Rush Limbaugh has lung cancer
ml1 said:
DaveSchmidt said:
How so? It’s acceptance.
I personally don't accept this new definition of OK. I'm sure DS did not mean it like that. I'm sure most people don't mean it that way.
I typically text only loved ones. On MOL, I assume some benefits of the doubt that I shouldn’t. I’ll try to be more careful with OK in the future.
Limbaugh's pain won't undo the pain he caused to others. It won't reverse the damage he caused. It won't, in any real sense, amount to any sort of justice. So to be happy over it is just the happiness of seeing someone punished.
I'm not going to try and claim I don't get it. I'm not exactly upset over the news. But having an emotional reaction, and even understanding why, doesn't mean it's a good idea to indulge it. What's so galling about people like Limbaugh, Trump, et al is the joy they take in the suffering of those they consider their enemies, especially if they caused that suffering. I don't think the problem is whether those "enemies" -- real or perceived -- deserved that suffering in any sense, but rather it's that indulgence of the temptation to cruelty that's most offensive. I think we all have within us that urge to cruelty, to enjoy the suffering of those we believe deserve it. Is it merely a question of properly defining who deserves it, or should resisting the urge itself be the goal?
In a just world, Limbaugh would have to make some sort of restitution for all the harm he's caused. In a fair world, he'd realize what he's done, and take it upon himself to attempt that restitution. We don't live in that world, but enjoying his pain won't make that world any more likely -- we'll just be people enjoying someone else's pain. That buys nothing, but I think costs a lot.
Well, it happens so infrequently (for me anyway) that I don't think it costs a hill of beans. And I don't think it lessens me in any way.
I believe in punishment - and he deserves to be punished. Like few people on this planet deserve to be. So I have two choices - pretend that all is well now, and he deserves some sympathy, or not.
I choose not.
In fact, if one believes in punishment, I don't see how saying he deserves sympathy now is honest. It's simply not possible for a moral person to believe that a person like Rush does not deserve punishment of some sort. Whether the punishment is cancer or something else is irrelevant.
So the question is - does Rush deserve punishment? Yes or no?
If one believes in punishment, I don't see how one can have sympathy for the punished at the same time. At best (or worst?) you should accept it as just desserts. But sympathy can not be called for.
If you don't believe in punishment on the other hand, well, that requires an awful lot of justification, if you ask me.
Spend less time being triggered by (and more time ignoring) people you dislike.
dave said:
Spend less time being triggered by (and more time ignoring) people you dislike.
To characterize Rush Limbaugh as somebody the posters simply dislike would be as specious as defining drummerboy’s choice as the only “not sympathy” option.
The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea;
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence ‘gainst the merchant there.
— The Immoralist of Avon
Best performance by a racist: Rush pretending he didn't know about medal when the world knew by 2:30 yesterday afternoon.
DaveSchmidt said:
I typically text only loved ones. On MOL, I assume some benefits of the doubt that I shouldn’t. I’ll try to be more careful with OK in the future.
given the entire exchange we were involved in, it seemed dismissive.
PVW said:
Limbaugh's pain won't undo the pain he caused to others. It won't reverse the damage he caused. It won't, in any real sense, amount to any sort of justice. So to be happy over it is just the happiness of seeing someone punished.
I'm not going to try and claim I don't get it. I'm not exactly upset over the news. But having an emotional reaction, and even understanding why, doesn't mean it's a good idea to indulge it. What's so galling about people like Limbaugh, Trump, et al is the joy they take in the suffering of those they consider their enemies, especially if they caused that suffering. I don't think the problem is whether those "enemies" -- real or perceived -- deserved that suffering in any sense, but rather it's that indulgence of the temptation to cruelty that's most offensive. I think we all have within us that urge to cruelty, to enjoy the suffering of those we believe deserve it. Is it merely a question of properly defining who deserves it, or should resisting the urge itself be the goal?
In a just world, Limbaugh would have to make some sort of restitution for all the harm he's caused. In a fair world, he'd realize what he's done, and take it upon himself to attempt that restitution. We don't live in that world, but enjoying his pain won't make that world any more likely -- we'll just be people enjoying someone else's pain. That buys nothing, but I think costs a lot.
I've already said I'm not wishing anyone suffering. But I do think a world without Limbaugh will be a slightly better place. So to that extent I'll be glad when he's gone. And I don't see what's wrong with that. And I don't think I should pretend otherwise.
If someone wished suffering on somebody else that up to them. I don't criticize.
If there is a God and there is justice in Heaven, how many of you will criticize God for possibly imposing pain on Limbaugh? An eternal suffering that is magnitudes greater than cancer (in Christian religion). Will you say to God "I not wishing his suffering, please let him into heaven."
dave said:
Don't we file that under drama, not poetry?
Depends on whom you mean by “we.” (When I search for “quality of mercy” together with “poetry” in the Great Googly File of the Cosmos, I get half a million hits.)
I call it poetry. Also verse. Also lines in a play. You may file it as you wish.
drummerboy said:
Well, it happens so infrequently (for me anyway) that I don't think it costs a hill of beans. And I don't think it lessens me in any way.
I believe in punishment - and he deserves to be punished. Like few people on this planet deserve to be. So I have two choices - pretend that all is well now, and he deserves some sympathy, or not.
I choose not.
In fact, if one believes in punishment, I don't see how saying he deserves sympathy now is honest. It's simply not possible for a moral person to believe that a person like Rush does not deserve punishment of some sort. Whether the punishment is cancer or something else is irrelevant.
So the question is - does Rush deserve punishment? Yes or no?
If one believes in punishment, I don't see how one can have sympathy for the punished at the same time. At best (or worst?) you should accept it as just desserts. But sympathy can not be called for.
If you don't believe in punishment on the other hand, well, that requires an awful lot of justification, if you ask me.
Personally, I can't go so far as extending sympathy, but withholding glee seems achievable.
As far as punishment, I'm increasingly less sure I believe in it. Take our criminal justice system for instance. Preserving public safety I think is a legitimate goal, and if someone is likely to be an active danger to others then keeping them physically separate seems justified. And changing behavior also seems a legitimate goal. If punishment actually changes behavior, then as a means I think it's justified. But are these goals actually being achieved? Would other methods be more effective? There's a lot of evidence to suggest the answer is yes -- but a lot of resistance too because I think a lot of people actually believe there's a third goal -- punishment as an end unto itself. My own views find that to be less and less justifiable, both in the specific case of criminal justice and as a broader moral principle.
The only thing that stops me from putting into print the thoughts I have about Trump is fear of the FBI.
So in terms of reactions to news like this about Limbaugh, I'm more in sync with @ml1 and @drummerboy. Awarding Limbaugh The Medal of Freedom added gasoline to the fire.
Of course if I were going to be creative with a punishment for Limbaugh's behavior, I would press MSNBC to bring back Keith Olbermann.
ml1 said:
And I don't see what's wrong with that. And I don't think I should pretend otherwise.
I agree. Where I entered this discussion was where it was posited that there isn't anyone alive who hasn't celebrated at least one person's death.
A few of Medal of Freedom recipient’s greatest hits, compiled at Raw Story:
“Socks is the White House cat,” Rush intoned nearly two decades ago, “but did you know there is also a White House dog?” And then he held up a picture of 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton.
“Female politicians get a pass on every aspect of their appearance,” he said. “There are plenty of lard-*** women in politics, and they get a total pass on it.”
“The sexual harassment crowd,” he said. “They’re out there protesting what they actually wish would happen to them.”
“We’re male chauvinist pigs, and we’re happy to be because we think that’s what men were destined to be. We think that’s what women want.”
“My cat comes to me when she wants to be fed. She’s smart enough to know she can’t feed herself. She gets loved. She gets adoration. She gets petted. And she doesn’t have to do anything for it, which is why I say this cat’s taught me more about women than anything in my whole life.”
“Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.”
“If we are going to pay for your contraceptives,” Rush decreed, “and thus pay for you to have sex, we want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
“I love the women’s movement — especially when walking behind it.”
Horrible, horrible people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHQLQ1Rc_Js&ab_channel=man4theworld
I wouldn’t pee on this guy if he was on fire, but I don’t wish him a painful death. I think he’ll have more than enough time to think about what he’s done with his life and what he’s left behind. That’s punishment enough.
DaveSchmidt said:
I agree. Where I entered this discussion was where it was posited that there isn't anyone alive who hasn't celebrated at least one person's death.
hyperbole. So shoot me
flimbro said:
I wouldn’t pee on this guy if he was on fire, but I don’t wish him a painful death. I think he’ll have more than enough time to think about what he’s done with his life and what he’s left behind. That’s punishment enough.
I'm hoping for an Atwater- type epiphany
DaveSchmidt said:
Depends on whom you mean by “we.” (When I search for “quality of mercy” together with “poetry” in the Great Googly File of the Cosmos, I get half a million hits.)
I call it poetry. Also verse. Also lines in a play. You may file it as you wish.
Weinstein still gets his day in court. Epstein may or may not have been his own executioner. Back in the dark ages — 1989 — before cellphones in every pocket, Facebook, Twitter, Internet, streaming, round the clock cable news, etc etc, Rush appeared on the air waves. Bob Grant was his competition on talk radio. Their broadcast studio was the interior of your auto.
Grant was always angry and always talking politics. Rush was always talking about music and was very funny — SNL funny. My commute got shorter and my am listening time pretty much ended.
As far as wishing pain and suffering on someone, no way in hell. Be careful of what you wish for...
“Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.”
― William Ernest Henley, Invictus
mtierney said:
Weinstein still gets his day in court. Epstein may or may not have been his own executioner. Back in the dark ages — 1989 — before cellphones in every pocket, Facebook, Twitter, Internet, streaming, round the clock cable news, etc etc, Rush appeared on the air waves. Bob Grant was his competition on talk radio. Their broadcast studio was the interior of your auto.
Grant was always angry and always talking politics. Rush was always talking about music and was very funny — SNL funny. My commute got shorter and my am listening time pretty much ended.
As far as wishing pain and suffering on someone, no way in hell. Be careful of what you wish for...
“Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.”
― William Ernest Henley, Invictus
I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh fairly regularly about 15 years ago. He spent an awful lot of his time stoking the anger of conservative, rural white people. He would constantly tell his audience that "they" (meaning libs, feminazis, gay people, black people, etc.) wanted to destroy the audience's very way of life. In many ways he was Trump before Trump was Trump. He could have probably run for president and won, with the same constituency that Trump has.
Limbaugh really did a lot of damage to this country with his daily rants. He convinced an awful lot of people in the "real America" that the "elites" and the "libs" hated them and wanted to destroy them. Talk radio and then Fox News has made about 40% of the country perpetually angry at the rest of the country, and Limbaugh was one of the pioneers. I'm not even sure he ever really believed most of his BS, but he knew it was a way to build a loyal audience and make himself very, very wealthy.
Maybe he'll reflect on his life as he's dying and maybe he'll try to make amends for the damage he's done during his time on this planet. But I wouldn't count on it. He's a smart guy and he knows if he's to have any positive legacy it will be among his loyal listeners. A deathbed conversion won't save his legacy among the people who think he's been a malignant force in this country, and it only risks losing the love of his audience.
STANV said:
Horrible, horrible people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHQLQ1Rc_Js&ab_channel=man4theworld
seriously. how could a family movie have ever included such an inhuman scene of celebration at a human being's death?
For the record, the classification of witches is a matter of taxonomical dispute.
I don't wish Limbaugh a painful death, but a quick one might be a win-win.
https://lifehacker.com/dont-text-ok-1840037229