Looks like Bill Maher must be dethroned as "Rush of the Left"

[BigSkyBob]

When was Maher ever made an honorary Democratic Congressman? When was Maher ever honored with a metal bust of himself in the Missouri state capital? When did Democratic politicians have to step lightly around Maher? Rush had all those things happen to him (except replace Democratic with GOP, of course).

Maher has never and will never be the "Rush of the Left". Maher isn't even liked by a large portion of liberals.

Which ought to make it that much easier to return the donation, and repudiate his conduct. Wait, neither of these things have happened.

[BigSkyBob]

Even if this particular thing that Maher said is worse than this particular thing that Limbaugh said--which purely in terms of the words used it is, bearing in mind that Limbaugh's sentiments were worse even though his language wasn't and that this isn't even beginning to scratch the surface of the self-promoting amoral sleaze that is both men--his relevance to American politics is of course significantly lower.

Well, you are right and you are wrong. You are right that calling Sarah Palin the c-word is much worse than using the s-word, and, you are dead wrong on saying Limbaugh's "sentiment" was much worse. Limbaugh found Fluke's statement that she spent $3,000/yr on birth control to be absurd, and, his "sentiment" was to point out the absurdity of that figure by being absurd. It simply wasn't a statement of malice towards Fluke. It was meant to be taken as absurd so as to illustrate the absurdity of spending $3,000/yr for birth control. Maher's statement was purely out of malice, especially the attacks on Trig.

[BigSkyBob]

Where did idea that Bill Maher's some kind of Democratic equivalent to Rush Limbaugh come from?

There is no moral equivalence being asserted. What Maher has done is orders of magnitude worse.

...well, since there's essentially no way for me to point out everything that is just inherently wrong with this sentence, I'll just settle for calling you a cognitively-impaired Republisheep ding-dong and leave it at that.

Okay, you didn't have an answer, so you went ad hominem.

[Svensson]

Where did idea that Bill Maher's some kind of Democratic equivalent to Rush Limbaugh come from?

There is no moral equivalence being asserted. What Maher has done is orders of magnitude worse.

...well, since there's essentially no way for me to point out everything that is just inherently wrong with this sentence, I'll just settle for calling you a cognitively-impaired Republisheep ding-dong and leave it at that.

Okay, you didn't have an answer, so you went ad hominem.

Tell me, then. Just what has Maher done that is worse than, say, publicly supporting Joseph Kony and calling women who use birth control "sluts"?

[BigSkyBob]

Where did idea that Bill Maher's some kind of Democratic equivalent to Rush Limbaugh come from?

There is no moral equivalence being asserted. What Maher has done is orders of magnitude worse.

...well, since there's essentially no way for me to point out everything that is just inherently wrong with this sentence, I'll just settle for calling you a cognitively-impaired Republisheep ding-dong and leave it at that.

There is no way to point anything wrong with my statement because it is empirically true.

If you are going to criticize some people on the other side for noting that what Maher said was objectively worse and least have the basic respect for the truth not to put words in their mouths. Whether, they are right or wrong, analytically brilliant, or "cognitively imparied," or leaders or followers, I can cite example after example where they have clearly argued that what Maher said was objectively worse than anything Limbaugh ever said about Fluke.

[BigSkyBob]

Where did idea that Bill Maher's some kind of Democratic equivalent to Rush Limbaugh come from?

There is no moral equivalence being asserted. What Maher has done is orders of magnitude worse.

...well, since there's essentially no way for me to point out everything that is just inherently wrong with this sentence, I'll just settle for calling you a cognitively-impaired Republisheep ding-dong and leave it at that.

Okay, you didn't have an answer, so you went ad hominem.

Tell me, then. Just what has Maher done that is worse than, say, publicly supporting Joseph Kony and calling women who use birth control "sluts"?

Again, you case against Limbaugh is so intellectually weak that you are forced to lie. Limbaugh never accused women whom use birth control of being "sluts." He implied women whom spend $3,000/yr for birth control must have a lot of sex. While it is true that a women whom spent $3,000/yr for condoms would be having a lot of sex, most forms of birth control don't show such a correlation between cost and frequency of sex.

Limbaugh uses the tactic of using absurdity to illustrate absurdity. He found Fluke's claim that she spent $3,000/yr for birth control to an absurdity, and used absurdities to illustrate it.

On the other hand, when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a "c***" he meant it as demeaning personal attack. Objectively, calling a women a "c***" is worse than calling her a "slut," and using such language abusively is worse than using it a manner that was never meant to be taken literally.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Where did idea that Bill Maher's some kind of Democratic equivalent to Rush Limbaugh come from?

There is no moral equivalence being asserted. What Maher has done is orders of magnitude worse.

...well, since there's essentially no way for me to point out everything that is just inherently wrong with this sentence, I'll just settle for calling you a cognitively-impaired Republisheep ding-dong and leave it at that.

There is no way to point anything wrong with my statement because it is empirically true.

If you are going to criticize some people on the other side for noting that what Maher said was objectively worse and least have the basic respect for the truth not to put words in their mouths. Whether, they are right or wrong, analytically brilliant, or "cognitively imparied," or leaders or followers, I can cite example after example where they have clearly argued that what Maher said was objectively worse than anything Limbaugh ever said about Fluke.

Said or done? Even if (as I happen to agree with you on, but as I don't think either of our opinions on are really relevant) what Bill Maher said was worse, what Rush Limbaugh has done to political discourse through his words and actions, in this case and in others, is staggeringly worse than what Bill Maher has done.

Also, who the Hell made you the arbiter of what is 'objectively worse' to say, even? Are you, for instance, using a praxis that ignores the fact that Limbaugh told Fluke to make a sex tape, which rises into pretty similar territory to what Maher has said about Sarah Palin and her family? How are you so sure that oh-what-Limbaugh-said-was-okay-because-he-didn't-mean-it and not similarly defensive of Maher, who unlike Limbaugh actually does purport to be a comedian, even though he is obviously an incredibly bad and inexcusably insensitive one?

Why are we even still talking about this? What relevance has any of this to any actual issues? None whatsoever, and rightfully so, in Maher's case, other than the fact that he's a rich asshole and can donate to SuperPACs and make himself and the SuperPACs look bad. Rightfully none whatsoever, too, in Limbaugh's case, but unfortunately Limbaugh still wields a great amount of influence.

[Svensson]

Where did idea that Bill Maher's some kind of Democratic equivalent to Rush Limbaugh come from?

There is no moral equivalence being asserted. What Maher has done is orders of magnitude worse.

...well, since there's essentially no way for me to point out everything that is just inherently wrong with this sentence, I'll just settle for calling you a cognitively-impaired Republisheep ding-dong and leave it at that.

There is no way to point anything wrong with my statement because it is empirically true.

If you are going to criticize some people on the other side for noting that what Maher said was objectively worse and least have the basic respect for the truth not to put words in their mouths. Whether, they are right or wrong, analytically brilliant, or "cognitively imparied," or leaders or followers, I can cite example after example where they have clearly argued that what Maher said was objectively worse than anything Limbaugh ever said about Fluke.

Then cite them.

[BigSkyBob]

Where did idea that Bill Maher's some kind of Democratic equivalent to Rush Limbaugh come from?

There is no moral equivalence being asserted. What Maher has done is orders of magnitude worse.

...well, since there's essentially no way for me to point out everything that is just inherently wrong with this sentence, I'll just settle for calling you a cognitively-impaired Republisheep ding-dong and leave it at that.

There is no way to point anything wrong with my statement because it is empirically true.

If you are going to criticize some people on the other side for noting that what Maher said was objectively worse and least have the basic respect for the truth not to put words in their mouths. Whether, they are right or wrong, analytically brilliant, or "cognitively impaired," or leaders or followers, I can cite example after example where they have clearly argued that what Maher said was objectively worse than anything Limbaugh ever said about Fluke.

Said or done? Even if (as I happen to agree with you on, but as I don't think either of our opinions on are really relevant) what Bill Maher said was worse, what Rush Limbaugh has done to political discourse through his words and actions, in this case and in others, is staggeringly worse than what Bill Maher has done.

1) In this case, what Rush Limbaugh has done for political discourse in this country is a highly positive thing. The Left though they had bagged their white whale. Unfortunately for the Left, they were throwing stones while living in the proverbial glass house. When the moralizing is over, and the charges of hypocrisy have been sorted out, political discourse in America will be slightly more civil than it was before the eruption. That is a good thing for the American people, and, a very bad thing for those whom believe ridicule is a potent political weapon.

2) The millions of people whom listen to Rush Limbaugh have voted with their radio dials. They have a profound disagreement with you about your opinion on that subject. Why should I believe that you are right and they are wrong?

3) Right now, our political discourse includes a menagerie of odd positions such as Marxists, so-called "libertarianism," the LaRouche folk, conspiracy theorists, and fringe groups.  The reality is that whether Rush Limbaugh reflects well, or poorly, on the general level of political public discourse, they are some very poor players out there. The reality is that folks are going to have to separate the wheat from the chafe. The alternative would be particularly odious forms of censorship. It isn't an accident that what most folks consider "destructive" or "poor" political discourse revolves around offering opinions with which they disagree.

Also, who the Hell made you the arbiter of what is 'objectively worse' to say, even? Are you, for instance, using a praxis that ignores the fact that Limbaugh told Fluke to make a sex tape, which rises into pretty similar territory to what Maher has said about Sarah Palin and her family? How are you so sure that oh-what-Limbaugh-said-was-okay-because-he-didn't-mean-it and not similarly defensive of Maher, who unlike Limbaugh actually does purport to be a comedian, even though he is obviously an incredibly bad and inexcusably insensitive one?

1) It is the height of intellectual hypocrisy for you to offer your position that Limbaugh has lowered our public discourse, and, then attack anyone else from offering their take.

2) While you don't like it, I have every reason to believe that someones motivations for making a statement are part of the totality of circumstances. Anyone familiar with Rush Limbaugh knows the fact that one tactics he uses, rightly or wrongly, is to attempt to illustrate absurdities by being absurd himself. While my strong preference is for being straight up at all times, on every subject, I am perfectly able to understand the context of his remarks. His critics simply have taken his statements out of context.

3) To the extent there is a comedian's exception Limbaugh is well within it.

Why are we even still talking about this? What relevance has any of this to any actual issues? None whatsoever, and rightfully so, in Maher's case, other than the fact that he's a rich asshole and can donate to SuperPACs and make himself and the SuperPACs look bad. Rightfully none whatsoever, too, in Limbaugh's case, but unfortunately Limbaugh still wields a great amount of influence.

Again, you omit the fact that that "SuperPAC" can return that money, or donate the same amount to some charity. Until they do, the issue of Maher's donation will remain.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Thank you for numbering your points, I'll respond to them by number rather than continuing to nest quotes if that's all right with you.

A.

1. I'm not sure if it's different inside your echo chamber, but if Limbaugh has heightened the level of discourse in this case it's by acting so that the steam that he has blown off will be perceived as unacceptable in the future, since poll after poll after poll shows that he is not on the side of the American people on whether or not it is acceptable to use the language and level of argument that he did under these circumstances. If the discourse does die down and become more civil, which I agree with you that it probably will after emotions run their course on this asinine subject, it's going to be hard, to say the least, to credit Limbaugh for that in any positive sense. Limbaugh hasn't actually 'energized' or 'mobilized' anybody other than the BigSkyBobs with his comments. He certainly hasn't won anybody over.

2. Next time try to make your argumenta ad populum a little less blatant. Millions of people can listen to any old misogynistic windbag. Or watch. Millions of people watch Bill Maher, another old misogynistic windbag my characterization of whom as such you clearly agree with.

3. I agree with this in its entirety. I'm not advocating censorship of Limbaugh but I maintain the right to criticize his views and the gutter rhetoric that he uses to express them.

B.

1. I was attacking you for claiming that your take is objective, not for the fact that you have a take. I could say it's subjectively worse to call someone a slut since I know women who would be more offended by slut, but you're making of it an objective hierarchy, which I don't feel is appropriate.

2. No, I understand that Limbaugh often does that, but I understand that he's also at times entirely serious about the things that he says. Motivation and intent are certainly part of any moral or ethical judgment but they're not the only parts of it. I've had to interact with enough misogynists to come to the opinion that Limbaugh seems serious here. It's your right to not think that he is, but again, I'd question why you don't think the same of or admit of the possibility that the same is true of Maher, who has many of the same tendencies (which both you and I seem to dislike).

3. I don't actually think there's a comedian's exception in this case but I'd disagree with you that in general Limbaugh is as close as or closer to being able to invoke that than Maher is. Limbaugh is a comedian in that he is occasionally funny (maybe even frequently, according to one's sense of humor) but he has been, I think it fair to say, mainly focused on political activism over the years.

C.

It will remain but it will accrue to the SuperPAC rather than to a campaign which is not supposed to coordinate with it and whose object, Obama, opposes the SuperPAC setup and, to be quite frank, seems like he might not understand very well what he can and can't do with it. It will also probably remain a distinctly minor issue to most people who are not us, which we of course are perfectly free to like or dislike.