Rush Limbaugh Dead at 70.

[laughedatbytime]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

 

Actually, and this is an old story, you've missed the point. We're discussing the irony of saying unkind things about someone after they die because you thought they said unkind things in life. It's especially ironic when there's a history of doing things at least as bad as the person you're calling "terrible."

 

Remind me of that joke with the guy from The Office?

 

That's a matter of opinion or are you going to assert something you don't seem to understand/accept as a fact?

 

Also, the explanation of why saying unkind things about Limbaugh is quite different than him saying unkind things, but you don't seem to grasp that either. Or, you don't like people pointing out how terrible of a person he was because you liked what he had to say.

 

Do you not understand what "opinion" means? Or is it "fact" you don't understand? Here's a tip: if an assertion includes something like "good" or "bad," it's generally an opinion.

 

I don't think I've actually heard a second of his show since Clinton was in his first term. But, as I've said about 10 times now, it's a little ironic watching people cheer his death and claiming it's OK to do because he said mean things about others.

 

Of course I know what opinion means. That's why I said he stated his about Kurt Cobain and others which showed him to be a terrible person. Did you miss that or wtf are talking about?

 

Saying someone is a "terrible" person is your opinion, not a fact. Did you not know that? I suspect it would not be uncommon to learn that some believe that using Nazi imagery purportedly to see how it makes people react is despicable. That's also an opinion. Neither of those is a fact.

 

This is but one reason why message board postings are often so frustrating. I was talking about what he said as opinion, and you were talking about what I said. Most of this could have been avoided. As for your last bit, at least one person here seems to factually believe that I'm a despicable person regardless of how many times I've tried to explain it. I might even lean to you believing it too as often as you bring it up.

 

I bring it up so frequently because you have a tendency to voice strong negative reactions to things people like Limbaugh or Joseph Epstein say or write, which seems incongruous to me.

 

Simple question for you. Did the use of a picture of a Nazi and the use of a rainbow/Confederate flag with swastikas on it rise to the same level of potential despicableness as years of very negative comments and opinions, often making fun of dead people?

 

Simple answer for you. The avatar and the flag struck me as going out of your way to offend someone, for no discernible reason. You say you did it to see what type of reaction you'd get. I've asked you this before but you didn't answer. I assume you didn't want people to react without conveying the reaction to you. Ideally, what was the reaction you were hoping for? I can't imagine that something a talk show host said about a celebrity would ever strike the same chord. I've made this point before. There's a difference between PC and simple courtesy.

 

I hope you're joking about including "making fun of dead people," as a negative here.

 

Honestly, I don't know that I had a specific reaction in mind. I figured some would wonder why I used that. Some might be offended, especially if they were Jewish or had Jewish people in their famliy/history, but as I've said a few times, I never expected anyone to be so offended as to then equate me with a Nazi or at least almost so. Then again, I don't get offended and maybe I expect others to be the same, which is apparently too much to ask.

 

But, some of the vitriol sent my way would likely have happened if I'd have used Mother Theresa as an avatar, imo, because some folks just aren't nice people.

 

If you don't get offended, why did you get so upset by Limbaugh and Epstein?

:oops:

[Fordgalaxy]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

 

Actually, and this is an old story, you've missed the point. We're discussing the irony of saying unkind things about someone after they die because you thought they said unkind things in life. It's especially ironic when there's a history of doing things at least as bad as the person you're calling "terrible."

 

Remind me of that joke with the guy from The Office?

 

That's a matter of opinion or are you going to assert something you don't seem to understand/accept as a fact?

 

Also, the explanation of why saying unkind things about Limbaugh is quite different than him saying unkind things, but you don't seem to grasp that either. Or, you don't like people pointing out how terrible of a person he was because you liked what he had to say.

 

Do you not understand what "opinion" means? Or is it "fact" you don't understand? Here's a tip: if an assertion includes something like "good" or "bad," it's generally an opinion.

 

I don't think I've actually heard a second of his show since Clinton was in his first term. But, as I've said about 10 times now, it's a little ironic watching people cheer his death and claiming it's OK to do because he said mean things about others.

 

Of course I know what opinion means. That's why I said he stated his about Kurt Cobain and others which showed him to be a terrible person. Did you miss that or wtf are talking about?

 

Saying someone is a "terrible" person is your opinion, not a fact. Did you not know that? I suspect it would not be uncommon to learn that some believe that using Nazi imagery purportedly to see how it makes people react is despicable. That's also an opinion. Neither of those is a fact.

 

This is but one reason why message board postings are often so frustrating. I was talking about what he said as opinion, and you were talking about what I said. Most of this could have been avoided. As for your last bit, at least one person here seems to factually believe that I'm a despicable person regardless of how many times I've tried to explain it. I might even lean to you believing it too as often as you bring it up.

 

I bring it up so frequently because you have a tendency to voice strong negative reactions to things people like Limbaugh or Joseph Epstein say or write, which seems incongruous to me.

 

Simple question for you. Did the use of a picture of a Nazi and the use of a rainbow/Confederate flag with swastikas on it rise to the same level of potential despicableness as years of very negative comments and opinions, often making fun of dead people?

 

Simple answer for you. The avatar and the flag struck me as going out of your way to offend someone, for no discernible reason. You say you did it to see what type of reaction you'd get. I've asked you this before but you didn't answer. I assume you didn't want people to react without conveying the reaction to you. Ideally, what was the reaction you were hoping for? I can't imagine that something a talk show host said about a celebrity would ever strike the same chord. I've made this point before. There's a difference between PC and simple courtesy.

 

I hope you're joking about including "making fun of dead people," as a negative here.

 

Honestly, I don't know that I had a specific reaction in mind. I figured some would wonder why I used that. Some might be offended, especially if they were Jewish or had Jewish people in their famliy/history, but as I've said a few times, I never expected anyone to be so offended as to then equate me with a Nazi or at least almost so. Then again, I don't get offended and maybe I expect others to be the same, which is apparently too much to ask.

 

But, some of the vitriol sent my way would likely have happened if I'd have used Mother Theresa as an avatar, imo, because some folks just aren't nice people.

 

If you don't get offended, why did you get so upset by Limbaugh and Epstein?

 

There's a difference between being offended and disliking what someone says or does. How would some dickhead calling a grown woman "kiddo" offend me? That makes zero sense. Being offended, unless the speaker/writer intended it to be offensive, is 100% on the listener/reader, so for a third party to be offended because of what one person said to another person, makes even less sense,

 

If I was going to offended, I would be based on what one trick pony directs toward me, but that's just his personality and it isn't offensive to me. It's actually kind of sad.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Fordgalaxy

[Rick N. Backer]

It’s somewhat ironic. A lot of people hated him for saying what they thought were unkind or insensitive things. So after his death they take to social media and say what could be perceived as unkind or insensitive things.

As I have heard some say "you have a right to free speech but that speech has consequences". He practiced the cancel culture that so many are whining about now. What goes around comes around.

 

It’s not a question of free speech. It’s about engaging in the very behavior for which he’s reviled. Seems kind of odd to me.

 

The difference is, he said the things he did based on his opinion which showed him to be a terrible person. For those who then say similar things about him, are doing so because he proved himself to be a terrible person.

 

It's kind of similar to how some here say it's okay to berate and denigrate other posters if they post something they don't agree with they think is ignorant.

 

You might be confusing “fact” and “opinion” here.

 

Not in the least, when he said Cobain was "a worthless shred of human debris", or "Jerry Garcia is just another dead doper", or "feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream", or when talking to a black caller, "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" and many, many other things, he was both expressing an opinion and making it very easy to determine what kind of a person he is.

 

For those defending him, that puts them in the same category.

 

Are you certain that's the metric you want to apply to a person's character?

 

Because some might say using a Nazi figure as an avatar on a message board or using the phrase, "touchy Jews, touchy blacks, and touchy gays," shows you what type of person someone is.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry4161256

 

And some could also say that people who suggest they do such things "just to see how people react," and then criticize the words of others said for the pretty clear purpose of getting a reaction are just being "touchy." Or hypocrites.

 

I've explained all of that, but it seems some folks can't grasp the explanations. Or, and this is more likely, you don't believe me, which is your issue, not mine.

 

But, you're trying to deflect from the subject at hand, which is that Rush Limbaugh was a terrible person, and there are many examples of that. If you or anyone else refuses to believe it, or worse, still supports him, that's a bad reflection on them.

 

Actually, and this is an old story, you've missed the point. We're discussing the irony of saying unkind things about someone after they die because you thought they said unkind things in life. It's especially ironic when there's a history of doing things at least as bad as the person you're calling "terrible."

 

Remind me of that joke with the guy from The Office?

 

That's a matter of opinion or are you going to assert something you don't seem to understand/accept as a fact?

 

Also, the explanation of why saying unkind things about Limbaugh is quite different than him saying unkind things, but you don't seem to grasp that either. Or, you don't like people pointing out how terrible of a person he was because you liked what he had to say.

 

Do you not understand what "opinion" means? Or is it "fact" you don't understand? Here's a tip: if an assertion includes something like "good" or "bad," it's generally an opinion.

 

I don't think I've actually heard a second of his show since Clinton was in his first term. But, as I've said about 10 times now, it's a little ironic watching people cheer his death and claiming it's OK to do because he said mean things about others.

 

Of course I know what opinion means. That's why I said he stated his about Kurt Cobain and others which showed him to be a terrible person. Did you miss that or wtf are talking about?

 

Saying someone is a "terrible" person is your opinion, not a fact. Did you not know that? I suspect it would not be uncommon to learn that some believe that using Nazi imagery purportedly to see how it makes people react is despicable. That's also an opinion. Neither of those is a fact.

 

This is but one reason why message board postings are often so frustrating. I was talking about what he said as opinion, and you were talking about what I said. Most of this could have been avoided. As for your last bit, at least one person here seems to factually believe that I'm a despicable person regardless of how many times I've tried to explain it. I might even lean to you believing it too as often as you bring it up.

 

I bring it up so frequently because you have a tendency to voice strong negative reactions to things people like Limbaugh or Joseph Epstein say or write, which seems incongruous to me.

 

Simple question for you. Did the use of a picture of a Nazi and the use of a rainbow/Confederate flag with swastikas on it rise to the same level of potential despicableness as years of very negative comments and opinions, often making fun of dead people?

 

Simple answer for you. The avatar and the flag struck me as going out of your way to offend someone, for no discernible reason. You say you did it to see what type of reaction you'd get. I've asked you this before but you didn't answer. I assume you didn't want people to react without conveying the reaction to you. Ideally, what was the reaction you were hoping for? I can't imagine that something a talk show host said about a celebrity would ever strike the same chord. I've made this point before. There's a difference between PC and simple courtesy.

 

I hope you're joking about including "making fun of dead people," as a negative here.

 

Honestly, I don't know that I had a specific reaction in mind. I figured some would wonder why I used that. Some might be offended, especially if they were Jewish or had Jewish people in their famliy/history, but as I've said a few times, I never expected anyone to be so offended as to then equate me with a Nazi or at least almost so. Then again, I don't get offended and maybe I expect others to be the same, which is apparently too much to ask.

 

But, some of the vitriol sent my way would likely have happened if I'd have used Mother Theresa as an avatar, imo, because some folks just aren't nice people.

 

If you don't get offended, why did you get so upset by Limbaugh and Epstein?

 

There's a difference between being offended and disliking what someone says or does. How would some dickhead calling a grown woman "kiddo" offend me? That makes zero sense. Being offended, unless the speaker/writer intended it to be offensive, is 100% on the listener/reader, so for a third party to be offended because of what one person said to another person, makes even less sense,

 

If I was going to offended, I would be based on what one trick pony directs toward me, but that's just his personality and it isn't offensive to me. It's actually kind of sad.

 

I'm getting the sense that you view "offended" as being a synonym for "having your feelings hurt." I don't view it that way. I got into a fight at a bar in my 20s because someone called my friend a "n-word." My feelings weren't hurt, but I was offended. The level of anger you seem to have about Jill Biden being called kiddo, and about Limbaugh, strikes me as offense.