How many exact, in context, quotes would it take to alter your opinion?

2Wolves

Go for it. I'd be interested to see an example of something he's said that could be considered hate speech.

By the way, I'm not interested in defending this broadcaster as an end in itself. I'm really more interested in sharpening the terms we engage here in our discussions and debates.

So I would genuinely be interested in seeing what sort of statements you would consider to be in the category of "hate".

As I said "How many"?

I'm more than happy to provide specifics (unlike old Rush who does not and will not offer show transcripts) but I want to know before hand how much labor is involved.

2Wolves

Well, since you are so kind as to ask, I'd say just please give me an example in order that I may get a sense of how you are defining the concept. I'm interested initially in exactly what you consider hate speech or spreading/broadcasting messages of hate.

Thanks.

"Why should Blacks be heard? They're 12% of the population.
Who the hell cares."

"I don't give a hoot that [Columbus] gave some Indians a
disease that they didn't have immunity against"

"The videotape of the Rodney King beating played absolutely no role in the conviction of two of the four officers. It was pure emotion that was responsible for the guilty verdict."

If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people--
I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely
no knowledge whatsoever to do--let the stupid and
unskilled Mexicans do that work."

Praising Strom Thurmond for calling a gay soldier "not normal": "He's not encumbered by being politically correct.... If you want to know what America used to be--and a lot of people wish it still were--then you listen to Strom Thurmond."

"There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?" (bite me Rush)

"One of the things I want to do before I die is conduct the Homeless Olympics...[Events would include] the 10-meter Shopping Cart Relay, the Dumpster Dig, and the Hop, Skip and Trip."

Speculating on why a Mexican national won the New York marathon: "An immigration agent chased him for the last 10 miles."

Would you care for more? Each and every 'gem' displayed above aids and gives comfort to such who follow the KKK, skinheads, and other such sterling individuals.

2Wolves

Your offer was to deliver them in context. You haven't done that.

ArtTelivision... I don't understand how. Rush has no defense for talking about how people are worthless. He does this as part of his radio address. If you haven't heard this then why are you questioning it now? Are you saying Rush hasn't gone this far with his commentary?

I consider Rush's comments about Chelsea to be hate speech. You may disagree with my interpretation, but that in no way invalidates my feelings.

If you're asking me to prove to you, in your opinion, that Rush practiced hate speech, then I would consider that a nearly impossible task, akin to moving a spoon across the table with my mind.

This statement is absolutely true:

I consider rush a proponent of hate.

It's not possible to make a fair judgement about a sentence when it is not reported in its original context. Meaning is created by context. It is possible to frame those sentences within various contexts that would significantly alter their meaning. Quoting people out of context is not diligent or persuasive reporting. It is a manipulative tactic.

I call bullshit on that.

I consider this "hate speech." You mean nasty hateful hypocrites, you. :rolleyes:

a_divine_martyr, guess what. You just earned a public warning from me. You don't get to pull down the level of dialog and decorum in this Forum just because you happen to own a keyboard.
There are times when I come in here for the express purpose of finding out who exactly is responsible for the lowering of standards of discussion. You just identified yourself as one of those members.
I'm not playing games. You try typing a response like that to a rational discussion again - you're gone. That's how simple things sometimes are.

On national TV, Rush said "the whitehouse already has a dog" and then flashed up a photo of then-13-year-old Chelsea Clinton.

If you've ever spent time with teenage girls, you know how damaging comments like that can be from their peer group. Imagine getting made fun of like that on national TV.

The person who is capable of doing that is a monster and a proponent of hate. And that's not all he did, see the article that I posted above. How many kids heard their parents laughing about that and went to school the next day and made fun of people? I would guess more than one. Rush increased the hate in the world with his bullying.

Again: I think Rush is a proponent of hate. You cannot take that away from me with your words. My providing you "context" for Rush's statements doesn't change my opinion, and frankly I doubt it will change yours. So, you're asking me to prove to you, in your opinion, that your opinion is false. Do you see the problem?

I don't have an opinion about this yet.
I'm looking for more than a word or a sentence taken out of context.
The "evidence" presented here is sensationalized to the point of unreliability. The lack of contextual framing demonstrates the quickness with which people are ready to make ethical judgements of the deepest kind based on partial statements.

I'm reminded of Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown" remark. I don't believe Jackson is a proponent of hate because of that statement. I believe he probably has a pattern of speaking disrespectfully of certain groups and that's not commendable. I don't think Rush is to be commended for this either. I don't speak that way myself.

What I'm objecting to is the level of discourse - it's emotional and not rational. No one gets convinced of anything in discussions of this sort. And the forum becomes a place where people simply type out their own rigid and inflexible conceptions of things.

I contend that you expressed a strong opinion earlier when you said: Probably what is being expressed is something closer to the fact that people who are on the other side of the polarities of political expression from him hate his ideas. And they make the common logical fallacy of arguing ad hominem (The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself).

Also, in the same post where you started off saying "I don't have an opinion" you later expressed an opinion. :) Everyone has an opinion. You appear to be coming at Rush from a position of support and sympathy. We all have preconceptions.

In your opinion, perhaps. I have seen Rush on TV, I have heard his show, and I have read the quotes and articles posted so far. The article I posted earlier about his bullying tactics was, I feel, not sensationalized and not exaggerated. It was a summary of how Rush behaves on his show generally.

I feel you are taking much the same tactic. I have presented my opinon that Rush is a hater, that he is a bully, and that he contributes to increasing the amount of hate in the world. You are invalidating my opinion by saying that it doesn't measure up to your standards of context and evidence.

I feel like you are manipulating the context in which the argument is framed in order to support your pre-conceived opinion that Rush is not a proponent of hate. When a national talk show host calls a 13-year old girl ugly on his show and doesn't apologize for it, that is all the context that I need to conclude that he is a bully and a hater. Your standards may differ, but that in no way invalidates my opinion. You are creating an artificial standard of evidence that supports your world-view.

There is no such thing as an absolute, impartial way to judge whether a talk-show host is a hater.

quote:
"There is no such thing as an absolute, impartial way to judge whether a talk-show host is a hater."

Yes that's right.
You are also right that I may occasionally express strong opinions.

I've made the points I felt compelled to make regarding quality of "evidence". That was my main thrust here - not to defend Rush.

I believe I've made that clear.

I understand. I just felt that your comment that you don't have an opinion yet was much like a media outlet claiming to be fair and impartial. :)

I'll tell you what though. I do not like the kind of slurs he dishes out toward ethnic groups at all.

I would just prefer to reserve the notion of "hate speech" for something more flagrant. There are examples of much more despicable public expression in history and in other societies currently.

And you know what I'm trying to do - just remind us all to get more of a handle on our rhetoric here.

Most contributors are doing fine.
Thanks.

Actually, he had. Each quote had the context explained to you. Now, you may refute the truth of his purported contexts but that's a different issue.


While I can understand the desire to reserve the term "hate speech" for truly hateful speach, it's not uncommon (or unwarranted) to use such "extreme" terms for things that are relatively extreme. I mean, maybe I'm just not "with it" but I haven't seen anything in public light that has been as hateful as Rush Limbaugh, especially in the US in recent times.

As for the level of rhetoric, please read on...


I must ask, where were you when all these other threads degenerated into empty rhetoric bordering on flame wars? I've almost entirely abandoned the political forum 'cause of this and, here you are, complaining about, what seems to me to be, a minor infraction. All a_divine_martyr said was "I call bullshit on that," which is just a rude way of saying "I call you up on that," meaning he's not willing to take your word for it (what we usually do) and to please elaborate with examples or evidence (at TFP, this means links to secondary opnions on the internet).
Now, I can understand if you don't read every thread (there's a lot of traffic here at TFP) but it seems weird to come down so hard without so much as a cursory look at what the community standard has become because what you are complaining about is way above the bar...

My idea of "in context" is this: (it is the generally accepted journalistic view): The context in which a sentence appears is the surrounding text - the rest of the statement from which it is taken. The context of a sentence involves the buildup of meanings assembled from an entire utterance. One sentence's meaning is conditioned by those that preceed it and follow it.

The statement made by the member in question was not in any way amenable to discussion or debate. It represents a lowering to level zero of discourse here.

As to the rest of your statement. This forum is constantly moderated. Every single day mods discuss their decisions with other mods and admins. Decisions are made as regards the level of discourse. Periodically, it is decided to increase the level of moderation here because periodically it descends into rudeness and virulence.

That's sufficient explanation. I read what goes on here. I am in daily contact with the moderators who do daily duty here. I decided to take this opportunity to serve notice that this forum is from this point forward being more heavily moderated than it has been in the past.

The "community standard" you refer to is on its way toward improvement. You can be a part of that.

I enjoyed reading this whole thread. I hope some good may come out of this, i.e. Rush, after a healing treatment process, becomes a believer in treating addiction instead of incarcerating drug abusers.

And I'd be lying if I didn't get some mirth out of this. Seeing holier than thou virtue queens like gingrich, bennett, and now limbaugh face the music, well... :D