I have, and if what I heard a few years ago is tame, then I wonder what you're hearing today. If drug treatment or any other thing has done much to educate him and to turn him away from throwing both extreme vitriol and a revved-up, foaming audience at whoever he's attacking, then all for the better. However, the man has a reputation that will dog him for decades.
Then again, you do occasionally link to a site with the motto "Beating [targeted straw-man identity] to death with a shovel and a smile"... disturbing words, even in jest.
Rush Limbaugh- On the one hand: For the President of the United States to say "don't listen to that guy, he's the guy that makes stuff not happen" is scarcely believable. President or no, he doesn't get to pick his detractors, and if they have something to say, it's their Constitutional right to say it and other's Constitutional right to listen.
On the other hand, his opinions were indeed vociferous a few years ago, and were stated with quite a bit of vitriol. I haven't heard his show of late; but with the deference I give all men, I assume him reasonable until proven otherwise and therefore must assume that he would have toned down his enthusiasm. His passion has given him both fame and infamy, but will do him little good in this oncoming period, and I think he must realize this.
Right Wing News- On the one hand: I'm a registered Independant and my standing is just on the conservative side of being true neutral. With this in mind, reading the words "Beating liberals to death with a shovel and a smile" is indeed sickening... but not for the literal reason. It speaks volumes about the discord and stratification present in the current political climate, and makes me wonder how likely true cooperation is to ever come to pass.
On the other hand: For a site with those disturbing words posted to issue the following statement is telling indeed, when laid against the behavior of their counterparts "across the aisle":
Fortunately for those of us who don't always agree with the incoming administration, we've spent the last eight years being told the highest duty of any American (contra our new President) is not unity, but the loud and vociferous expression of patriotic dissent. It would be encouraging (as well as more productive) to see the Right express that disagreement in a more dignified and respectful manner than has often been the case on the Left.
But express it we should: civilly, dispassionately, and without resorting to cheap personal attacks or the kind of rabid emotionalism that alienated and outraged us for the last 8 years.
Summary- You're right, indeed. Rush Limbaugh knows well about polarized targets. This in no way excuses the President of the United States following suit, however. And if such a group of fixed-wing individuals as Right Wing News speaks of a necessity for calm, dispassionate oration, what does it say for those other worthies that find such a level of discussion unacceptable?
Bravo for heaping your sister in with the extremist that are on all sides of the political debate. Then you go and make a comment that just because Obama won doesn't make him the king of the Democrats while defending him here. How can you have it both ways?
I am seriously upset that you would think she is just posting things without having put some serious thought into it. I don't think she expects everyone to agree with her but to get slammed like that from her own brother, that's just low.
Slammed? Heaped in? The implication when a commentator (the type of journalist most bloggers really are) posts, quotes, or links to another's commentary without comment of their own is that they agree. To do so is to link yourself to that commentary.
Mark Steyn has opinions I can occasionally agree with, and he avoids hateful speech, focusing more on analysis and considered opinion. He tends to use news articles from (relatively unbiased) published and broadcast news media as his primary sources. I don't have a big problem with him, even though I don't see things as he does.
Right Wing News is typically written in an insulting, hateful manner. The blogger(s) for that site use some unbiased news articles, and many other sites carrying insulting or hateful rhetoric and commentary, for their primary sources. Even when I agree with an article there, I often find that I can't agree with the tone of its writing, or even more than a few specific points from that article. I avoid that site as much as I can.
Here's a test: When you read a commentary, try reading for just the emotional content therein. If you find that it is insulting and angry, and encourages you to hatred, then it probably is not a healthy thing to regularly indulge; follow up by looking for different points of view on the topic, to broaden your understanding of it. If you find instead that it enlightens and broadens you, and encourages you to fight with a good heart instead of an angry one, then it may be something to keep looking up.
*Sigh* I post things I think are interesting or have items in them I think others should see, not just stuff I agree with 100%.
I don't post long rants or essays along with links most of the time because I'm sick and tired of getting drawn into big long arguments over crap that end up with people basically calling me an idiot, a liar, or a hateful person. I'm tired of getting demonized. I don't have the energy to slug it out for the sake of slugging it out anymore.
I'm tired of getting treated as just another strawman, so I mostly don't bother to argue anymore. People didn't discuss things with me to figure things out, they shouted down the ideas they thought I represented, then yelled at me for being evil. At that point, I gave up arguing with them, and, unfortunately, discussing things with most reasonable people, too.
I don't want to give up posting links entirely. I worry about this country, after all. Even with people I think do a good job in charge, I still worry. Gotta do something, even if it's probably not all that effective. Still, if people aren't drawn into an argument, but just get a chance to read something, maybe they'll focus less on defending their turf and more on thinking over what's there.
Unfortunately, it becomes harder to focus on substance when the article being offered paints over its substance with attacks on said turf using belittlement and derogatory language.
Also, perhaps if you wish to offer an article for comment, but do not agree with the whole article and do not wish to write your own breakdown of the commentary therein, you could attach a standard disclaimer, such as "I agree with most/part/some/a little of this, but not all of it; think at your own risk."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-01-25 01:30 am (UTC)How well the man knows.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-25 01:35 am (UTC)Have you ever actually listened to his show, or are you just blowing smoke because that's what you've heard?
no subject
Date: 2009-01-25 03:54 am (UTC)Then again, you do occasionally link to a site with the motto "Beating [targeted straw-man identity] to death with a shovel and a smile"... disturbing words, even in jest.
A middling perspective.
Date: 2009-01-25 04:21 am (UTC)On the one hand: For the President of the United States to say "don't listen to that guy, he's the guy that makes stuff not happen" is scarcely believable. President or no, he doesn't get to pick his detractors, and if they have something to say, it's their Constitutional right to say it and other's Constitutional right to listen.
On the other hand, his opinions were indeed vociferous a few years ago, and were stated with quite a bit of vitriol. I haven't heard his show of late; but with the deference I give all men, I assume him reasonable until proven otherwise and therefore must assume that he would have toned down his enthusiasm. His passion has given him both fame and infamy, but will do him little good in this oncoming period, and I think he must realize this.
Right Wing News-
On the one hand: I'm a registered Independant and my standing is just on the conservative side of being true neutral. With this in mind, reading the words "Beating liberals to death with a shovel and a smile" is indeed sickening... but not for the literal reason. It speaks volumes about the discord and stratification present in the current political climate, and makes me wonder how likely true cooperation is to ever come to pass.
On the other hand: For a site with those disturbing words posted to issue the following statement is telling indeed, when laid against the behavior of their counterparts "across the aisle":
Fortunately for those of us who don't always agree with the incoming administration, we've spent the last eight years being told the highest duty of any American (contra our new President) is not unity, but the loud and vociferous expression of patriotic dissent. It would be encouraging (as well as more productive) to see the Right express that disagreement in a more dignified and respectful manner than has often been the case on the Left.
But express it we should: civilly, dispassionately, and without resorting to cheap personal attacks or the kind of rabid emotionalism that alienated and outraged us for the last 8 years.
Summary-
You're right, indeed. Rush Limbaugh knows well about polarized targets. This in no way excuses the President of the United States following suit, however. And if such a group of fixed-wing individuals as Right Wing News speaks of a necessity for calm, dispassionate oration, what does it say for those other worthies that find such a level of discussion unacceptable?
no subject
Date: 2009-01-25 06:22 am (UTC)I am seriously upset that you would think she is just posting things without having put some serious thought into it. I don't think she expects everyone to agree with her but to get slammed like that from her own brother, that's just low.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-26 04:06 am (UTC)Mark Steyn has opinions I can occasionally agree with, and he avoids hateful speech, focusing more on analysis and considered opinion. He tends to use news articles from (relatively unbiased) published and broadcast news media as his primary sources. I don't have a big problem with him, even though I don't see things as he does.
Right Wing News is typically written in an insulting, hateful manner. The blogger(s) for that site use some unbiased news articles, and many other sites carrying insulting or hateful rhetoric and commentary, for their primary sources. Even when I agree with an article there, I often find that I can't agree with the tone of its writing, or even more than a few specific points from that article. I avoid that site as much as I can.
Here's a test: When you read a commentary, try reading for just the emotional content therein. If you find that it is insulting and angry, and encourages you to hatred, then it probably is not a healthy thing to regularly indulge; follow up by looking for different points of view on the topic, to broaden your understanding of it. If you find instead that it enlightens and broadens you, and encourages you to fight with a good heart instead of an angry one, then it may be something to keep looking up.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-26 12:31 pm (UTC)I don't post long rants or essays along with links most of the time because I'm sick and tired of getting drawn into big long arguments over crap that end up with people basically calling me an idiot, a liar, or a hateful person. I'm tired of getting demonized. I don't have the energy to slug it out for the sake of slugging it out anymore.
I'm tired of getting treated as just another strawman, so I mostly don't bother to argue anymore. People didn't discuss things with me to figure things out, they shouted down the ideas they thought I represented, then yelled at me for being evil. At that point, I gave up arguing with them, and, unfortunately, discussing things with most reasonable people, too.
I don't want to give up posting links entirely. I worry about this country, after all. Even with people I think do a good job in charge, I still worry. Gotta do something, even if it's probably not all that effective. Still, if people aren't drawn into an argument, but just get a chance to read something, maybe they'll focus less on defending their turf and more on thinking over what's there.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-26 05:36 pm (UTC)Also, perhaps if you wish to offer an article for comment, but do not agree with the whole article and do not wish to write your own breakdown of the commentary therein, you could attach a standard disclaimer, such as "I agree with most/part/some/a little of this, but not all of it; think at your own risk."