It is difficult for me to describe how angry it makes me that society simply shrugs at the Rush Limbaugh/NFL affair.
That parasitic pieces of refuse like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and others can simply utilize fabricated quotations and bald face lies to impose their own intolerance and bigotry by making slanderous statements about a fellow citizen is an outrage; and it is an outrage that should stir to action not merely conservatives, but all people who believe in American democracy.
Quite simply none of the accusations made against Limbaugh can be defended with evidence. As someone who has listened to Limbaugh for as long as I can remember, I know the reason for this is because Limbaugh is simply not a racist. Anyone listening to him for any period of time talk about race would be well aware of that fact.
In the end, pond-scum like Sharpton know this of course. And the issue never was really "race" or "racism." It's about a greater argument: whether conservativism and conservatisms should be tolerated in American society. It's about the power of determining what thoughts are "permissible" in society. It's about oppression, intolerance, and bigotry. The issue is not about Limbaugh as a person; it's an attack on conservatives as free-thinking people. And in the macro sense, it's about all Americans who believe in freedom of thought.
I am tired of the perpetual protests and threats of boycotts against anyone who offends the sensibilities of the majority (or the organized minority); we are not a society dominated by a mob mentality. And I'm tired of the media letting (or seeking out) these high-priced extortionist destroy people's reputations and lives. And I'm tired of it being socially acceptible to malign conservatives as "bigots" and "racists" without needing the burdon of evidence; all of it occurring while those in a position to uphold and defend the ideas of a freedom of thought stand on the sidelines while a large number of people are slandered and abused.
I don't know of any public issue that has angered me personally more than this affair. I view it as an attack on me, and all people like me (defined in the only meaningful sense: in what one believes). I will be watching carefully to see how my liberal friends, and indeed all peoples who believe in protection of freedom of thought, will move to defend those who are being denied their rights.
Note: Edited for omitted words 12:06pm PST
The bullish case for Brazil
10 hours ago
Yes, Esquire, "watch closely" your liberal friends -- the fate of democracy hinges on your self-appointed guardianship.
ReplyDeleteI mean to be glib, not mean. I find it hard to believe that Rush Limbaugh -- or conservatism in general -- faces a significant threat in this country when Limbaugh still operates a widely heard talk show and has legions of fans.
Self-victimization and cries of "oppression" are frequent motifs in the conservative movement, even though they reek of whining and and are distinctly unattractive and overblown. After decades of maligning liberals and minorities for paying the race card and wallowing in self-pity, conservatives have turned the tables, happy to bandy about the R-word at every stupid provocation.
So some people don't want a multi-millionaire to buy an NFL team because they disagree with comments he makes on his radio show. I'm not sure how this translates into a thorough indictment of all conservatives, unless of course Limbaugh and conservatives are one; insult him, you've insulted them all.
Now there's a troubling thought.
No, I'm afraid I see no rights violated, unless there's a band of legislators that would ban white people -- or Limbaugh in particular -- from owning property or riding on public buses or play in integrated sports leagues. Let me know when that happens; I'll be happy to join your little revolution.
This is a shabby reply that's beneath your usual standards, Berchmans.
ReplyDeleteI said nowhere that I'm some "self-appointed guardian" of our democracy. Nor was it hard to decipher that I used "watch" as a passive verb; not some Orwellian over-seer as you're trying to imply. You're simply twisting my words so you can mock something I didn't say. And the jab at my "little revolution" is cheap for much the same reasons.
As for the rest of your comments...
What I find frustrating about your comments is that your reply is generic in the sense that it could be used in any situation. That is, no matter what the instance in question, it's an easy option to merely reply that it's "overblown," without actually analyzing the issue. Moreoever, it's more or less a slight of hand argument that you've made. You simply group this issue into a larger group of unnamed and purportedly unfounded previous pseudo-outrages, and then use its grouping with those unnamed issues to suggest that it's ipso facto true that this issue is likewise no big deal. It's a very circular argument.
I see nothing in your reply that answers the fundamental issue (or explained how I'm misperceiving the fundamental issue):
People who have no involvement in the decision making process other than their being outraged, are opposed to a citizen participating in NFL ownership based upon his conservative ideology, which they find objectionable. (All the claims of racism have been shown to have no basis in fact.*)
Is it or is it not bad to have a society where freedom to participate in the full blessings of life is only permitted to those who adhere to the approved thoughts of the mob/rulers/government/whathaveyou?
As I view American democracy, it isn't enough to say "well, you have plenty of opportunity elsewhere, so I'm allowed to discriminate on you in other areas." We are equal before the law in all areas
As for those who find Limbaugh objectionable...It's one thing to choose as an individual to decide that you will not support financially or otherwise something that you find objectionable (why for example, I refuse to ever pay money to see Michael Moore's films). It's quite another thing to try and limit the freedoms of that person because you find them objectionable. (Which is why I would never support a movement that removes Michael Moore's freedom to make movies).
People like Sharpton, et al. aren't about vigorously opposing viewpoints; they are about removing entirely viewpoints of which they object from the arena of ideas.
Since "Liberalism" claims to be about preservation of diversity, this shouldn't be a hard argument...
*I'm not going to make the argument because it's not applicable to this situation, but it's worth nothing that even if an avowed racist WERE the central figure here, it's still unjust for groups of people to enforce his exclusions from anything simply because they don't agree with him. In that instance, racism isn't illegal (so long as it isn't being used to influence business practice), much as many people seem to not realize. But again, that ISN'T the case with Limbaugh, so let's not conflate them.
Oops. In my addendum, it should say "but it's worth NOTING..." Not it's worth "nothing." That's quite a difference. :)
ReplyDeletePerhaps I didn't follow the Limbaugh/NFL affair closely enough, but I didn't see too many legal restrictions getting in his way so much as other citizens acting in private capacities.
ReplyDeleteThat's a crucial distinction, and one you gloss over when you lump "the mob/rulers/the government/whathaveyou" in the same category. If the government said Limbaugh could not own his football fantasy, yes, it's a big deal -- possibly even worthy of the "bigotry" card. But if other private citizens got in the way -- even a mob -- then, it's not such a big deal.
Take your racist-figure hypothetical: if an avowedly racist figure did want in a club, I'd think it more than fair for other citizens who disagreed with him/her to do the most they could to isolate the person. Perhaps not by passing a law, but by organizing boycotts and generally raising a hue and cry.
This puts me in mind, again, of Stanley Fish's take on the modern meaning of censorship: I think First Amendment rights are infringed upon when the government, say, restricts free speech. When private citizens do the same -- say, when a broadcast channel refuses to air a list of soldiers killed in Iraq, then it's something else completely: a private choice.
You may disagree with it, and make some valid cultural criticisms, but conflating it with oppression or bigotry strikes me as exaggeration.
Two final points: I think the Wall Street Journal put it best when they argued the whole affair was more about money than it was about race. See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704322004574475681181683914.html
And secondly, you're right about one thing: my "little revolution" was snide, but...well, I get very tickled when you work yourself up. What can I say?