Rush Limbaugh has died at 70

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-18-2021, 04:03 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't recall how all that turned out. She admitted she was a "liar"?

Not exactly, that requires a moral courage she appears to lack.  Instead she admitted that there was no evidence of her blog being hacked, as she claimed, but stated she could never have made such terrible statements.

https://deadline.com/2018/04/msnbc-host-joy-reid-apologizes-for-homophobic-remarks-admits-no-evidence-of-hacking-1202378775/

“I genuinely do not believe I wrote those hateful things because they are completely alien to me. But I can definitely understand, based on things I have tweeted, have written in the past, why some people don’t believe me,” she said. “For that, I am truly, truly sorry.”

Further evidence, if any was needed that her apology was insincere. 

Quote:I do notice that when I watch her show, she doesn't put that kind of rhetoric front and center. (Except for her "When the Muslims. . . ." statement.)

If she did it before, sincere or not, she has stopped it now.  If it re-appears, she will not have a show on MSNBC.  Pretty sure she knows this.

Oh, as long as she doesn't do it anymore.  I suppose we can forgive her blatant hatred then.

Quote:We are talking about Rush now because because his appeal was that he didn't stop and generally didn't apologize.

And still had a show.

Weren't we just talking about how Rush apologized for his remarks in the past?  Did he make any remarks on par with Reid's in recent history?  I'm not defending Limbaugh.  I don't like him, never liked him and hated that he was a Steelers fan.  But I'm not going to accept an obvious double standard simply because of the differences in the political affiliations of those accused.  It also doesn't change the objective fact that Reid has no business calling out anyone for hateful rhetoric.  I'm even ignoring her borderline racist comment about "white grievance".  Since when do we accept blanket racial comments?

[Dill]

(02-18-2021, 04:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Weren't we just talking about how Rush apologized for his remarks in the past?  Did he make any remarks on par with Reid's in recent history?  I'm not defending Limbaugh.  I don't like him, never liked him and hated that he was a Steelers fan.  But I'm not going to accept an obvious double standard simply because of the differences in the political affiliations of those accused.  It also doesn't change the objective fact that Reid has no business calling out anyone for hateful rhetoric.  I'm even ignoring her borderline racist comment about "white grievance".  Since when do we accept blanket racial comments?

I think "white grievance" is a term of political analysis, used in most current research on political divisions in the U.S., not especially racist. I am open to another term which describes the same phenomenon, if you have one.

Not sure what it means to accept or not accept an "obvious double standard" in cases like this. E.g., if I decided NOT to accept it, what would I do? I could turn off the tv, but then I would miss the insightful analysis I saw last night about Limbaugh's Operation chaos, which I had forgotten, but which is very relevant to understanding how the GOP got to where it is today.

Now that I have heard the analysis, I can't somehow forget it because Reid called Ann Coulter a drag queen ten years ago. It is not false because Reid called Ann Coulter a drag queen ten years ago. And I don't want to forego future such valuable analyses because Reid called Ann Coulter a drag queen ten years ago either. What is your guidance on this? Remind people of this whenever she is mentioned in the forum, then go on with the thread topic? Not link to a Reid analysis in the future, however relevant?

You heard about Limbaugh reading of the names of gays who died of aids. Let me put forward a fresher example of his commentary. When on Feb. 23, 2012, Sandra Fluke argued before a House committee that birth control pills should be covered by health insurance, Rush went on a three-day rant, calling her a "prostitute" and a "slut," and demanding that she publicize videos of herself having sex so that taxpayers could get something in return for funding her unrestricted and irresponsible sex.  Thereafter he laughingly quoted outraged liberals demanding that he apologize like certifications of honor, and finally half-heartedly apologized when he started losing sponsors. Reid's blog comments hardly approach this level of insult, which Rush strove for every week.

If Reid were daily trading theatrically in degrading stereotypes to outrage people, as did Rush, then it would indeed be a double standard to criticize Rush for doing that, just as if she were to criticize him for smoking on a talk show while she was smoking on a talk show. But she was not simply calling him out for derogatory language when specifying parts of Operation Chaos which nihilistically denied the goals of responsible governance. She was making an argument about how values and standards promulgated on his show were put into mass political actions affecting the direction of U.S. politics. That she made some nasty blog comments 10 years ago, though nastiness never became here signature style, seems no important counterpoint to her analysis of Limbaugh's legacy.

For me, the important standard for online news commentators is whether what they are telling me is accurate to the record and revealing of connections and political forces I had not previously noticed or understood.  That doesn't let them off the hook for bad behavior, but there are degrees here surely, between ongoing Ailes-style sexual assault, which should result in termination and criminal charges, and a blog post from 10 years ago whose content has been renounced.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-18-2021, 05:19 PM)Dill Wrote: I think "white grievance" is a term of political analysis, used in most current research on political divisions in the U.S., not especially racist. I am open to another term which describes the same phenomenon, if you have one.

I'm aware of what it is.  I'm pointing out the obvious racial aspect of the term and the fact that blanket statement about an ethnicity is something we should not be accepting of.  

Quote:Not sure what it means to accept or not accept an "obvious double standard" in cases like this. E.g., if I decided NOT to accept it, what would I do? I could turn off the tv, but then I would miss the insightful analysis I saw last night about Limbaugh's Operation chaos, which I had forgotten, but which is very relevant to understanding how the GOP got to where it is today.

That's fine.  If you don't mind supporting a bigot and a liar that's obviously your choice to make.

Quote:Now that I have heard the analysis, I can't somehow forget it because Reid called Ann Coulter a drag queen ten years ago. It is not false because Reid called Ann Coulter a drag queen ten years ago.

Incorrect, which makes me think you didn't actually read the links I provided.  It was far, far more than just that one comment.

Quote:And I don't want to forego future such valuable analyses because Reid called Ann Coulter a drag queen ten years ago either. What is your guidance on this? Remind people of this whenever she is mentioned in the forum, then go on with the thread topic? Not link to a Reid analysis in the future, however relevant?

You need my guidance to decide whether to support a bigot and a liar?  I had no idea you wanted me to be your moral compass.

Quote:You heard about Limbaugh reading of the names of gays who died of aids.

Yes, which he later apologized for.  I suppose you can accept his apology or not, just as you chose to accept Reid's clearly disingenuous attempt at one.

Quote:Let me put forward a fresher example of his commentary. When on Feb. 23, 2012, Sandra Fluke argued before a House committee that birth control pills should be covered by health insurance, Rush went on a three-day rant, calling her a "prostitute" and a "slut," and demanding that she publicize videos of herself having sex so that taxpayers could get something in return for funding her unrestricted and irresponsible sex.  Thereafter he laughingly quoted outraged liberals demanding that he apologize like certifications of honor, and finally half-heartedly apologized when he started losing sponsors. Reid's blog comments hardly approach this level of insult, which Rush strove for every week.

Oh, so comparing homosexuals to pedophiles isn't on the same level?  You have an interesting hierarchy of what is and is not acceptable discourse.

Quote:If Reid were daily trading theatrically in degrading stereotypes to outrage people, as did Rush, then it would indeed be a double standard to criticize Rush for doing that, just as if she were to criticize him for smoking on a talk show while she was smoking on a talk show. But she was not simply calling him out for derogatory language when specifying parts of Operation Chaos which nihilistically denied the goals of responsible governance. She was making an argument about how values and standards promulgated on his show were put into mass political actions affecting the direction of U.S. politics.

Incorrect.  One need not traffic in such behavior on the same level or regularity to render oneself a poor critic for such behavior in others.  She's a liar and a bigot, whether she does it in public or in her personal life does not change this.  You are really hanging your hat on the content of her shows.  Personally I think a person's personal conduct is at least as important as their professional conduct, maybe even more so.  After all, in public most of us are on our best behavior, clearly Ms. Reid has a lot of awful things swimming in her head, she's just smart enough not to say them in public.  Kudos to her for being clever about her bigotry, I guess?

Quote:For me, the important standard for online news commentators is whether what they are telling me is accurate to the record and revealing of connections and political forces I had not previously noticed or understood.  That doesn't let them off the hook for bad behavior, but there are degrees here surely, between ongoing Ailes-style sexual assault, which should result in termination and criminal charges, and a blog post from 10 years ago whose content has been renounced.

Except she didn't renounce it, as you would know if you read her faux apology, which I directly quoted above.  You've made your point in a clear fashion, you don't mind if a presenter is bigoted as long as the content of their show is not.  It's an interesting double standard, but not exactly surprising.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-18-2021, 05:19 PM)Dill Wrote: I think "white grievance" is a term of political analysis, used in most current research on political divisions in the U.S., not especially racist. I am open to another term which describes the same phenomenon, if you have one.

Not sure what it means to accept or not accept an "obvious double standard" in cases like this. E.g., if I decided NOT to accept it, what would I do? I could turn off the tv, but then I would miss the insightful analysis I saw last night about Limbaugh's Operation chaos, which I had forgotten, but which is very relevant to understanding how the GOP got to where it is today.

Now that I have heard the analysis, I can't somehow forget it because Reid called Ann Coulter a drag queen ten years ago. It is not false because Reid called Ann Coulter a drag queen ten years ago. And I don't want to forego future such valuable analyses because Reid called Ann Coulter a drag queen ten years ago either. What is your guidance on this? Remind people of this whenever she is mentioned in the forum, then go on with the thread topic? Not link to a Reid analysis in the future, however relevant?

You heard about Limbaugh reading of the names of gays who died of aids. Let me put forward a fresher example of his commentary. When on Feb. 23, 2012, Sandra Fluke argued before a House committee that birth control pills should be covered by health insurance, Rush went on a three-day rant, calling her a "prostitute" and a "slut," and demanding that she publicize videos of herself having sex so that taxpayers could get something in return for funding her unrestricted and irresponsible sex.  Thereafter he laughingly quoted outraged liberals demanding that he apologize like certifications of honor, and finally half-heartedly apologized when he started losing sponsors. Reid's blog comments hardly approach this level of insult, which Rush strove for every week.

If Reid were daily trading theatrically in degrading stereotypes to outrage people, as did Rush, then it would indeed be a double standard to criticize Rush for doing that, just as if she were to criticize him for smoking on a talk show while she was smoking on a talk show. But she was not simply calling him out for derogatory language when specifying parts of Operation Chaos which nihilistically denied the goals of responsible governance. She was making an argument about how values and standards promulgated on his show were put into mass political actions affecting the direction of U.S. politics. That she made some nasty blog comments 10 years ago, though nastiness never became here signature style, seems no important counterpoint to her analysis of Limbaugh's legacy.

For me, the important standard for online news commentators is whether what they are telling me is accurate to the record and revealing of connections and political forces I had not previously noticed or understood.  That doesn't let them off the hook for bad behavior, but there are degrees here surely, between ongoing Ailes-style sexual assault, which should result in termination and criminal charges, and a blog post from 10 years ago whose content has been renounced.

That’s a lot of looking the other way.

What’s wrong with operation chaos? People do it on their own all the time.

[BmorePat87]

(02-17-2021, 06:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He was openly racist and sexist and attacked the physical appearance of the children of politicians. 

You embarrass yourself by pretending that animosity towards him was simply because of a difference of political opinion. 

(02-17-2021, 07:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: For the record, anyone who is like "you just didn't like him because he disagreed with you," this is why people tend to dislike Rush, shit like this:\

and I thought my list was comprehensive enough. God damn...

[Dill]

(02-18-2021, 05:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm aware of what it is.  I'm pointing out the obvious racial aspect of the term and the fact that blanket statement about an ethnicity is something we should not be accepting of. 

Reid's reference to "white grievance" was not a "blanket statement about an ethnicity."

If we can't be "accepting" of such usage then we cannot really identify, analyze and come to understand once source of current political division and who or what is driving it.

(02-18-2021, 05:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's fine.  If you don't mind supporting a bigot and a liar that's obviously your choice to make.
Incorrect, which makes me think you didn't actually read the links I provided.  It was far, far more than just that one comment.
You need my guidance to decide whether to support a bigot and a liar?  I had no idea you wanted me to be your moral compass.
Yes, which he later apologized for.  I suppose you can accept his apology or not, just as you chose to accept Reid's clearly disingenuous attempt at one.
Oh, so comparing homosexuals to pedophiles isn't on the same level?  You have an interesting hierarchy of what is and is not acceptable discourse.
Incorrect.  One need not traffic in such behavior on the same level or regularity to render oneself a poor critic for such behavior in others.  She's a liar and a bigot, whether she does it in public or in her personal life does not change this.  You are really hanging your hat on the content of her shows.  Personally I think a person's personal conduct is at least as important as their professional conduct, maybe even more so.  After all, in public most of us are on our best behavior, clearly Ms. Reid has a lot of awful things swimming in her head, she's just smart enough not to say them in public.  Kudos to her for being clever about her bigotry, I guess?
Except she didn't renounce it, as you would know if you read her faux apology, which I directly quoted above.  You've made your point in a clear fashion, you don't mind if a presenter is bigoted as long as the content of their show is not.  It's an interesting double standard, but not exactly surprising.

This is a thread about Limbaugh and his legacy. Reid had a take on that legacy and how it has shaped current GOP politics, which I judged insightful and useful, and referenced in this thread about Limbaugh and his legacy.

So yes, I am hanging my hat on the content of her show, in relation to Limbaugh and his legacy, and not some 10-year-old blog posts, which don't appear to "render her a poor critic" at all, if we are judging by the accuracy and pertinence of her statements to Limbaugh and his legacy.

But you don't want to judge her comments by that standard, e.g., by disputing her characterization of his influence on the GOP at the level of factual record.  Rather, you want to judge HER on a thread about Limbaugh and his legacy because "a person's personal conduct is at least as important as their professional conduct, maybe even more so."  

However, I don't see that "bigoted" comments made 10-15 years ago and an "ingenuous" apology have invalidated the description of Limbaugh and his legacy given on her show. And I don't see any equivalence between a journalist striving to make her brand serious news analysis and an entertainer whose brand was bigotry every day.

So I asked what YOU think I should actually do regarding Reid, then--Turn off her program? "Call out" her disingenuousness to other forum members? 

Instead of answering that question, you just shifted from "calling out" Reid's supposed double standard to imputing one to me and calling that out too. Everyone still interested in the topic of this thread, Limbaugh and his legacy, is right now praying that I don't drive this discussion further off topic by examining the warrant and logical consistency of such accusations.

If you want to contest Reid's description of Limbaugh in terms of its accuracy I'm ready to continue; but I am not interested in speculation about "awful things" which may or may not be "swimming in her head" if these aren't affecting the terms of her Limbaugh analysis.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-19-2021, 02:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Reid's reference to "white grievance" was not a "blanket statement about an ethnicity."

If we can't be "accepting" of such usage then we cannot really identify, analyze and come to understand once source of current political division and who or what is driving it.

Sure we can, we can do it by not using terms that categorize an entire ethnicity.  It's really not that hard.

Quote:This is a thread about Limbaugh and his legacy. Reid had a take on that legacy and how it has shaped current GOP politics, which I judged insightful and useful, and referenced in this thread about Limbaugh and his legacy.

So yes, I am hanging my hat on the content of her show, in relation to Limbaugh and his legacy, and not some 10-year-old blog posts, which don't appear to "render her a poor critic" at all, if we are judging by the accuracy and pertinence of her statements to Limbaugh and his legacy.

In your opinion.  What this says about you is that you're more than willing to overlook hatred, bigotry and willful deception as long as the person engaging in them aligns with your political beliefs.

Quote:But you don't want to judge her comments by that standard, e.g., by disputing her characterization of his influence on the GOP at the level of factual record.  Rather, you want to judge HER on a thread about Limbaugh and his legacy because "a person's personal conduct is at least as important as their professional conduct, maybe even more so."  

I'm not judging her comments on Limbaugh at all.  I'm saying she's a poor person to be making them considering her history of bigotry and lying.

Quote:However, I don't see that "bigoted" comments made 10-15 years ago and an "ingenuous" apology have invalidated the description of Limbaugh and his legacy given on her show. And I don't see any equivalence between a journalist striving to make her brand serious news analysis and an entertainer whose brand was bigotry every day.

Again, you're addressing an argument I never made.

Quote:So I asked what YOU think I should actually do regarding Reid, then--Turn off her program? "Call out" her disingenuousness to other forum members? 

I've already stated I wouldn't watch a program hosted by a bigoted person who lied about their bigotry.  You didn't get that rather clear message made in several of my other posts?

Quote:Instead of answering that question, you just shifted from "calling out" Reid's supposed double standard to imputing one to me and calling that out too. Everyone still interested in the topic of this thread, Limbaugh and his legacy, is right now praying that I don't drive this discussion further off topic by examining the warrant and logical consistency of such accusations.

You're now the one being disingenuous.  I didn't shift a damn thing.  You're the only one who derailed the thread by requiring thorough proof of Reid's bigotry and a detailed argument describing it.  I provided proof at your request.  Don't project your own actions on to me.

Quote:If you want to contest Reid's description of Limbaugh in terms of its accuracy I'm ready to continue; but I am not interested in speculation about "awful things" which may or may not be "swimming in her head" if these aren't affecting the terms of her Limbaugh analysis.

I have repeatedly stated that her description of Rush could be 100% accurate, her making them is hypocritical considering her own thoughts, beliefs and actions.  Just as I wouldn't accept Louis Farrakhan condemning the actions of Pat Robertson.


I do appreciate your responses though, as they have rather definitively proven two things:  

1.  That you pretend to want to have a cogent, logical fact based discussion.  The truth is you run from one when it doesn't go your way, as exemplified by this thread.  

and  

2.  Something we already knew, that your are utterly blind or dismissive of bad conduct by people you agree with.  It's not a good look for you and you did it to yourself.  

Kindly return to discussing Limbaugh, just understand that your support for a homophobic bigot doesn't speak well for you.

[Dill]

(02-18-2021, 06:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That’s a lot of looking the other way.

Not sure what "that" refers to here.

But I am guessing "looking the other way" here means taking no account of Reid's comments made 10-15 years ago when judging her news analysis today. 

(02-18-2021, 06:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What’s wrong with operation chaos?  People do it on their own all the time.

Well, in your state it was potentially a felony in 2008, wasn't it?

One thing wrong with it is that it is another way of damaging trust in elections and producing outcomes which don't reflect actual voter choices.

Encouraging that damage is pretty unethical. It incentivizes and normalizes dishonesty where liberal democracies have traditionally depended upon honesty.

It was not good when people "did it on their own," and it is much worse when orchestrated as a mass activity.

This fits into another thesis developing in current public discussion, namely that the GOP has evolved into a party which basically trolls rather than governs. Beyond deregulation and symbolic legislation, it is not equipped or incentivized to govern responsibly.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-19-2021, 02:41 PM)Dill Wrote: michaelseanThat’s a lot of looking the other way.

Not sure what "that" refers to here.

But I am guessing "looking the other way" here means taking no account of Reid's comments made 10-15 years ago when judging her news analysis today. 


Well, in your state it was potentially a felony in 2008, wasn't it?

One thing wrong with it is that it is another way of damaging trust in elections and producing outcomes which don't reflect actual voter choices.

Encouraging that damage is pretty unethical. It incentivizes and normalizes dishonesty where liberal democracies have traditionally depended upon honesty.

It was not good when people "did it on their own," and it is much worse when orchestrated as a mass activity.

This fits into another thesis developing in current public discussion, namely that the GOP has evolved into a party which basically trolls rather than governs. Beyond deregulation and symbolic legislation, it is not equipped or incentivized to govern responsibly.

How is it illegal in Ohio?  I'll vote for whomever I want for whatever reason I want, and it's really nobody else's business.

[Dill]

(02-19-2021, 02:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure we can, we can do it by not using terms that categorize an entire ethnicity.  It's really not that hard.

1.  Impossible to talk about ethnicities without "categorizing" them, and even categorizing them "entirely."  

2. Are you still claiming the term "white grievance," something expressed by only some whites in some countries, categorizes an entire ethnicity?

(02-19-2021, 02:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I do appreciate your responses though, as they have rather definitively proven two things:  

1.  That you pretend to want to have a cogent, logical fact based discussion.  The truth is you run from one when it doesn't go your way, as exemplified by this thread. 
and 
2.  Something we already knew, that your are utterly blind or dismissive of bad conduct by people you agree with.  It's not a good look for you and you did it to yourself.  

Kindly return to discussing Limbaugh, just understand that your support for a homophobic bigot doesn't speak well for you.

Uh, sure. I'll return to discussing Limbaugh. 

[Dill]

(02-19-2021, 02:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: How is it illegal in Ohio?  I'll vote for whomever I want for whatever reason I want, and it's really nobody else's business.

I'm not sure it is illegal now.  I was referring to 2008, when it definitely was.

https://beyondchron.org/limbaughs-lying-voters-under-investigation/

Ohio law requires that citizens genuinely support a political party in order to vote in its primary. To change parties for a primary, a citizen must pledge, under the penalty of election falsification, that she is affiliated with the party and “supports” its principles. Lying on the pledge is a felony, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine. The law also stipulates that poll workers have a “duty” to challenge voters who are “not a member of the political party whose ballot the person desires to vote.”


Many states do think it is their business who people vote for and why, because of those ethical concerns I mentioned earlier.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-19-2021, 03:13 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm not sure it is illegal now.  I was referring to 2008, when it definitely was.

https://beyondchron.org/limbaughs-lying-voters-under-investigation/

Ohio law requires that citizens genuinely support a political party in order to vote in its primary. To change parties for a primary, a citizen must pledge, under the penalty of election falsification, that she is affiliated with the party and “supports” its principles. Lying on the pledge is a felony, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine. The law also stipulates that poll workers have a “duty” to challenge voters who are “not a member of the political party whose ballot the person desires to vote.”


Many states do think it is their business who people vote for and why, because of those ethical concerns I mentioned earlier.

I've voted in quite a few primaries and I've never been registered with a party nor have I ever pledged anything.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-19-2021, 02:57 PM)Dill Wrote: 1.  Impossible to talk about ethnicities without "categorizing" them, and even categorizing them "entirely."

Sure it is.  I have to do it all the time.  You can speak in generalities as long as you first acknowledge that this is exactly what your are doing.  Did Reid do that?  Somehow I'm going to bet on the answer to that being no.  BTW, I thought you were done "derailing the thread"? 

Quote:2. Are you still claiming the term "white grievance," something expressed by only some whites in some countries, categorizes an entire ethnicity?

Sure, or why use the term "white"?  Do only white people have this grievance?  I know plenty of Hispanics who listen to Rush and Tucker and agree with them.  Are they expressing "white grievance"?

Quote:Uh, sure. I'll return to discussing Limbaugh. 

You mean after this post? 

[Dill]

(02-19-2021, 03:15 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I've voted in quite a few primaries and I've never been registered with a party nor have I ever pledged anything.  

As I understand it, the Ohio AG refused to prosecute anyone for participating in Operation Chaos in 2008, so had you done so it's doubtful anyone would have bothered to challenge you, or even noticed.

https://www.dispatch.com/article/20080328/NEWS/303289745
Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has been telling his audience for days now that he could be indicted for encouraging Ohio Republicans to take a Democratic ballot in the March 4 primary in what he calls "Operation Chaos."

Could that actually happen?

Not likely, Ohio officials say.

"We have no intention of prosecuting Rush Limbaugh because lying through your teeth and being stupid isn't a crime," said Leo Jennings, a spokesman for Democratic Attorney General Marc Dann.

When asked whether she has concerns about what Limbaugh did, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, replied, "I think it's very bad form, but I think most voters are intelligent enough to make their own decisions."

I don't know anything about Ohio registration/voting regulations. 

I do know that in at least one state, South Carolina, a state representative filed legislation which would restrict primary voters by party registration.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-19-2021, 03:26 PM)Dill Wrote: As I understand it, the Ohio AG refused to prosecute anyone for participating in Operation Chaos in 2008, so had you done so it's doubtful anyone would have bothered to challenge you, or even noticed.

https://www.dispatch.com/article/20080328/NEWS/303289745
Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has been telling his audience for days now that he could be indicted for encouraging Ohio Republicans to take a Democratic ballot in the March 4 primary in what he calls "Operation Chaos."

Could that actually happen?

Not likely, Ohio officials say.

"We have no intention of prosecuting Rush Limbaugh because lying through your teeth and being stupid isn't a crime," said Leo Jennings, a spokesman for Democratic Attorney General Marc Dann.

When asked whether she has concerns about what Limbaugh did, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, replied, "I think it's very bad form, but I think most voters are intelligent enough to make their own decisions."

I don't know anything about Ohio registration/voting regulations. 

I do know that in at least one state, South Carolina, a state representative filed legislation which would restrict primary voters by party registration.

I think plenty of states have closed primaries but Ohio doesn’t seem to be one of them in my experience.

[Dill]

(02-19-2021, 03:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure it is.  I have to do it all the time.  You can speak in generalities as long as you first acknowledge that this is exactly what your are doing.  Did Reid do that?  Somehow I'm going to bet on the answer to that being no.  BTW, I thought you were done "derailing the thread"? 

Sure, or why use the term "white"?  Do only white people have this grievance?  I know plenty of Hispanics who listen to Rush and Tucker and agree with them.  Are they expressing "white grievance"?

You mean after this post? 

No "derailing" in my post. What are you referring to?
And no, I don't have to "acknowledge this is exactly what I am doing" every time I refer generally to Jews or Native Americans or African-Americans or Asians or Latinos or whatever.  It would be absurd to always be tagging these terms as "generalities."  "Native Americans, speaking of them in general, supported Trump with less enthusiasm than Asian-Americans, speaking of the latter in general terms."

Reid used the term "white grievance" in reference to the anger stoked by Rush Limbaugh to channel into voting and political activism. That's how political scientists have been using the term for years and journalists since Trump's election. And Reid's point is on-topic for this thread.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-nixonian-white-grievance-strategy-doesnt-have-to-define-the-gop/2020/08/17/442b9ea8-e0b3-11ea-b69b-64f7b0477ed4_story.html
https://lyz.substack.com/p/trump-is-gone-but-the-era-of-white
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-convinced-white-grievance-is-key-to-reelection-report-2020-7
https://newrepublic.com/article/157173/2020-election-referendum-trumpism-white-grievance-politics
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/arts/design/grief-and-grievance-new-museum.html
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/opinions/affirmative-action-trump-race-bailey-opinion
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/believe-what-you-saw-with-all-this-countrys-white-grievance-it-was-inevitable/2021/01/07/87f55c02-5127-11eb-b96e-0e54447b23a1_story.html 

etc. etc. etc. etc.

You raise an interesting question about expression of white grievance. Can Hispanics (acknowledging here that I am using "Hispanics" as a general term) express "white grievance"?   E.g., can they worry that Hispanics are taking white jobs?  Is racial discrimination against whites a concern which might influence them to vote for a party or policy they perceive protects whites?  Can they worry that Latin culture might displace Anglo?

I'm going to say it's maybe a possibility we should consider.
https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/taco-trucks-on-every-corner-756382787934
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-supporters-taco-trucks-remark-sparks-online-anger-and-hunger/a-19536870

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-19-2021, 04:16 PM)Dill Wrote: No "derailing" in my post. What are you referring to?
And no, I don't have to "acknowledge this is exactly what I am doing" every time I refer generally to Jews or Native Americans or African-Americans or Asians or Latinos or whatever.  It would be absurd to always be tagging these terms as "generalities."  "Native Americans, speaking of them in general, supported Trump with less enthusiasm than Asian-Americans, speaking of the latter in general terms."

Reid used the term "white grievance" in reference to the anger stoked by Rush Limbaugh to channel into voting and political activism. That's how political scientists have been using the term for years and journalists since Trump's election. And Reid's point is on-topic for this thread.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-nixonian-white-grievance-strategy-doesnt-have-to-define-the-gop/2020/08/17/442b9ea8-e0b3-11ea-b69b-64f7b0477ed4_story.html
https://lyz.substack.com/p/trump-is-gone-but-the-era-of-white
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-convinced-white-grievance-is-key-to-reelection-report-2020-7
https://newrepublic.com/article/157173/2020-election-referendum-trumpism-white-grievance-politics
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/arts/design/grief-and-grievance-new-museum.html
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/opinions/affirmative-action-trump-race-bailey-opinion
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/believe-what-you-saw-with-all-this-countrys-white-grievance-it-was-inevitable/2021/01/07/87f55c02-5127-11eb-b96e-0e54447b23a1_story.html 

etc. etc. etc. etc.

This is getting ponderous, so I will will make my point brief.  If you are referring to a group in a negative way, i.e. not saying that Blacks tend to vote Democrat, then you damned well better be sure you point out that you're speaking in generalities.

Quote:You raise an interesting question about expression of white grievance. Can Hispanics (acknowledging here that I am using "Hispanics" as a general term) express "white grievance"?   E.g., can they worry that Hispanics are taking white jobs?  Is racial discrimination against whites a concern which might influence them to vote for a party or policy they perceive protects whites?  Can they worry that Latin culture might displace Anglo?

I'm going to say it's maybe a possibility we should consider.
https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/taco-trucks-on-every-corner-756382787934
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-supporters-taco-trucks-remark-sparks-online-anger-and-hunger/a-19536870

No, you misunderstand.  Can a Hispanic person who listens to Rush/Tucker and agree with them the same way a white listener would be expressing "white grievance"?  Point being if they can, which they can as I've seen it first hand, then it can't be called "white grievance" anymore, can it?  A possibility we should consider.

[Dill]

(02-19-2021, 04:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is getting ponderous, so I will will make my point brief.  If you are referring to a group in a negative way, i.e. not saying that Blacks tend to vote Democrat, then you damned well better be sure you point out that you're speaking in generalities.

"Blacks tend to vote Democrat" is just a description of voting behavior. Not an example of what people generally deem offensive speech. Perhaps you are trying to say one should not refer to demographic groupings in such a way that behaviors characteristic of a few or even many are treated as definitive of all, especially truly negative ones, like a tendency towards criminal behavior.

(02-19-2021, 04:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you misunderstand.  Can a Hispanic person who listens to Rush/Tucker and agree with them the same way a white listener would be expressing "white grievance"?  Point being if they can, which they can as I've seen it first hand, then it can't be called "white grievance" anymore, can it?  A possibility we should consider.

"White grievance" also refers descriptively to a social phenomenon manifest in the behavior of some white voters. It is connected to the specific historical precedent of white dominance of U.S. politics since the U.S. founding, and the threat many (not all) whites have felt from increased power-sharing with non-whites. Politicians can identify this sentiment and appeal to it for votes. Sociologists, historians, and political scientists can study it. It is not an accusation thrown at all whites.

There are a few Hispanics, like Marco Gutierrez, who worry that their culture might be diluting the dominant Anglo culture, but I don't see how that would render the term "white grievance" inaccurate as a descriptor. A Mexican-born immigrant, Marco would not be regarded by any political analyst as a white person whose traditional advantages were threatened by non-whites, even if he genuinely feels that the Anglo culture he now wants to identify with is threatened by "taco trucks" from his culture of origin.

People who use "white grievance" as a social analytic category--at least the ones I have read--don't make "agreeing with Rush or Tucker" a definitional criterion.  There are thousands of non-whites who agree with their politics, and may share many of the grievances agitating the whites in the Fox audience. E.g., anger at pandemic-based restrictions or feminism or the "war on Christianity" or undocumented immigrants or "welfare moochers" is not limited to whites. 

[Dill]

(02-19-2021, 03:28 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I think plenty of states have closed primaries but Ohio doesn’t seem to be one of them in my experience.

Hope I haven't given you any ideas about "chaotic" voting in the next election, then.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-19-2021, 07:31 PM)Dill Wrote: "Blacks tend to vote Democrat" is just a description of voting behavior. Not an example of what people generally deem offensive speech. Perhaps you are trying to say one should not refer to demographic groupings in such a way that behaviors characteristic of a few or even many are treated as definitive of all, especially truly negative ones, like a tendency towards criminal behavior.

Yeah, that's precisely what I said.

Quote:"White grievance" also refers descriptively to a social phenomenon manifest in the behavior of some white voters. It is connected to the specific historical precedent of white dominance of U.S. politics since the U.S. founding, and the threat many (not all) whites have felt from increased power-sharing with non-whites. Politicians can identify this sentiment and appeal to it for votes. Sociologists, historians, and political scientists can study it. It is not an accusation thrown at all whites.

Then find a different term for it.

Quote:There are a few Hispanics, like Marco Gutierrez, who worry that their culture might be diluting the dominant Anglo culture, but I don't see how that would render the term "white grievance" inaccurate as a descriptor. A Mexican-born immigrant, Marco would not be regarded by any political analyst as a white person whose traditional advantages were threatened by non-whites, even if he genuinely feels that the Anglo culture he now wants to identify with is threatened by "taco trucks" from his culture of origin.

You don't think there are Blacks, Asians and Hispanics that feel the same way?  I have a feeling your interaction bubble is unusually small.

Quote:People who use "white grievance" as a social analytic category--at least the ones I have read--don't make "agreeing with Rush or Tucker" a definitional criterion.  There are thousands of non-whites who agree with their politics, and may share many of the grievances agitating the whites in the Fox audience. E.g., anger at pandemic-based restrictions or feminism or the "war on Christianity" or undocumented immigrants or "welfare moochers" is not limited to whites. 

Well then, again, perhaps they should find another term that doesn't immediately indict an entire ethnicity by dint of its title?  For a group that cares deeply about offending people it's curious that the left would use such an ethnically insensitive term to define anything.