4 ms·

The man sowed hate. That's his "legacy". Here's to a collective forgetting.

tuckerpo 6y ago
and then everybody clapped
bobcallme 6y ago
While he had some controversial views and opinions, that's quite a blanketed statement. Painting everyone you don't like with arbitrary claims is not how you deal with polarizing individuals. I did not agree with him on ~70% of what he had to say but will defend the fact that a lot of things he said were taken out of context.
- tw04 6y ago
  Such as? Every time I heard a Limbaugh quote that sounded absolutely outrageous, then listened to the audio in context, it was as bad if not worse than the summary.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- belltaco 6y ago
  Was broadcasting this to an audience of mostly old impressionable people who looked up to him 'taken out of context' as well? Do you really think saying the below did not result in greater illness and/or death of at least some people and greater spread? >RUSH: Folks, this coronavirus thing, I want to try to put this in perspective for you. It looks like the coronavirus is being weaponized as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump. Now, I want to tell you the truth about the coronavirus. (interruption) You think I’m wrong about this? You think I’m missing it by saying that’s… (interruption) Yeah, I’m dead right on this. The coronavirus is the common cold, folks.
  - bobcallme 6y ago
    OP was talking about "sowing hate"; the topic was not on unpopular opinions or view points. "...mostly old impressionable people" is a bit of an oxymoron; it's a bit arrogant that you would try to assert that "old" people are not capable of forming their own opinions or seeking out others. There will come a point in time where applying labels where they don't belong will no longer work to silence opposing views that you don't like. > RUSH: Folks, this coronavirus thing, I want to try to put this in perspective for you. It looks like the coronavirus is being weaponized as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump. Now, I want to tell you the truth about the coronavirus. (interruption) You think I’m wrong about this? You think I’m missing it by saying that’s… (interruption) Yeah, I’m dead right on this. The coronavirus is the common cold, folks. Your quote from Rush is actually one of the few things that I actually agree with. The better response to this would have been to do absolutely nothing at all.
    - belltaco 6y ago
      >it's a bit arrogant that you would try to assert that "old" people are not capable of forming their own opinions or seeking out others. There will come a point in time where applying labels where they don't belong will no longer work to silence opposing views that you don't like. It's a fact that older people tend to fall victim to false information disproportionately at higher rates than younger people. https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2019/10/scams-and-older-consumers-looking-data https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2019/10/scams-and-older-co... >Your quote from Rush is actually one of the few things that I actually agree with. The better response to this would have been to do absolutely nothing at all Ironic given the above, because now you're saying it's worth killing a lot of old people for some economic gain, not to mention hospitals getting overloaded resulting in deaths of younger people from road accidents and other treatable illnesses etc.
      - cobraetor 6y ago
        The link you provided does not support your statement. It is about financial scams, and not disinformation per se. Specifically it reports, "Older adults were the least likely of any age group to report losing money to scams. But when older consumers experience consumer fraud, their reported financial losses were greater than what younger consumers reported.". They also report on the specific scams older people tend to fall prey to, namely: "older adults were more likely than younger consumers to report losing money on tech support scams, prize, sweepstakes & lottery scams, and family & friend impersonation. Phone scams did the most financial damage. And while gift cards became the payment of choice for scammers, wire transfers still take the top spot for total dollars paid.". How did you generalize all of this into saying that "older people tend to fall victim to false information disproportionately at higher rates than younger people."? Do you have direct evidence for that? I think we have to be careful when trying to paint an entire group of people in this discriminatory way, especially without evidence, which is probably what parent comment was getting at.
cheeseomlit 6y ago
You're sowing hate right now
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  And then you are sowing hate. And now I am?
rvz 6y ago
Not now. Stand your partisan ground man. The uninformed will still search him up and down the rabbit hole they go into the talk radio shows he hosted. Controversial figures are unlikely to be forgotten. Sorry.
cobraetor 6y ago
It is helpful to distinguish between hate and "hate speech", as the latter does not necessarily suggest hatred. > “When people say they want to ban hate speech, what they mean is they want to ban speech that they hate,” Glasser said. “But if you allowed something called ‘hate speech’ to be banned, then the only important question would be ‘who decides?'” > “If the government is going to be the one to decide what hate speech to ban, it’s not going to be the same speech as the speech you hate, it’s going to be the speech they hate,” Glasser warned. https://reclaimthenet.org/former-aclu-head-ira-glasser-explains-why-you-cant-ban-hate-speech/ https://reclaimthenet.org/former-aclu-head-ira-glasser-expla...
- vlovich123 6y ago
  Why is this always trotted out as a counterargument when other countries manage to successfully write legislature around hate speech (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada). The only 2 choices aren't all speech is unregulated and tyrrany. Hell, even in the US you can't yell fire in a crowded theater & the First Amendment doesn't say "except in cases the speech might cause mass panic or loss of life".
  - cobraetor 6y ago
    Are they really successful though? In Canada for example the laws are quite controversial, regardless of political affiliation: > The controversy around the issue lies in the reasoning behind Canada’s top court decision that proclaimed Bill Whatcott, a Christian evangelist, guilty of hate speech because of the language he used to refer to homosexuality. > But in order to protect homosexuals from being perceived negatively, the Supreme Court went too far in infringing on freedom of speech, and of religion, critics said. > This criticism came from both left and right, caused by the way the judge in charge of the case explained the ruling. > “Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction,” the judge wrote at the time. https://reclaimthenet.org/canada-to-use-controversial-supreme-court-hate-speech-decision/ https://reclaimthenet.org/canada-to-use-controversial-suprem... Likewise in other countries, such as Scotland: > ... famed comedian Rowan Atkinson and 20 others, including actors, philosophers, and writers, working with Humanist Society Scotland, see it as posing danger to freedom of expression, because the new legislation aims to introduce the offense of “stirring up hatred” without taking into account if hatred was the intent, bringing with it the danger of criminalizing and jailing people simply for their controversial views, the article said of the artists’ concerns. https://reclaimthenet.org/scotland-hate-speech-bill-pushback/ https://reclaimthenet.org/scotland-hate-speech-bill-pushback...
barnaclejive 6y ago
Rush who? already forgot that idiot long ago, good riddence.
Laremere 6y ago
"I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." I've heard plenty of him due to close relatives refusing to turn him off in my presence. They called it "education". The most specific thing I remember was somewhat subtle, and incredibly insidious: Almost always, he would refer to Barack Obama using first and last name. However during one show where Muslims were in context (probably terrorism, but I don't remember specifically), he consistently used "Barack Hussein Obama". I don't remember him actually calling Obama Muslim directly in that episode, but he clearly wanted to both paint being Muslim in general as evil, and associate the (then current) president with Muslims. This is a man who not only spread hate, but did so intentionally and effectively.
- cobraetor 6y ago
  > "I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." Brilliant quote illustrating schadenfreude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

and then everybody clapped

While he had some controversial views and opinions, that's quite a blanketed statement. Painting everyone you don't like with arbitrary claims is not how you deal with polarizing individuals. I did not agree with him on ~70% of what he had to say but will defend the fact that a lot of things he said were taken out of context.

tw04 6y ago
Such as? Every time I heard a Limbaugh quote that sounded absolutely outrageous, then listened to the audio in context, it was as bad if not worse than the summary.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
belltaco 6y ago
Was broadcasting this to an audience of mostly old impressionable people who looked up to him 'taken out of context' as well? Do you really think saying the below did not result in greater illness and/or death of at least some people and greater spread? >RUSH: Folks, this coronavirus thing, I want to try to put this in perspective for you. It looks like the coronavirus is being weaponized as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump. Now, I want to tell you the truth about the coronavirus. (interruption) You think I’m wrong about this? You think I’m missing it by saying that’s… (interruption) Yeah, I’m dead right on this. The coronavirus is the common cold, folks.
- bobcallme 6y ago
  OP was talking about "sowing hate"; the topic was not on unpopular opinions or view points. "...mostly old impressionable people" is a bit of an oxymoron; it's a bit arrogant that you would try to assert that "old" people are not capable of forming their own opinions or seeking out others. There will come a point in time where applying labels where they don't belong will no longer work to silence opposing views that you don't like. > RUSH: Folks, this coronavirus thing, I want to try to put this in perspective for you. It looks like the coronavirus is being weaponized as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump. Now, I want to tell you the truth about the coronavirus. (interruption) You think I’m wrong about this? You think I’m missing it by saying that’s… (interruption) Yeah, I’m dead right on this. The coronavirus is the common cold, folks. Your quote from Rush is actually one of the few things that I actually agree with. The better response to this would have been to do absolutely nothing at all.
  - belltaco 6y ago
    >it's a bit arrogant that you would try to assert that "old" people are not capable of forming their own opinions or seeking out others. There will come a point in time where applying labels where they don't belong will no longer work to silence opposing views that you don't like. It's a fact that older people tend to fall victim to false information disproportionately at higher rates than younger people. https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2019/10/scams-and-older-consumers-looking-data https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2019/10/scams-and-older-co... >Your quote from Rush is actually one of the few things that I actually agree with. The better response to this would have been to do absolutely nothing at all Ironic given the above, because now you're saying it's worth killing a lot of old people for some economic gain, not to mention hospitals getting overloaded resulting in deaths of younger people from road accidents and other treatable illnesses etc.
    - cobraetor 6y ago
      The link you provided does not support your statement. It is about financial scams, and not disinformation per se. Specifically it reports, "Older adults were the least likely of any age group to report losing money to scams. But when older consumers experience consumer fraud, their reported financial losses were greater than what younger consumers reported.". They also report on the specific scams older people tend to fall prey to, namely: "older adults were more likely than younger consumers to report losing money on tech support scams, prize, sweepstakes & lottery scams, and family & friend impersonation. Phone scams did the most financial damage. And while gift cards became the payment of choice for scammers, wire transfers still take the top spot for total dollars paid.". How did you generalize all of this into saying that "older people tend to fall victim to false information disproportionately at higher rates than younger people."? Do you have direct evidence for that? I think we have to be careful when trying to paint an entire group of people in this discriminatory way, especially without evidence, which is probably what parent comment was getting at.

cheeseomlit 6y ago

You're sowing hate right now

dwaltrip 6y ago
And then you are sowing hate. And now I am?

rvz 6y ago

Not now. Stand your partisan ground man. The uninformed will still search him up and down the rabbit hole they go into the talk radio shows he hosted. Controversial figures are unlikely to be forgotten. Sorry.

cobraetor 6y ago

It is helpful to distinguish between hate and "hate speech", as the latter does not necessarily suggest hatred. > “When people say they want to ban hate speech, what they mean is they want to ban speech that they hate,” Glasser said. “But if you allowed something called ‘hate speech’ to be banned, then the only important question would be ‘who decides?'” > “If the government is going to be the one to decide what hate speech to ban, it’s not going to be the same speech as the speech you hate, it’s going to be the speech they hate,” Glasser warned. https://reclaimthenet.org/former-aclu-head-ira-glasser-explains-why-you-cant-ban-hate-speech/ https://reclaimthenet.org/former-aclu-head-ira-glasser-expla...

vlovich123 6y ago
Why is this always trotted out as a counterargument when other countries manage to successfully write legislature around hate speech (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada). The only 2 choices aren't all speech is unregulated and tyrrany. Hell, even in the US you can't yell fire in a crowded theater & the First Amendment doesn't say "except in cases the speech might cause mass panic or loss of life".
- cobraetor 6y ago
  Are they really successful though? In Canada for example the laws are quite controversial, regardless of political affiliation: > The controversy around the issue lies in the reasoning behind Canada’s top court decision that proclaimed Bill Whatcott, a Christian evangelist, guilty of hate speech because of the language he used to refer to homosexuality. > But in order to protect homosexuals from being perceived negatively, the Supreme Court went too far in infringing on freedom of speech, and of religion, critics said. > This criticism came from both left and right, caused by the way the judge in charge of the case explained the ruling. > “Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction,” the judge wrote at the time. https://reclaimthenet.org/canada-to-use-controversial-supreme-court-hate-speech-decision/ https://reclaimthenet.org/canada-to-use-controversial-suprem... Likewise in other countries, such as Scotland: > ... famed comedian Rowan Atkinson and 20 others, including actors, philosophers, and writers, working with Humanist Society Scotland, see it as posing danger to freedom of expression, because the new legislation aims to introduce the offense of “stirring up hatred” without taking into account if hatred was the intent, bringing with it the danger of criminalizing and jailing people simply for their controversial views, the article said of the artists’ concerns. https://reclaimthenet.org/scotland-hate-speech-bill-pushback/ https://reclaimthenet.org/scotland-hate-speech-bill-pushback...

barnaclejive 6y ago

Rush who? already forgot that idiot long ago, good riddence.

Laremere 6y ago

"I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." I've heard plenty of him due to close relatives refusing to turn him off in my presence. They called it "education". The most specific thing I remember was somewhat subtle, and incredibly insidious: Almost always, he would refer to Barack Obama using first and last name. However during one show where Muslims were in context (probably terrorism, but I don't remember specifically), he consistently used "Barack Hussein Obama". I don't remember him actually calling Obama Muslim directly in that episode, but he clearly wanted to both paint being Muslim in general as evil, and associate the (then current) president with Muslims. This is a man who not only spread hate, but did so intentionally and effectively.

cobraetor 6y ago
> "I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." Brilliant quote illustrating schadenfreude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude