I prefer to think of it as a right-wing internet personality gets dunked on for a career of being ill-informed and little more than a shock jockey. Oh and celebrating the death of Rush Limbaugh.
Rush Limbaugh finally dead!
- Thread starter Eacaraxe
- Start date
The only thing to lament is that he got to die of cancer in his home and not by the hand of the triumphant American working class as they finally liberate themselves from him and the people he represents.
To be consistent, I'd be just as happy for people to celebrate my death if i ever do harmful selfish shitty things to everyone else without regret. It's totally free game then, I would actually encourage it. It's only fair.
He used to be about the only game around for anyone in my region that wanted to hear opinions outside the bubble. I haven't listened to Rush in years, maybe decades and don't know if he compares well to so many who have come since... and the Internet. Talk radio in the 1980s was about it. But at a time when you did have an establishment that had a narrative that Rush opposed, the guy has be given some props as at least a gadfly in a time where there were few avenues to defend him if he ran afoul of the establishment intelligentsia. RIP.
It is quite honestly a conundrum, I consider myself a civilized person and opposed the death penalty, but at the same time I am utterly convinced that there are people whose deaths would greatly benefit (or at least protect from harm) the world.
Now, I'm not saying that people should kill these individuals, but at the same time I am entirely certain that were they to die the world would be better off. Thus it becomes clear that I should appreciate their passing, but at the same time it seems clear to me that I should also appreciate anything hastening said passing which I'm not entirely comfortable with.
If someone gave me the opportunity to press a switch and see Vladimir Putin die I'm not certain whether or not I'd press it, I am, however, entirely certain that should the man pass from this earth I'd consider it greatly beneficial. That creates something of an ethical quandary, if I believe their continued existence to be harmful, am I not obligated to attempt to hasten their passing from the world? But at the same time, would I be any better if I did attempt to hasten their passing?
He did religion a diservice. He gave Christianity a bad name.
You can like him all you want. Him and those that copy him are the reason I have nothing to do with the church today
I feel like there's a middle ground between mourning and celebrating, but I'm too distracted by the subplot of fact checking a book of hand me down anecdotes that is filled with contradictions in the first place.
No, it gave itself a bad name, on so many levels. He just outsourced and helped politicize a lot of the worse elements of that religion. And made millions doing it.
The middle ground is where both sides plant the mines.
I would disagree. Many parts of Christianity don't care a whit about enforcing their religion on others, go on missions to help others not evangelise, are very pro-homosexuality and trans, like to find ways to work with other religions, anti-war, pro-immigrant.
But yes, he did politicise Christianity and attacked everyone. He attacked the Christians he didn't like and won. Same with the Republicans. He tried to make his version of Christianity THE version of Christianity and that even reach me here thousands of miles away
If you honestly think christianity wasn't bad BEFORE Limbaugh, then you are deluding yourself. I mean you even said man "parts", but you must know that a LOT of parts DO in fact try and enforce their religion on others, and have actual biblical backing for that stance. It's a terrible stance, but you can't say it's not biblically accurate. The religion itself has been terrible for a looong time, people like rush just worked it in as part of their political ideology, blending it with their nationalism and bigotry, because it's really easy to do so by quoting the shitty parts of that work of fiction.
So no, christianity isn't bad because of limbaugh. Sorry, he just put a new coat of paint on the shit that was already there.
Limbaugh was a long-time alt-right radio show host who was big on promoting white supremacy (lightly veiled, of course), American military domination of the world, and a "criminals are scum" mindset (which came back to bite him when he declared there should be no leniency for drug crime, just before being charged with prescription fraud).
"We know what happens to people who stand in the middle of the road. They get run over."
And you give atheists a bad name thus completing the circle. *tips fedora*
OT: Dunno who that guy was. His name was funny though. Sounds like a party game: Rush Limbo!
Not a good idea to create a power vacuum in that particular hypothetical situation without any planned replacements, but I do agree pretty much entirely otherwise. It's only after so many nameless invisible victims of these people who should and very well do know better, that the expectation to portray respect after their highly publicised death becomes a pretty sickening contrast of injustice.
Same. My reaction is more or less this:
When Trump bites the bullet, it'll be the same reaction. Though I might do the Pennywise dance.Yeah, because I'm totally on par with an asshole egomaniac who fostered hatred and violence in millions, and milked them for millions at the same time, because I point out that religions are bullshit, and fundamentally flawed long before one radio mouthpiece monetized them. Hundreds of televangelists declaring people minions of satan, all the while demanding tithing. Fostering so much negativity. Yep, me saying religion is bad, and that I'm not sad a leech on humanity is dead, TOTALLY equivalent to that. Bite me.
Oh I wouldn't worry about Rush. If there is a God, Rush was on his shit list. And if there isn't, Rush is a rotting corpse that'll be worm food in a week or so and we never have to think about him again.