hell, Google probably knows more about you then your family does.
So then you agree that saying that because she went in front of congress, she’s a public figure.
…is dumb.
Forgot to finish my thought.
I agree.
Fluke is a low-level left-wing advocate for a great many causes……good for her.
To pretend that she was simply an “interested party” innocently called upon to testify publicly is a great tactic …..because most people don’t truly give a shit….
That’s the thing though. Limbaugh’s 2nd biggest blunder was implying that everyone who needs/wants birth control does so because they want to have sex with everyone, and that’s just not true.
He didn’t lose advertisers for what he said about Fluke. He lost advertisers for being completely out of touch medically, but making his comments anyway.
His biggest blunder, obviously, was saying “you’re bad for wanting to have sex with everyone, unless you tape it and let us watch.” Because that’s just stupid. You see, a very great many conservatives believe that porn and masturbation is bad/sinful/etc. Even if they porn it up themselves, they at least aren’t going to admit to that in public. He lost a lot of traction by not cutting himself short.
@Taco–yes yes. Again, we know who she is for no other reason than that Limbaugh spent a lot of time making her famous. The last person to become a “public figure” in the legal sense simply by testifying in front of Congress was probably Anita Hill.
Does anyone really believe that Bill Maher, flaming left winger that he is, actually hates women because he used the word “cunt” about someone like Sarah Palin (a public figure with a history of being a complete idiot)?
I sure don’t. I’m not a fan of calling women “cunts” as I think it’s just nasty. Maher deserves some criticism for that. But what really matters here is intent. Maher’s intent in those comments is to bash on a public figure in the harshest possible way and hopefully get some laughs – Not to make an attack on all women.
Rush, on the other hand, spent three days making comments that suggest that he believes ANY woman with Fluke’s beliefs is a slut.
Both of them are dicks, but it’s fair to say what Rush’s comments are more deserving of scorn.
/ takes off serious hat, goes back to browsing corgi pictures
Matt would never have allowed this crap
+1
Danger, Please don’t let Dustin do this again.
Don’t let Dustin post without someone editing his damn prose, for starters … Questions with no question mark, statements who found the question mark that was lost, “a bad wrap”, words missing… L2SCREED.
Keep at it? If everyone was like you, that would be great. You actually accepted my premises (even though you don’t seem to agree with it) and challenged me on the points I made, rather than points I never made. So thanks, let’s have a bromance or something.
But classy dudes like us are few and far between it seems. Otto and the rest reminded me why talking politics online is WAY MORE TROUBLE than it is worth.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my life its that classy dudes almost always refer to themselves as classy dudes.
Perhaps you didn’t realize it, but you were advancing the conservative argument here.
You insisted, repeatedly, that these two cases were exactly the same, that what Limbaugh did to Fluke was exactly the same as what Maher did to Palin, or as you reduced your own argument: “calling Sandra Fluke a cunt is just as immoral as calling Sarah Palin a cunt.”
My whole point has been to note, using specific quotations, that what you claim to be an equivalency is nothing of the sort. You have been blurring the very real distinctions between the case — in which a comedian figuratively called his target an asshole, and a radio host told his listeners his target literally wanted to be paid for having sex and they should be allowed to watch her have the sex she wanted them to pay her for.
You say those are the same things. I say they are not.
Meh. Otto is a pitbull, but can be reasoned with.
I certainly hope you don’t bail – we need smart people with opposing views. (was that bromancy enough?)
Going on record as standing with Otto Man on this one, for what it’s worth.
Maybe this all boils down to a simple difference on whether or not words have meaning.
Did Limbaugh and Maher both use bad words? Yes, of course.
Did those words mean the same thing? Did they have the same intent? The same impact? In my opinion, clearly not.
Words have meaning….intent is subjective.
I believe everyone here today can walk away from this argument with the following message…
[www.youtube.com]
OH MY GOD.
That dog has a puffy tail.
Debate over. Josh wins.
Bill Maher is a comedian who hosts a show on HBO, a cable channel you must subscribe if you want to watch. While he’s very open about his political leanings, he frequently welcomes those with differing opinions onto his show to share their views. If you don’t like what he has to say, you don’t have to watch his show. You don’t have to subscribe to HBO. You don’t have to pay for his opinions.
Rush Limbaugh is a political commentator who hosts a show on OUR public airwaves… as in, we pay for that shit with our taxes. He is also very open about his political leanings, but unlike Maher, if you differ from his opinion, he will either shout you down, or hang up on you. If he’s going to spend several days calling women sluts for wanting birth control covered (just like his totally medically necessary boner pills), then he should be able to put his money where his mouth is. He can say what he wants, but I don’t want my taxes paying for it.
1.) You don’t pay a DIME for the airwaves….they are regulated but NOT “developed” by tax dollars.
2.) Maher doesn’t shout people down….of course, he leaves that to the (Maher selected) audience….like Jerry Springer
3.) You GOT to be shitting us…
Observerwwtdd: you may want to have a look at what the Federal Communications Commission does and how that is paid for.
I agree with Moose. Airwaves are very firmly public domain.
MushroomCloudMoFo……..
You never cease to amaze me………Do you have ANY idea of how the world works…?
Moose…..
The FCC did not create the “airwaves” ….so what “RIGHT” is the government exercising by “regulating” them as to content?
“Public” roads are constructed by the government and maintained by the Gov’t as well…..so the Gov’t “claims” the right to regulate them…..
Even though it is said that Private companies charging tolls could also build and maintain them…..
Charles River Bridge
The controversy over the Charles River Bridge dated as far back as October 15, 1640 when the Massachusetts legislature, in accordance with common law, assumed control over public ferries. The legislature proceeded to give Harvard College the power to run a ferry on the Charles River between Boston and Charlestown. Harvard continued to operate the ferry, and collect its profits until 1785. That year, a group of men petitioned the state legislature to build a bridge across the river due to the inconvenience of the ferry. As time had passed, the two towns had grown and communication between them had become more important, and technology was at a point now where a bridge appeared to be a wise economic undertaking.
That’s your idea of an argument? Really? We pay taxes for the regulation; it is far from “not a dime”. Just set up a HAM and try broadcasting on regulated frequencies. Perhaps you may want to take a look at the early days of unregulated radio. The government regulates many things it did not create; both for the public good and to make money, sometimes both.
Really, never mind; you are what you are and no amount of anything here or elsewhere will change that.
P.S. Observerwwtdd; I will give you this: you are shining example of how the far right thinks, you are certainly in that demographic, and you are consistent.
I suspect this post is a marketing “focus group” sleuthing out of the viability of (another) political argument web-site……..run by Uproxx
I, for one, would participate daily.
It’s a PITA to go hunt down the new posts. This format is not well suited for this type of discussion. Annie’s Boobs, Harlan, Sploosh, everyone’s already infected, Penny Can, or gtfo.
I would MUCH rather go reread any of the Archer or Justified threads than play where’s Waldo with where the new posts are showing up at.
Due to the fact that Maher tries so hard to be relevant in the political sphere he is free game to be criticized. And Louis CK’s Palin remarks were reprehensible and were not part of his stand up so that is fair game. But republicans would be much better served to go after people like Olbermann and Schultz for their misogyny.
Rush implied that she was having SO MUCH SEX that she could not afford her birth control. That makes her a slut. He was using absurdity. And therefore when Obamacare kicks in and the rates go up even more than they have, we are going to be paying for her birth control, or paying her to have sex. If we are paying her to have sex that makes her a slut. So we should get something from it, like we should get to watch. If u listened to what he was saying and not a 10 second clip you would get that. What we conservatives say is this is bullshit, the left say worse things all the fucking time and we are tired of it. Ed Schultz calls Laura Ingrham a “right wing slut” Letterman calls Palin a slutty flight attendant, Maher and that douche twat Louis CK call Palin a slut and talk about raping and killing her. Same thing with Bachman. And they are hiding behind comedy. If you listened to Rush you would know that he tries to be absurd. Yes there is a double standard, they should both be free to say what they want to. Without the bullying of you bleeding heart liberal pussies trying to pull ads from shows and shit.
Oh wow, that was not intellectual.
When someone spends three whole days spewing the same logical fallacies, you’re not allowed to hide behind the claim that it was just “rush using absurdity.” This wasn’t just a one segment bit by him that was done with a wink and a smile. It was a three day long campaign against a woman’s right to birth control.
Wow dude. People like you are the reason moderates are fleeing your party.
Accepting Rush’s inaccurate facts, check.
Pointing the finger at the left, check.
Name calling, check.
All we’re missing is a homophobic/racial slur to complete the picture.
This isn’t absurdity. It’s a string of vicious lies and attacks. He lies, over and over again, that Sandra Fluke testified before Congress that she was having so much sex that she was going broke. She did no such thing. Not at all.
What is absurd is that you fucking morons are trying to defend him and keeping this issue alive in a presidential election, rather than distancing yourself from this clown.
On behalf of liberals everywhere, thank you for being that fucking stupid.
Maher and that douche twat Louis CK call Palin a slut and talk about raping and killing her.
What? When did this happen?
Provide a link of Maher and Louis CK saying they want to rape and kill Sarah Palin, and I’ll lead the condemnation. Go ahead, we’ll wait.
The second you belittle CK, I’m pretty sure you get your man/internet/human being card taken away. Sorry bro.
Neither of the two in question, but to act like it hasn’t been said “at all” would be to bury your head in the sand.
[articles.nydailynews.com]
But what’s the point? Really? That there are idiots on both sides? Is this really news to anybody?
I think this is where intent is really important – and really I’m not chastising Rush either.
Comedians say outrageous things to get people to laugh. For me personally that gives them a certain license to say outrageous, unrealistic things because that shit can be funny. This goes for comedians who question Obama’s blackness, citizenship, etc. as well.
Rush get’s a little shorter leash in my opinion because what he says is meant as serious political opinion. But still, advertisers pay him truck loads of money to get viewers, and to get viewers he says absurd shit. This is Capitalism, and is ok to me.
Now, this PARTICULAR instance, he went too far. There IS a line and he crossed it. As to the question of whether Maher did the same thing with Palin, that’s tougher to gauge because the context isn’t as fresh. My gut is yeah, he probably went a little too far, but IN MY OPINION what Rush did was more egregious given the scope, inaccuracies, and the vigor in which he pursued it.
Louis CK’s whole schtick is saying wildly inappropriate things, so I don’t think he went too far at all.
Demo you are VERY right. Yes, there are idiots abound on both sides.
Otto never said that that wasn’t said “at all,” so I’m not sure why you put that in quotes.
If you search hard enough, you can find some idiot somewhere who has said something really offensive about any public figure.
But, quite frankly, not everyone’s opinion matters. Sandra Bernhard? Not a fuck is given about anything someone like that says. Ditto for random C / B list entertainers who have made equivalent statements about prominent liberals.
Georgetown is a private university. Only Georgetown students are putting money into the school. If you, Babcock, are a Georgetown student, then yes, some fraction of the tuition and fees you pay go to the school’s health care provider who then provides care to other students. If by some chance you are *not* a student at an extremely competitiive school, you ain’t paying shit for shit re: Fluke’s health care.
You are the worst. And palin is a cuntwat. New super word.
And to you fools thinking Fluke is not a public figure?? The bitch has an agent, shes traveling around the world right now milking this shit for all it is worth. Yes she is a public figure
that’s not what it says on her Facebook page!
/UGH
She”s a public figure *now*–Limbaugh worked very hard to make her famous. A month ago Ima guess you weren’t familiar with her.
P.S. Every sack of ass in Los Angeles has an agent. They’re public figures the way middle school class presidents are politicians.
Its like the same 4 people with the exact same beliefs talking louder than anybody who disagrees with them.
There is no practical way to talk louder than anyone else here. Just sayin’.
But man, Limbaugh BLUNDERED. He took his comments too far. People on his side find themselves unwilling or unable to defend him, because he straight went too far. It makes me think he writes the way he speaks – impassioned. Because how anyone could write that stuff down calmly, run it past the rest of the writing team, and it be approved, I’ve no idea.
No one said “hey, maybe that’s going a little far. I wonder if we won’t lose some audience by going that far” ?
I stopped paying attention to Maher years ago, if it makes you feel any better.
I think the true hypocrisy here is that the left wingers who love to hide behind free speech whenever they say something controversial try to censure someone by getting his show canceled because he said something they deem offensive.
Uhh, who in this thread has been demanding that Rush’s show get canceled or that he be censored??
Let me see….. No one. If advertisers choose to bail on his show because they deem him toxic, that’s their call, not ours.
As much as a lot of us disagree with what Rush said, I’m sure all of us would agree he has a right to say it.
Did you mean censure or censor? Both could be used in your sentence, but it would change it’s meaning considerably.
Censure, I agree. Censor, I do not.
Without advertisers Rush doesn’t have a show. How many have pulled out since people have been making a fuss? Look, Rush is douche, Obberman is a douche, so are Van Sustren and Maddow. I could care less what any of these people say. I do care how the media and the public are handling it though. And by calling for advertisers to pull out, they are essentially trying to shut up Rush.
Phil, you’re talking about branding. Ask JC Penny. As a brand, you are who you endorse, and if that person pisses off part of your consumer base, it’s bad business to continue your investment. It’s free market economics.
I swear to God if I have to explain the First Amendment to you people again, I will have a goddamn heart attack and die.
That’s the one about quartering soldiers, right Danger?
Regardless if it’s about branding or liberal influences forcing people to pull out, that’s not exactly my point. It is but it isn’t. I just find it frustrating when a group’s entire rhetoric is based on people having the right to their own opinion and we should be able to express ourselves however we want get so up in arms over what one person said. Additionally, I am pretty sure that the vast majority of people on this site would have zero idea what Rush said were it not for the liberal “outrage”. And that is kind of my point on the advertisers. Without the fuss, and making a big deal out of nothing, about a jackass who says dumb stuff all the time, you wouldn’t have the advertiser backlash we’re seeing.
And I know what the first amendment is. And I’m pretty sure I never brought it up. “Free speech” as we use it day to day is not necessarily the first amendment.
GO DANGER, GO!!
I understand what you’re saying Phil, and I guess I can respect it.
My response would be that those up in arms are simply responding by saying they will not support those that financially support someone who holds such extreme beliefs. According to the Supreme Court such a declaration is technically considered free speech, as monetary contributions are part of the First Amendment (I’ll defer to Danger if I’m wrong on that one – but please don’t have a heart attack and die). I wouldn’t worry about Rush getting shut down tho – for better or worse the man is a media giant. He’ll lose some cash, but he’ll survive.
To me it’s still branding. If a product illicits a response strong enough to warrant consumer backlash, any change in advertising revenue is a market correction of the value of said product.
I think the realest hypocrisy here is that none of the advertiser desertion comes as the result of left wing outrage. The left hated Limbaugh just as much last year as it does now, and his sponsors have never given a fuck what nonlisteners thought of him, because nonlisteners were–by definition–not the target demographic for their ads. These advertisers never had any objection to “feminazi” or “Barack the Magic Negro” or ragging on Michael J. Fox. Apparently the line for them was when Limbaugh started defaming (look it up) someone who wasn’t a public figure (look it up) before *he* made her famous. Complaints from the left had fuck all to do with it.
Why do you think it’s a liberal phenomenon? How about right-wingers trying to get that show about the muslim family on TLC canceled before it ever aired because it showed muslims acting too normal? How about the PTC trying to get every show ever knocked off TV?
@Taco–or the right wingers who successfully begged the FCC to fine any network that aired a word harsher than “crap”?
@Shark With Laz0rs
Actually, these people are calling for him to be taken off the air. And they got that point of view published on CNN’s web site. I agree it’s mostly pressure on advertisers (which in itself shows a questionable commitment to free speech), rather than outright calls for censorship, but you can’t so “No one” is calling for him to be censored.
[www.cnn.com]
Why both men are entertaining to their prospective base I feel Rush and Maher are bother douches and are a distraction to the entire country. What’s more important us arguing over who is a bigger ass or whether we are going to war, whether people have jobs or whether the economy is getting better. These are all distractions the media brings up to distract us from whats important in life and this isn’t one of them.
The left is likely being overly sensitive. But they’re also capitalizing on a particularly incendiary “gaffe,” if you can call it that, in order to pursue the dream of making Rush Limbaugh suffer. And I’m totally down with that. Not that I think it’s ethical or anything, but seriously, fuck that guy. Politics would be a much less caustic subject without all these media extremists like Limbaugh. And Maher, I suppose.
But anyway, as for the validity of the Limbaugh-Maher/Louis comparison, eh… well, there’s no comparison between Limbaugh and Louis. They’re both fat bald white men, and that’s where the parallels end. Limbaugh-Maher is certainly closer, but I don’t know if they’re quite similar enough to justify Limbaugh’s comments. They’re both assholes, they both use bad language, neither is especially funny, and both are kind of full of shit (at least on some topics, if not just in general).
[deleted paragraph of attempted difference-hashing-out]
Bah. I don’t really know how to make an objective distinction here, nor do I have sufficient information about Limbaugh to really be fair about it. Bottom line here is that Limbaugh is on broadcast radio, and is thus beholden to advertisers, who are very easily pressured into ceasing their support. Maher is on HBO, which is a much less vulnerable position, largely because of the more limited audience. Republicans could threaten to cancel their HBO subscriptions, but really I’m not so sure there are a lot of them to begin with. But they can do that if they want, and maybe they can get Maher shut down for a second time. It’s not like this is the government trying to silence these shows; it’s the FREE MARKET, the right wing’s very best friend. None of this is unconstitutional, or even unfair, really. It’s easy come, easy go.
Also, Fox News saying “the left hides behind the ‘comedy’ label” is a laughable complaint, when Fox so notoriously hides behind the “news” label.
Very well articulated.
Side point: I would like to introduce the concept that without Limbaugh, there would be no Maher.
Ah, general cases, not specific.
Completely agree. One could say that he really kick started the extreme opinion political arms race we currently are enduring.
I would agree with that as well. I actually touched on that point in one iteration of my comment, using the word “progenitor.”
As someone who considers himself fairly far to the left, Bill Maher is a smug, unfunny cunt who hurts, not helps, our cause and should be drowned in a river with Moore, Limbaugh and the rest of them.
Who cares? If you like Maher, watch him. If you like Rush, listen to him. If you like Corgis, come to WG on Fridays.
Amen
I think Bill Maher is a pompous ass, but he does not even come close to the unapologetic, blithering idiocy that Rush Limbaugh has demonstrated multiple times on his radio show. I come to this thread super late and I see that Otto Man has already won everything. Seems like every POFLAWA at KSK.
You don’t get to retroactively punish people for what they said months or years ago; if Bill Maher said something particularly misogynistic at some point in the past, he should have been reprimanded by whoever reprimands celebrities for saying stupid shit AT THAT TIME. It’s essentially Double Jeopardy; What Maher said on his nationally-broadcasted talk show (and would Louis C.K. tweeted) haven’t been sealed off in some vault, completely unknown to the dipshits at Fox News, until Rush Limbaugh’s slut-shaming episode occurred.
Did your mom ever not punish you just because you said that your brother (or balding half-jewish political comedian) did it first? Nope. Limbaugh is responsible for his own actions, and whatever other people of different political ideologies did in the past is completely irrelevant.
A couple of points in response:
1. As I recall, there was some outrage among the conservative media/blogs when Maher and Louis said the things they said. It didn’t become national news because (1) the President didn’t call Palin to console her; and (2) “whoever reprimands celebrities” — the national media — generally don’t give a shit when Sarah Palin is insulted, even in the crudest sexual terms. It’s only when the outrage over Limbaugh’s comments popped up that the double standard was pointed out.
2. If your mom punished you even though your brother did the exact same thing, though in a much worse way, you’d have the right to think that’s not fair.
3. The “mom” metaphor doesn’t really work though. Liberals, the President, and “whoever reprimands celebrities” aren’t the “mom” of our culture who gets to decide what discourse is inappropriate, who has broken the rules, and what punishment is meted out. They have tried to set things up so that they are, but I hope you can understand why those on the other side of the aisle refuse to go along.
I’m putting a virus into this thread.
[Art face to everyone]
I always thought Bill Maher was a dick, but then I found out he’s one of those vaccine skeptics. So so he’s pretty retarded, too.
Limbaugh’s still worse, though.
Here’s what you need to know:
1) Bill Maher is a comedian.
2) Republicans don’t understand comedy.
Seriously. Limbaugh is credited (by conservatives) as a conservative leader, so what he says can fairly be considered conservative policy. Liberals don’t call Bill Maher a liberal leader. They call him a comedian because he makes them laugh. Rush Limbaugh may make conservatives laugh when he says things like “Liberals are idiots!” and “Democrats don’t love this country!” but guess what? That’s not funny unless you’re functionally retarded.
Or if you’re a really meta, ironic kind of guy, maybe.
Two points in response:
1. This falsely assumes Maher is funny.
2. Limbaugh is certainly more influential than Maher, but Maher is hardly a fringe figure. He has a show with his name in the title on the top paid cable network in the country. He has had numerous liberal politicians, medial personalities, and other figures – check the list of Real Time episodes on Wikipedia – on his show. (He’s also had a number of conservative types, includes recently. I hope those people will be hounded to the point where it become unacceptable for a Republican to do his show). He also gave the President $1 million for his re-election, which he has not returned. So he’s not a nobody – if he’s going to keep the status he has, he has the right to take his lumps, and people have the right to point out that what he said about Palin is much, much, worse than what Limbaugh said about Fluke.
Another important point: Louis CK’s eternal hump is my favorite GIF ever.
I’ll be using a Vince Mancini quote for my thoughts on this: “I want to take the “America is always right crowd,” mix them with the “America is always wrong” crowd, puree them into a fine paste, and fire them into the sun while I hum the Battle Hymn of the Republic and jack off to European erotica.”
Everyone is pretended to be offended that Rush called that woman a slut. Fine. First, you either are or are not offended by it. If not, end of inquiry. If so, then hopefully you will be guided by principle, that principle being that it’s wrong to use derogatory terms about women. If you think it’s wrong to call someone a slut, whore, etc., then that should be the end of the inquiry too. It shouldn’t matter who said it (i.e., their political persuasion) or who it was said about. You either believe that women should be respected and we should talk civilly about people with whom we disagree or not. Otherwise, you should just be honest and admit that you’re conveniently offended when your guy or girl is attacked, but are fine with calling the other side anything. This type of think, however, is destructive because it demonizes anyone that thinks differently from yourself.
It is certainly reassuring to find out the world is black and white; I didn’t like the context or intent thingys either.
Anybody else get the visual of Otto Man making a post then doing a large line of coke, shirtless while a Bangles song is playing very loudly from a cassette tape on a quadraphonic system? Maybe I should cut back on EB&D; everything is mixed up now.
All the while frothing at the mouth. Santorum everywhere!
This certainly was enjoyable.
Bah, I never get to these big topics on time. Now all of my points have been made, and probably stated better than I would have stated them.
That monkey is going to pay.
No. Rush Limbaugh usually broadcasts on stations that have the words “news” in their names. Bill Maher markets himself as a stand up comedian whereas Rush is a “news man” or a pundit. Also when was the last time anyone on the left bowed to Bill Maher? Rush Limbaugh frequently speaks at CPAC and there’s no elected Republican will criticize him. Bill Maher? Not the case.
Bill Maher criticizes public figures, whereas Rush came after a private citizen. Look if Rush wants to call Pelosi, Hilary, or Rachel Maddow anything that he can get away with saying on public airwaves go ahead…a private citizen? That’s where I draw the line.
Good points.
Despite the claims of some conservatives here, the public airwaves only exist due to the regulation of the federal government.
Without the FCC’s regulation of the AM and FM bandwiths, anyone with a radio tower or a small HAM kit could and would broadcast on whatever frequency they desired, and the result would be chaos. This is what it was like in the early days of radio, why the government stepped in to make order out of the chaos by assigning frequencies and licensing broadcasters, essentially create the ability for radio broadcasts.
So, yes, Rush Limbaugh is carried on “the public airwaves.” But more than that — an hour of his show is broadcast overseas on Armed Forces Radio, at taxpayer expense.
Also, as for people on the left not bowing down to Maher, that’s another good point. When Maher dissed Palin, the loudest criticisms came from the left, with feminist and LGBT groups denouncing him. When Limbaugh went after Fluke, all we heard from the media watchdogs on the right were crickets.
If your a celebrity, a Senator or any public figure, people will say shit. It comes with the job, it’s part of having a public face and a private life. If you’re just an advocate or a everyday Joe pleading your case, then it’s deplorable to make wide, sweeping judgement of character to promote your viewpoints and/or “get a laugh”.
If he calls her the c-word, that’s name calling. If he says she has SO MUCH SEX that she can barely walk, that’s not someone you’d want to hang out with.
“If you’re just an advocate or a everyday Joe pleading your case” Ironic use of the name Joe. Remember how the left destroyed Joe the Plumber? And all he did was ask Obama a question. How dare he! It’s manufactured rage to keep the 24 hour news cycle going. The Republicans and Democrats both thank you for playing along. :/
You mean the Joe the Plumber who’s now running for Congress and being heavily funded by the Republican Party? That’s who you’re holding up as “average guy”?
Time and context my friend. At the time, yes. Now, just how you can thank Rush for “making” Fluke, you can thank the Democrat machine for making “Joe”.
Joe the Plumber IS an AVERAGE guy……
…and Obama’s desire to “spread the wealth” that he neither earned NOR helped to be earned was VERY revealing….
Otto Man’s rationalization of censorship is quite revealing….
Step #1 acquire regulatory jurisdiction
Step #2 exercise control
Step #3 censor opinion contrary to your own
The “airwaves” have existed since the big bang created physics…..
The “orderly” maintenance of them MAY provide a desire to have an “authority” determine who gets which turn to use them……
So…..paper manufacturers cut trees on public land and truckers transport logs on public roads and waterways, and The Globe, Nation, and NY Times are sold from vending boxes on public sidewalks…..
..Therefore “the people” should decide the editorial practices….??
Maybe I can agree with this new world order….
I actually dig all of the guys being discussed here, and think none of them deserve to be vilified for one statement. I really enjoyed listening to Bill and Adam Carolla having a chat in Bill’s home on Adam’s podcast recently. Adam leans more to the right, certainly much more than Bill does and has himself been vilified for statements he has made, The bottom line is anyone whose job it is to entertain with their original voice without the benefit of a rough draft is going to say something that really offends some people at some point. It was horse shit when Gottfried got vilified, it was nonsense when Carrolla was attacked by the LGBT, and Bill and Rush both should have people ease off their nuts.
Do comics like Louis and Bill unfairly get a more of a pass than guys who are viewed more as pundits. Yes big time, most people who are going after Limbaugh probably have never listened to him and do not realize that his show generally contains a fair amount of humorous parody. I am not an avid Limbaugh listener (Boortz is my favorite out of the pundit group because of his sense of humor) or anything in total I have listened to parts of his show a dozen times over the last 15 years, and each of those instances there was definitely humor.
Comedians can say serious shit and pundits can be humorous, regardless of which mode any potentially offensive statement is made we should realize that its hard to keep an audience’s attention for an extended length of time without courting controversy.
These guys occasionally put a foot in their mouth, big fucking deal. As far as Fluke not being fair game that is horse shit, she made herself a public figure when she inserted herself into a public debate. Both sides should grow the fuck up. I think damn near every child in this country heard a little saying about stick and stones once upon a time, wish the wisdom of that childhood saying had sunk in.
I would personally like to you Crockett for posting a rationale response that is both fair and a good read. Bravo.
Several fair points there, but I disagree that a conscientious student who testifies before congress is “fair game” to the same extent as a vice-presidential candidate/Fox News contributor/reality show star/person who travels the country in a giant fucking bus with the constitution painted on it.
And, despite its rarity and resultant shock value, “cunt” is basically synonymous with “asshole” or “jerk” — very non-specific, general-use slurs. “Slut,” on the other hand, is a much more specific slight on someone’s character, especially when prefaced at length like Rush did it.
That said, going after Rush this hard for this one comment is a little absurd, and people are going overboard with it. The same can be said of the 9/11 hijackers thing that got Maher fired in 2001. Rush apologized, and that’s all I can personally ask for. But a lot of people are out for blood on this thing, and honestly, I’ll be glad if he does end up going off the air. Not that it’d be fair, but I think politics is the ineffectual, polarized hate-sphere that it is because of people like Rush, and the similar gas bags that his vitriol has spawned on both sides of the aisle (including Maher). People are clearly not smart enough to take these guys’ heated rhetoric as merely “entertainment,” and it’s poisonous. I wonder if we’re doomed to either Fahrenheit 451 or left vs. right warfare.
Anyway, Crockett, I’m curious to know what you thought of the Don Imus thing a few years ago, vis a vis the “fair game” issue and the “foot in mouth, big deal” issue. Furthermore, is the “fair game” thing even an issue for you at all? If one of these radio hosts said some shit about you or your family, would that still be a case of “foot in mouth, big deal”? Where’s the line, I’m asking. Just out of curiosity; not for debating purposes.
JJ, I can think of no case of more importance for a person to be the subject of scrutiny than the case of someone who is speaking before congress to attempt to influence public policy. That is for me the most vital instance of someone being fair game, I truly wish that we spent a lot more of our energy as a society places the people who strive to sway federal policy under the microscope, and much less energy concerned with scrutiny of celebrities who are of trivial importance. Both Fluke and Palin have taken the commendable step to effect change in our society according to their values. Both have done so in some fashion at the federal level, thus both are national public figures. The differences between the two of them in terms of experience and visibility is immaterial.
Fluke is a 30 year old law student/activist not some 19 year old coed like the girls on the Rutgers basketball team who were the victims of a spectacularly failed attempt at humor by Don Imus. Imus stuck his foot in his mouth trying to be funny and faced a backlash that was way overboard considering if I remember correctly Imus was contrite immediately afterwards. I have never liked Imus but the price he paid for one insensitive joke escaping his lips seemed too damn high even though those girls certainly did not deserve to be ridiculed like that.
In my experience women I know view the word “cunt” as the most hateful slur used against women. That said to me I think it should just be the female version of “prick”. My experience with those words and women tells me those two terms are not even in the same stratosphere to them. I don’t see much difference between what Bill and Rush said, I think they both were playing with fire, they’ll both do it again, and that’s fine if you ask me.
If myself or my family did something so notable that it drew the attention of the national media, take the balloon boy hoax from a few years ago or perhaps we became well known activists then I would expect us to become the “fair game”.
Scrutiny, sure. But we’re not talking about scrutiny, here. We’re talking about invective. Attacking a woman with sexist invective based on an idiotic misconception about her behavior and character, and the way birth control works in general, and an even more idiotic misconception that the taxpayers are involved in anyway; that’s not scrutiny, that’s hate.
I still disagree that Fluke and Palin are anywhere near the same class in terms of how thick their skin should be. A former governor, former vice presidential candidate, and current fame whore, is worlds apart from a grad student who’s only a big deal because she once testified before congress (which is ultimately little more influential than an online petition), and would still be a complete nobody if not for Rush attacking her. The biggest thing Palin ever did was try to be vice president, while the biggest thing Fluke ever did was get called a slut.
And again, “slut” is a character-based assertion, while “cunt” just means “I hate you, and you happen to be a woman.” It may be a more powerful-sounding word, but that doesn’t automatically make it a worse insult. Rush’s attack was meant to marginalize and discount this woman of then-nonexistent public significance and her one and only advocacy (“She’s just a slut, her opinion doesn’t matter, but I would totally love to see her sex tape!”); Maher’s attack was on a thoroughly well-established celebrity, to the ultimate effect of, “This is a woman I loathe.” All of this, taken together, tells me that what Rush said was clearly worse. But this is ultimately just semantics, I suppose, and you’re right that neither of these women really needs such ardent defending by the masses. Just a simple crying-foul at the outset was probably more than enough.
“the public airwaves only exist due to the regulation of the federal government” said by someone who clearly doesn’t understand what they are talking about. Demonstrably untrue.
Just because the public airwaves exist because of something doesn’t mean that they exist ONLY because of something. Everything isn’t black or white. It’s mind boggling how often you continue to do what you claim the people you are raging against are doing.
Example: Hilariously, you posted that nonsense on the internet right. A medium that has exploded without that very same federal government regulation. Your argument is invalid.
What would we ever do with out big brother “helping” us along the way? Make more internets? Yes, please.
Public airwaves are a limited resource (there’s only so many Hz). The interwebs run on assets that are constructed and can be expanded (each strand of fiber, coax, copper, switch, etc. adds Hz so you can add users). You may want to think through your “hilarious” example before you cast the “don’t understand what they’re talking about” stone. Make more internets from unregulated spectrum? It actually exists, and there’s not been any progress here (using lasers was an idea on light spectrum). Your argument is invalid
Frustrated that I had to point that out because I felt like you *were* the object of several ad hominem attacks and made some valid points earlier.
\Yes,I think parenthetically
\Yes, the laser communicationsthing would have been way cooler if they were attached to sharks.
My point wasn’t that they aren’t limited (they clearly are), but that the claim that it only exists because of government intervention isn’t true/accurate. It’s not like you can go back in time and try it again without “government” regulation. My only real point there was that many many industries flourish without it and even sometimes in spite of it. It’s frustrating when people assume and encourage the idea that good things can’t happen without government intervention.
My late answers to the questions:
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
He should not and did not at the time.
Duh, OF COURSE.
Yes, there is and should be a double standard. The Stranger should be judged differently. I’m right handed, so I judge the left differently. If you’re left handed, you’re wrong.