Said Rush Limbaugh on his show yesterday, in a monologue his website titles "The GOP Establishment Comes Undone: Romney Pines for the Days Before Rush, the Alternative Media, and Conservative 'Insurgents.'"
It's interesting when Rush turns on new media, because often he presents himself as the original new media person, leading the way. The line "citizens in their underwear in their basements just tapping out comments" jumped out at me as I was listening to the podcast last night. That's the classic image used to diminish bloggers and other self-publishers of the internet. But, reading the text this morning, I see he's accusing people on Twitter and Facebook of fakery, only pretending to be citizens in their underwear in their basements. He's diminishing them by saying they're not just citizens in their underwear in their basements tapping out comments.
Well, that's funny, because Rush likes to act like he's just some guy thinking out loud into a microphone. He's just the "little fuzzball," alone in his little room somewhere in Florida, shuffling papers around, sharing snippets from from AP, Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, and reacting, telling you what he thinks. He's "disguised" as your extra-smart, chatty friend, watching the news with you and sounding off. He knows all about "transferring
I'm quoting him. I wouldn't say "polluted, perverted way of thinking." It's just political ideology. You locate yourself at the extreme if you look across the spectrum and see the other guy as "polluted" and "perverted." It would be nice, wouldn't it, to live in the imagined golden age when people were capable of critical thinking, because people were taught critical thinking? But in the real world, ideas and attitudes have always spread through intuitive responses to other people expressing ideas. That's the core experience of human life. One of the standard expressions that works in transferring the ideas is to convey the feeling that your ideas are sober and reasonable and the product of critical thinking and those other people are oozing some horrible disease. Ugh! Toxic! That's how Rush haters would like you to react to Rush. Don't even listen, you might catch it. And that's what Rush is saying about the foul, unwholesome liberals.
पोस्ट्स
४३ टिप्पण्या:
He's nailed Twitter cold. That service dying tomorrow would benefit society immeasurably. His description is charitable.
To compare Twitter to a sewer is unfair because sewers serve a useful purpose. Sewers take excrement away from your home. Twitter brings excrement into your home.
Does anyone actually follow twitter regularly? Aside from journalists?
I have an account so I can enter certain contests and use it if gmail or Facebook is down, but....
Of course, I may just be old.
I don't know many kids my kids' ages who use Twitter with any frequency. Most communicate via snapchat and kik on their phones.
And that's what Rush is saying about the foul, unwholesome liberals.
No it isn't. Leftism has been the dominant ideology in the media since the 1930s. It would be virtually impossible to avoid being exposed to it. Rush assumes his audience has been exposed to it; he's built a career out of critiquing that ideology, by talking every day about the words and actions of its proponents. It's only the Left that tries to prohibit mere exposure to other ideas, with its Fairness Doctrine and its trigger warnings and its celebration of censorship.
You locate yourself at the extreme if you look across the spectrum and see the other guy as "polluted" and "perverted."
I look across the spectrum and see a man celebrated as a genius for proclaiming his indifference to the deaths of police officers who were killed while trying to save the lives of innocents.
I've read that something like 10% of the users make 90% of the tweets. It's a really quick circle jerk it'd appear.
I don't know. It just seems to me that the left is more interested in inserting politics into personal interaction than the right. My facebook page was filled with life's mundane moments amongst my Midwest friends until I reconnected with my east coast college buddies. Now it's filled with political miniscreeds. I think Rush is overdoing the point.
Rush can't even.
Rush is tedious sometimes but nails enough media to make it worthwhile. The symmetry argument Althouse makes relies on symmetry everywhere, or else it's not symmetric.
One side's lying and the other isn't, which is sort of a symmetry breaker.
I dont' know about twitter and facebook but don't have accounts so I only see the guys I want to see. So Rush loses me there.
Rush was and remains a media Titan. He really did create the political talk radio industry, which continues to be dominated by Conservatives.
But he's wrong on 2 important things. First, the new media may or not be dominated by the Left, but so what? It's open and free. It's immensely better than the old days, where the NY Times dominated and CBS, NBC & ABC simply parroted the NYTimes. If Rush feels that Consvatives are losing the new media wars, the solution isn't to bellyache, the solution is to devote more time, money & resources towards changing the dynamic.
Second, on the policy, there is a cohort of Conservatives like Rush who believe the GOP loses Presidential elections (Dole, McCain, Romney) because its candidates aren't conservative enough. This is fallacious. Nixon was a moderate, won 2 elections. GHWB was a moderate, won 1. GWB ran as a "compassionate conservative", won 2. True, Reagan was the most successful and most conservative pol, but he had huge cross-over appeal (Reagan Democrats). Reagan was the exception, not the rule. Since the demographics of the country have greatly changed since Reagan, and since the cultural wars have been mostly won by the left, I posit that a Conservative like Reagan would not do so well today. I could be wrong, but that's what I see. The election of Ted Cruz would prove me wrong.
You may not like his style, but Rush has the substance right; SJW's and left wing political activists are using social media to spread propaganda and lies, as well as policing speech by fomenting "rage storms" against dissenters; the proverbial totalitarian "two minute hate" manifest in reality, used to attack and silence others. It's what they do; it's who they are. Nothings changed on that front.
Facebook and Twitter are designed for the low information voter.
Unless the social media get money from soap opera women, they're unlikely to work like the MSM going to the left.
The MSM needs soap opera women. They tune in every day and pay the bills with advertisers. That's what drives them leftward.
Rush might do better if he researched the universe of social media consultants (it seems to be a growth field) and got a sense of whether the typical consultant was actually any good at it and what the overall effect, if any, might be from all these desperate consultants trying to bend social media to talk about what they want it to talk about, in ways they want it to talk about it?
It would be nice, wouldn't it, to live in the imagined golden age when people capable of critical thinking, because people were taught critical thinking?
It is clear today that not only is critical thinking not taught at Universities, it is discouraged, and isn't tolerated. Alternative thinking isn't even tolerated. Critical thinking is painful and requires trigger warnings and safe spaces in case its just too much for sensitive ears.
And the best is to watch the professors act like they didn't help create the environment.
Just this week, the UWM speech police published that the term "politically correct" is now a microaggression, and the guy in charge of said department feels comfortable tweeting terms like 'rich jews'. But the critical thinkers on campus can's seem to grasp the hypocrisy and just fire the idiot.
Greer, who helped create this environment, was just Robespierre'd by her own revolutionary descendants because she's the only person brave enough to say, "hey, some dude just hijacked the woman of the year award!". And the millennial feminists are too uneducated to realize she's right.
And for this, we middle class parents get to shell out $100K for our kids to get sucked down this hole. Where's the bang for the buck? Why do you need college when you can sway this generation with 140 characters?
Rush always invites alternative opinions on his show to challenge him and engage in debate. You can't say the same of Western Universities.
"But in the real world, ideas and attitudes have always spread though intuitive responses to other people expressing ideas."
And elections prove this to be true.
I am Laslo.
"Ugh! Toxic! That's how Rush haters would like you to react to Rush. Don't even listen, you might catch it. And that's what Rush is saying about the foul, unwholesome liberals"
But even in the passages quoted that is not what Rush is saying. His point, I take it, is not that libs are toxic and no one with any sense should listen, it is that they are trying to use new media to restore their monopoly in public discourse.
"It would be nice, wouldn't it, to live in the imagined golden age when people capable of critical thinking, because people were taught critical thinking?"
It would, yes it would.
One of the standard expressions that works in transferring the ideas is to convey the feeling that your ideas are sober and reasonable and the product of critical thinking and those other people are oozing some horrible disease. Ugh! Toxic! That's how Rush haters would like you to react to Rush. Don't even listen, you might catch it. And that's what Rush is saying about the foul, unwholesome liberals"
I think the left engages in that kind of "otherism" far more than the right does (and libertarians eschew it entirely.) It's consistent with Charles Krauthammer's observation that conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil. If you're stupid, then at least there is hope of an epiphany of learning. But if you're evil, no redemption is possible, and you should be pushed aside or disposed of.
It does feel a little weird when Rush uses the same kind of rhetoric to describe the left that the left always uses to describe the right. I think that dissonance proves the point.
Talk-radio has always driven the left crazy because it's the one medium (at least in Rush's case) that's out of their control. And they've always made the same kind of complaint that Rush is making, viz., that talk-radio fans are propagandized idiots living in a bubble who need to be reached and educated.
Granting that right-wing users of twitter, facebook, blogging services, etc., have the disadvantage of being at the mercy of SJW cadres roaming the net and getting them shut down for "hate speech", it's not as if those venues can't be and aren't being used for aggressive propagation of their views, too (sometimes very entertainingly).
Of course twitter and facebook look stupid and pointless to me, I'm old.
Bay Area Guy said...
Second, on the policy, there is a cohort of Conservatives like Rush who believe the GOP loses Presidential elections (Dole, McCain, Romney) because its candidates aren't conservative enough. This is fallacious. Nixon was a moderate, won 2 elections. GHWB was a moderate, won 1. GWB ran as a "compassionate conservative", won 2. True, Reagan was the most successful and most conservative pol, but he had huge cross-over appeal (Reagan Democrats). Reagan was the exception, not the rule.
Yes, one of these things is not like the others. What explains the Reagan Democrats? Why did they vote for him and not for Bush (41 & 43), Dole, and Romney? Could it be they voted for him because he was a conservative and the others weren't?
It wouldn't be surprising if, 20 years from now, we see the big bifurcation of political power in the USA between the Libertarians and the Republicans, with the Democrats being a rump party of leftists, and the old centrist Democrats finding a home in the GOP.
Forward into the past:
"In his [1957] article 'The Two Step Flow of Communication' by Elihu Katz, he found opinion leaders to have more influence on people's opinions, actions, and behaviors than the media. Opinion leaders are seen to have more influence than the media for a number of reasons. Opinion leaders are seen as trustworthy and non-purposive. People do not feel they are being tricked into thinking a certain way about something from someone they know. However, the media can be seen as forcing a concept on the public and therefore less influential. While the media can act as a reinforcing agent, opinion leaders have a more changing or determining role in an individual’s opinion or action."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_leadership
"I posit that a Conservative like Reagan would not do so well today. "
That might be true because Reagan was hated by the left and they were incredulous that he could be elected. Now, they know he could be and would be much more agitated and aggressive about attacking him.
When Reagan ran, the country pretty well knew we were on the wrong track. Even Jimmy Carter knew it and changed some policies. That was a time of the survivalist movement with stocking dried food and planning what to do when the country collapsed. Now, too many people are so poorly educated (Possibly a strategy of the left) that they don't realize how close we are to collapse. I wonder how many realize what is going on in Europe ? The US media are certainly not telling them. I read British newspapers and sometimes German ones, like this one.
My children, three of whom are leftists, don't have a clue. The lefty three have graduate degrees and either don't know or won't admit the trouble we're in. I can't talk to them about it. I'm old, you see, and can't possibly know what is going on with the Kardashians and other important things.
I was a Romney supporter and gave more money than I usually do to any candidate because I thought he had the skill set to turn things around even if I disagreed with him on some things. Now, I think it is too late.
Rush is blowing off his listeners today with an extended book ad for the first monologue.
The only thing worse is a kid caller admiring the books.
Michael K: Now, too many people are so poorly educated (Possibly a strategy of the left) that they don't realize how close we are to collapse. I wonder how many realize what is going on in Europe ? The US media are certainly not telling them. I read British newspapers and sometimes German ones, like this one..
Whoa, Dr. M, that Spiegel piece you link is as rank a piece of leftist propaganda about the current "troubles" in Europe as any I've seen, and that's saying a lot. Granted, Der Spiegel is a tabloid and the hysterical tone is to be expected, but all of the European left/left-center governments and the European MSM want desperately to impose the narrative that what's happening in Europe is a all about a resurgence, ugly and irrational, of the always latent dark forces that led to Nazism - which of course must be responded to with the full force of legal proscription and suppression so we can all return to our nice liberal-democratic way of life. It's all those dreadful skinheads and Nazis and "extreme right-wingers", you see. (You do know what most European pols and papers mean by "extreme right", don't you? People like you.)
That isn't what's going on. What is going on is the perfectly predictable response of citizens to the grotesquely irresponsible behavior of the ruling elite, which every day seems to be more driven by outright insanity than by its usual ideology-induced stupidity and incompetence.
(No doubt reporters can find fed-up "haters" and real live thugs on the right. Those guys gotta free-lance, though. The antifa thugs seem to get a "look the other way" or explicit government support, since they're, ya know, the good guys.)
Could I ask why our Conservative brethren on this fine blog are not going all in for Ted Cruz?
The man is anti-amnesty, anti-John Roberts, and a stallwart Conservative on every single issue. And, he's real smart and articulate too!
Yet, I hear not a whisper of support for Cruz. Why is that?
" that Spiegel piece you link is as rank a piece of leftist propaganda about the current "troubles" in Europe as any I've seen, and that's saying a lot."
Oh yes. My point was that they are getting frightened that the natives are restless. The German politicians wanted this and now are very belatedly reading it is not going well.
If you want really nasty stuff, here is some. the left is starting to realize they set the haystack on fire.
Orban is clinging to a European nativism that has less historical grounding than that of European Arabs.
This is the Muslim loving left. The "European nativism" goes back more than 5,000 years but that doesn't impress the multi-culti left, here or there.
"Yet, I hear not a whisper of support for Cruz. Why is that?"
I like Cruz but he is a first term Senator and that has not worked well lately. I would prefer him for Chief Justice but would vote for him.
Its worth remembering that the only reason AM talk radio was founded in the first place was to create a parallel venue where conservatives could exercise their free speech and discuss issues that the MSM was censoring by omission.
If there wasn't such a strong leftwing media bias, Rush wouldn't exist.
If there wasn't such a strong leftwing media bias, Rush wouldn't exist.
Yesterday, I learned a new word: Presstitutes. It describes them quite well.
Critical thinking was taught to me, as a Chemist, as the scientific method of testing falsifiable hypotheses to find the best fitting explanation for the data.
Critical thinking taught in any non-STEM classroom is essentially Marxist ideology, fraught with self-criticism and denial of reality.
That might explain the problem with lack of critical thinking in the US.
Michael K: Oh yes. My point was that they are getting frightened that the natives are restless. The German politicians wanted this and now are very belatedly reading it is not going well.
If you want really nasty stuff, here is some.
Oh Jeez, that article was dumb. Another day, another "But but but Avicenna and Averroës, therefore [insert crackpot idea or policy]!" So Orban and some other fascists want to preserve Hungary's Christian, European, culture, and don't want to take huge numbers of Muslim migrants? Well, bet those ignorant haters didn't know that the Ottomans used to rule Hungary, and that Jean Bodin wrote that Suleyman the Magnificent was religiously tolerant. Game, set, and match, bigot! You have no rational argument for not opening your borders and letting your country be Islamized.
This stuff is painfully stupid but some people seem to be impressed by it.
This is the Muslim loving left.
That, and that there's an awful lot of Saudi and other oil states' dinars sloshing around and no doubt ever so subtly influencing some people's historical understanding...
The "European nativism" goes back more than 5,000 years but that doesn't impress the multi-culti left, here or there.
They're insane. These are the people who are engaged in an Orwellian wiping of Christianity from European history (there was never any such thing as Christendom; Christianity must get no mention in the part of European constitution dealing with Europe's historical roots), while at the same time insisting that Islam and Muslims have always been an integral part of Europe.
Of course Islam, Islamic thinkers, and Muslim culture have influenced Europe, and vice versa. That's what adjacent civilizations do, ffs. Along with the enslaving and the pillaging and the conquests, of course.
Of course Islam, Islamic thinkers, and Muslim culture have influenced Europe, and vice versa
That is demonstrably true.
The Holocaust happened in Europe, after all.
Listening to Rush in the 90s was wonderful. Now, not so much. Apparently, I am the enemy now, since I support "Establishment Republicans," such as Paul Ryan. I really believe I am as conservative, if not more than, Rush. But his schitck has now moved to deriding anyone who doesn't agree with his idea that 30 Freedom Caucus Republicans ought to be able to convince Obama to change his ways. He really has become a little bit delusional. Plus, I don't give a damn about his children's books.
Ah, Rush Limballs.
Leader of the very kooks that Buckley warned your dumb asses about.
The "European nativism" goes back more than 5,000 years but that doesn't impress the multi-culti left, here or there.
Apart from the last 400 years (mainly in England) and a small part of it 2,500 years ago, it had nothing impressive going for it.
They weren't called "The Dark Ages" for nothing, jackass.
yes, 'the Mirror' as usual misses the point,
http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2015-10/fluechtlingskrise-deutschland-oesterreich-horst-seehofer-csu
after all those delightful fellows who roomed at the apartment in Hamburg, Marienstraffe, turned out to be no trouble at all,
I was a Romney supporter and gave more money than I usually do to any candidate because I thought he had the skill set to turn things around even if I disagreed with him on some things. Now, I think it is too late.
Hahahahah. This, Michael K., is called a "sunk cost". Gee willikers, I sure hope that nice, poor-people-hating Romney gentleman did something useful with that cash. Maybe he bought another car elevator with it.
You are dumber than a stump. Contributing money to one of the richest people at the time ever running for president. If his money didn't save him then, then Trump's won't save him now.
Yet keep pushing a belief in money as something more important than people. Something that will SAVE AMERICA!
Get a clue, Hildegard.
Yes, yes. I think it was Christian religiosity that brought Europe out of the Dark Ages. You know. Like the kind that presaged England's own scientific and republican renaissance (AND THE SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION) when Henry told the pope to stuff it.
and the Democrats lapped up more money from the big banks, they didn't prosecute, for the subprime debacle, they even put one accessory, from that era, as Treasury Secretary, same for the hedge funds like Bain Capital, most every major corporate enterprise paid the ticket for Obama's campaign, this is how they outspent Romney 2/1
Well, McDonalds is missing its idiot. Goodnight.
Yes. And fuck you too, Mickey K.
Respond to the arguments, numbnuts. Anyone can call names. But it takes a real numbnuts like you to fail any coherent defense of your stupid opinions.
You might as well run for the nomination.
They weren't called "The Dark Ages" for nothing, jackass.
...or, as the current invading horde there calls it, "Everyday life for the last millennia".
Note: Christianity left the "Dark Ages", which were markedly better than Arab states are TODAY in terms of freedom and intellectual pursuits.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा