He shouldn't have a radio show, let alone even own part of an NFL team.
About as racist as it gets.
About as racist as it gets.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Rush Limbaugh and the Rams
- Thread starter Dr. Cheese
- Start date
- Status
Pot, kettle. He's too easily offended.
Are you seriously saying it's okay to print lies in a newspaper? To cry racism where there is none? I hope you're kidding.
Forget Rush for the moment. In general, when I see one side of a debate or argument resort to blatant ad hominen attacks and then finally to race baiting, that leads me to believe they probably don't hold the intellectual high ground in that debate and that truth isn't on their side.
Yeah, I can clearly hear the satirical nature in his voice.
It's funny how only after he gets some heat for these statements they end up being a "joke".
/Strong, the brainwashing is.
But does Rush have an audience that understands it as such?
A few years ago I had the unfortunate luck to be stuck driving a vehicle that could only tune in to AM radio. I've listened to his show a fair amount, and from the people who call in to the manner in which he conducts himself on the show, I'm not so certain that it is satirical in intent.
The Onion is satire, The Rush Limbaugh Show, well, I don't think so.
No, I'm not joking. Rush deliberately and frequently uses satire in his bits and when he does he could keep it up for several minutes or several segments or even several days. If you tune in at random and he's in the middle of a bit and you don't hear the beginning and the end where it's obvious it's satire then you naturally won't get it. If you only saw a few random 30 second clips from Mel Brook's movie Blazing Saddles you'd likely miss the point of that, too and for the same reason.
And yes, his audience does get it as satire. Rush always refers to it as "Illustrating absurdity by being absurd" -which is obviously the definition of satire.
I'm always amused by the condescension inherent in those who are unable or unwilling to take the time to recognize advanced humor but who instead assume that those who get something out of it must be the clueless ones.
The Onion is awesome!
I am a huge fan of satire of all kinds - as long as it's good. It's a sin to engage in bad satire.
And yes, his audience does get it as satire. Rush always refers to it as "Illustrating absurdity by being absurd" -which is obviously the definition of satire.
I'm always amused by the condescension inherent in those who are unable or unwilling to take the time to recognize advanced humor but who instead assume that those who get something out of it must be the clueless ones.
The Onion is awesome!
I am a huge fan of satire of all kinds - as long as it's good. It's a sin to engage in bad satire.
I don't hear the racism in that clip, at least not white over black racism from Rush. He is describing (with some sensationalism) the situation where today, a white kid can get beat up by a bunch of black kids with others cheering on and taking cell phone pictures, and it's not called racism. Is he a racist by pointing out reverse racism? This is bazaar!!!
Can we engrave this on a stone tablet and hand it to someone to bring to the masses? I'm talking above and beyond Rush Limbaugh at this point. I can't recall the last time someone took a thought that so frequently runs through my head and manages to use the English language to spell it out like a logical Mona Lisa. You deserve the Nobel P---oh, nevermind.
Mike
I'm saying it's okay to attack him. I don't know what's been printed about him in the newspaper. Of course I wouldn't endorse lying.
At the same time, if someone calls me on something I have said, I won't try to hide behind the excuse of satire. Gimme a break. I have heard his show. It's continuous partisan drivel.
I love it. Rush can attack his opponents at will, and when anybody turns around and calls him on it, we are "easily offended," incapable of recognizing satire, etc. You've basically built a protective wall of special pleading around this guy, as effectively as any religion ever has.
Even if you were being satirical? I wouldn't call it an excuse, I'd call it an explanation (unless I actually gave a crap about the guy and disagreed with him politically, then I'd throw logic out the window and go for it).
I'm not exceptionally familiar with him, but I watched an interview with him the other morning. He owned everything the lady called him on. I'm not sure where the "hiding" thing comes from unless you've seen a more recent interview.
Mike
I'm sure he's a master debater. But my comment was about the way his followers defend him. And I realize that I probably equate him with his following.
I have only had the misfortune to hear his show on occasions when I go into places where it is playing on the radio. That's where my "partisan drivel" opinion comes from.
But I realize that, just like religion, two people can believe in diametrically opposed things about politics, and what sounds like drivel to me could sound like reasonable discourse to someone else.
Attacking ideas is fine. Attacking something he says on his show is fair game. But there were a several editorials written by professional journalists (who should know better) who did indeed print fabricated (and libelous) quotes. Those bogus quotes were then widely referenced and repeated by other news organizations.
I've been listening to his show since the early 90's and the satire to me has been obvious since the beginning. But satire isn't obvious to everyone and Rush often has to take time to explain to offended callers that certain bits of the show are satire ("Illustrating absurdity by being absurd").
I've found through experience that satire is often not perceived when the theme of the satire is contrary to the ideology of the listener. I listen to A Prairie Home Companion with Garrison Keillor every week on NPR and I find the skits and satire on his show to be funny even though it's usually directed at conservatives. Same thing with Jon Stewart. He's got some great satire bits and he truly has a lot of intelligent things to say and he says it in his own way. But not too many conservatives are going to think either of these guys is funny and they usually label the satire as just hate talk. South Park is brilliant satire that has it's own unique audience and there are plenty of people who think it's nothing but swear words and fart jokes. Usually the same people who are offended by the message behind the humor.
I'm a fan of good satire, as I said before, and I enjoy it no matter what the ideology of the practitioner.
It may just be unfamilarity with his brand of satire (which, in the interest of full disclosure, I'll happily admit has plenty to do with our differing ideologies. For the record, I think Prairie Home Companion sucks too...), but somehow my eyebrows still get raised when he claims "satire." I'm a some-time satirist and long-time fan of subversive humor, and he's nowhere close (in my estimation) to Johnathan Swift or Lenny Bruce or P.J. O'Rourke.
Now, I suppose you could say that this dips into the realms of personal taste, because I think Bruno was one of the funniest films I've seen in years, and a fantastic social critique. But Rush doesn't claim to be a satirist, nor a comedian, so this idea of his show being labeled as such doesn't sit so well with me.
It must be said, though, that I think the man is smart enough to know exactly what he's doing when he says all the things he says. Those of us who don't agree with what he's saying, well, we're not paying his bills anyway. He doesn't have to pander to us, nor should he be expected to. But let's call a spade a spade, and not a ******** a satirist.
Now, I suppose you could say that this dips into the realms of personal taste, because I think Bruno was one of the funniest films I've seen in years, and a fantastic social critique. But Rush doesn't claim to be a satirist, nor a comedian, so this idea of his show being labeled as such doesn't sit so well with me.
It must be said, though, that I think the man is smart enough to know exactly what he's doing when he says all the things he says. Those of us who don't agree with what he's saying, well, we're not paying his bills anyway. He doesn't have to pander to us, nor should he be expected to. But let's call a spade a spade, and not a ******** a satirist.
Yes, he does. He claims that role as one of many. It's a matter of personal opinion whether or not someone agrees that he is or isn't. My opinion is that he is and he is good at it. To others, he's just a jerk and shouldn't be allowed to own a football team, host a radio show or speak at all.
That's certainly possible. But a satire could still be tasteless, misleading, and offensive. Turning things around, it's possible that a personal attack is perceived as satire when the theme of the attack agrees with the ideology of the listener.
Perhaps the bottom line is that I don't belong to the target audience of his show, and should not try to make sense of it, any more than I would try to make sense of a sermon if I walked into an unfamiliar church halfway through a religious service.
But carrying the analogy a step further, a member of that church should not be surprised -- or lay the blame on me -- if I find the sermon offensive.
Fair enough assessment. If one isn't a fan of that viewpoint, then calling it drivel is more than polite. While I don't identify with a party, I'd be lying if I said I don't lean a little to the right. That being said, I find his show VERY partisan and nearly nauseating as a result. Even so, I recognized the satire when I first tried to listen. I can go through a full day of work without breaking out of "character". Holding court for 2-3 hours for a show is nothing.
Mike
- Status
