back to article Mass mind control artist condemns El Reg to obscurity

Mass mind control artist Rush Limbaugh has convinced millions of brainwashed Americans that The Register is an "obscure UK tech site." In the US, Limbaugh is famous for using the country's highest-rated radio program to control millions of small American minds over more than two decades. He's also famous for being "a big fat …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

FAIL

Big fat idiot

EIB - Excellence in Broadcasting? More likely "Eating Indiscriminately in Burgerland."

32
4
Linux

EIB

Execrate in Broadcasting?

11
5
Anonymous Coward

Erm.

Extremely In-Bred?

18
3
Silver badge
Megaphone

Excrement in Broadcasting.

What a fat idiot.

10
3
FAIL

RE: Issuit

EIB - Eclairs, Iced Buns and Burgers.

Without glasses on he looks rather like Fredelliot from Corrie

0
0
Silver badge

What?

But I thought you were a leading lesbian on-line magazine?

Drat!

24
0

I agree

I thought it was a specialist shop till collectors magazine.

Couldn't understand why everyone seemed to be off topic.

9
0

Ahhh good old Rush

A man whose never seen a war he didn't like - apart from Vietnam where he couldn't serve because he had to have a cyst removed from his arse.

To this day there's some question over exactly which of the two unpleasant painful excrescences was thrown away and which one got the radio show.

60
4
Anonymous Coward

hah!

"...apart from Vietnam where he couldn't serve because he had to have a cyst removed from his arse."

Too bad they didn't take his head out as well...

11
3

Re hah!

Well as he talks through his arse, they nearly did.

10
2
Thumb Up

That was no cyst

It was his HEAD

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Rush...

--"apart from Vietnam where he couldn't serve because he had to have a cyst removed from his arse."

That would explain where Glen Beck came from then

0
0
Paris Hilton

<Title> :-)

<Comments>

:-) :-)

0
4
Linux

Limbaugh

His comments were probably Oxycontin produced delusions, the drug addled gasbag.

While I was in school, using dittos (RL's, er, fans, signal their agreement by saying 'Ditto' as if this was a good thing) was a sign of mental laziness.

11
4
Silver badge

In RL's demographic...

...mental laziness IS considered a good thing.

21
3

Seconded

Seconded.

0
2

Oh dear...

I guess I forgot to add the joke icon to my previous comment: "ditto"/"seconded"? Oh well, that's life I suppose.

0
0

Oh yeah

He's that guy that suffered from ritual self abuse

8
5
Silver badge

on and on and onan onan onan

tosser

7
1
Grenade

While the danger of being accused of a personal attack

To whoever gave the thumbs down for my comment:

Did you have to get somebody to explain my comment and to sign you in to click the button?

9
6

OK

so you got the family round to help.

I mean really some of the nicest (and cleverest) people I have met have been fro the US but they have a healthy loathing for the right wing nutters

He's as bad as listening to some of the people (loosely used term) they have on CSPAN

0
0

Obscure my aunt Fanny....

Has Rush Limbaugh put a paper plane into orbit? No. Does he have a damn stupid name? Yes.

By my deeply scientific calculations, that means he can drink a huge steaming cup of STFU, to use the popular internet parlance.

26
2
Thumb Up

You are correct, sir! (@ Thomas 4)

Ahh where's that old Ed McMahon sound-byte when you need it ><

(RIP and so on)

@Thomas 4: Epic funny, sir, and highly apropos.

1
0

Orbit

No paper planes, but he regularly sent his brain into orbit on a hillbilly heroin powered rocket.

0
0
Silver badge

May I be the first to point out ...

That not all Yanks listen to Right Wing radio. In fact, I do not know anyone who admits to following TBFI ... But then, I'm located on the left side of the Sierra Nevada Range ;-)

We're not all fat, either. Nor do we all eat fast-food, in fact I can't remember the last time I ate anything resembling fast food ... Probably when I was in College.

17
4
Thumb Up

I can verify what Jake says.

I'm from Canada and I'm just 60 miles from the US border.

I can verify what Jake says. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of skinny and normal weight Americans.

51
1

I'll go along with that

I spent a couple of weeks on vacation recently with a group of Canadians and Americans and I can verify that they are not all fat right-winged red-necks. In fact you couldn't hope to meet a better group of people.

As usual, It is just unfortunate that the idiots and politicians who mouth the loudest are seen as representatives of a nation. It is also unfortunate that these idiots are driven by some twisted mental and emotional instability that make them so prominent while the overwhelming majority of good, honest folk go about their lives earning an honest living in a quiet way.

3
0
Thumb Up

Just Like....

..you could never find an american who said they voted for George Bush.

5
0
Thumb Down

74.1% Americans were overweight or obese, 61.1% Canadians

Are you sure that your perception of what 'skinny' or 'normal weight' is isn't skewed?

(data from: http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat_2.html )

1
1
Silver badge

@AC 16:18

BMI is *not* considered a reliable indication of obesity by anyone with a clue.

I am about 5'11", and weigh about 15 stone. My body fat percentage hovers around 4%. According to the BMI, I am obese with a BMI of just over 30 ... In reality, I am quite fit & healthy. I think nothing of spending an afternoon with my hooks, re-stacking the set-of-joints[1] load of Alfalfa that was delivered into the wrong location. My field hands laugh at me, because I actually enjoy the exercise afforded by re-stacking hay bales :-)

Arnold "Da Governator", in his Terminator body, is considered obese, according to BMI.

But then, "Forbes" has never been known for it's medical knowledge ...

[1] That's a double-lorry load of 110 pound bales.

2
0
Silver badge

@Norman Bates

Horseshit, Norman.

Virtually every tea-bagger is proud of voting in the Bushes, assuming they were of age.

0
0
Thumb Up

voted for BOTH

Sr. and Jr. .... I had too, the world needed Al Gore to save us from Global Warming

1
0
Thumb Up

Hahaha

I signed up just to like that comment!

0
0
Joke

@Keith T

Of course they look skinny from 60 miles away.

2
0
Headmaster

BMI works in flatland

'cos it's based on a square and people are (strangely) three dimensional.

This makes people who are short or tall have an index that is meaningless.

Also - it doesn't distinguish between muscle or fat,

So, it's a pile of crap and needs to be replace by something that has a meaning.

1
0

Not representative

Limbaugh isn't representative of America as a whole any more than any other burger-inhaling, loud-mouthed right-wing stereotype is. He just gets paid a lot more than they do and when he runs his mouth it's not just to his buddies, it's to anyone who'll tune in and listen.

Bottom line: he gets paid a lot to tell a sizeable minority of people what they want to hear. Think about that for a moment. His job is to get on the radio, be all shouty and get a certain audience demographic nicely riled up. In exchange, he takes home large piles of cash from his employer and corporate sponsors. Everything he says and does in public is calculated to achieve that end and if it helps elect people who are overly friendly to the hyper-wealthy, that's just cream on the pie for him. I'd be surprised if he truly believes half of the nonsense he comes up with, but he knows that his audience will and that's all that matters to him.

1
0
Silver badge
Go

Doesn't mind-control require minds to control?

I doubt most of EIB's demographic counts. I think the term you are looking for is "reflex conditioning" - you only need a target with a (more-or-less) functional brain-stem (or equivalent) for that.

19
3

putting out fire with gasoline

What kind of external stimulus do you think conditions such a reflex ? Inflamatory attitudes like that do not help.

If the tone of this radio figurehead is anti-intellectual it is partly because pseudo-intellects frequently denigrate his listeners. Those people are to some extent seeking solace. Not that I support the show - I have never heard it as I don't live in the US - merely to shift part of the blame for the show's popularity to critics like LaeMing.

2
16

@henchan

I think you're wrong. Critics like LawMing aren't the problem; anti-intellectualism is the problem. If you try to please everyone all the time you will inevitably fail. In what universe then should we focus our attentions on attempting to please the lowest common denominator? We are talking about individuals that are more fiercely governed by group dynamics than individual analysis of the world around them.

If through genetics you were born with a decreased intellectual capacity then I understand a lack of desire to engage in a cerebral job. I have met individuals who fall into this category; in my experience they nearly universally respect intellectual endeavours despite not being gifted enough to participate. Lack of intellectual capacity is simply not an excuse; even with reduced processing power you can overcome your default emotional reactions to stimulus enough to attempt critical analysis. If you yourself are not capable of such analysis on your own you should seek answers from those who make their living doing so.

No, the sorts of people who form Rush Limbaugh’s audience are those who have made a conscious choice to reject principals such as logic, rational thinking and consideration of consequences. These are individuals who have made the conscious choice to think with their “gut” – to pursue instinctual responses above all else and allow their emotions to determine everything.

You cannot reason with these people; they have rejected it. To pander to them is to abandon everything that has allowed our society to climb (barely) past the feudal stages and develop science, technology and modern ethics. It is thanks to planning, logic, reason and science that we have increased literacy to encompass nearly the totality of the population of western countries. It is because we have learned to suppress our emotions enough to make rational decisions that we have stopped spamming babies, begun to eliminate racism and made huge inroads into gender and sexual equality.

I don’t have a solution for dealing with these people; in my personal experience it is nearly impossible. They are human beings…they deserve at least the basic considerations outlined in the UDHR…but by rejecting nearly everything except emotion and instinct they are also very different from the rest of the world. Not quite wild animals…but not exactly rational individual thinkers either.

How do you recommend approaching this segment of the population? Should we allow the gut instincts of the few to guide our civilisation? Should emotion overcome reason simply because the emotional are loud?

Please do tell…how does one make everyone happy? If you can’t make everyone happy…why choose the emotional over the critical?

81
5
Thumb Up

What s/he said

Hear Hear!

3
0

ad hominem

Those in the midst of a culture war seeem least able to countenance peace sans complete victory. Those on its periphery are more apt to wonder what it is all for. Wars are invariably provoked by the other side, whilst our side is just defending basic freedoms. You indicate that you are fighting for intellectual pursuits and I don't doubt your sincerity nor do I question the actual endeavour. Where we disagree is the means. It seems to me that putting people into pigeon holes ("these people") is rarely productive. I don't believe there are any racists in the world, but that everyone: yourself and myself included is capable of racism unfortunately. Let's not go for the ad hominem. Though it may feel good, it is invariably counter-productive to the goal.

5
3
Coat

It's not so hard to make everyone happy

As long as you're willing to drug the water supply.

Chemical happiness is still happiness!

Anon- because someone, somewhere would take that for an actual terrorist threat. If you do think it's a terrorist threat, calm down, it's not. Just sit down and have a nice glass of water.

9
0

@Andy Long 1

Yes but there are millions of them and they all want Sarah Palin to be president. It's scary.

13
2

@henchan

It isn't about "feeling good." It is about recognising that the purest of ideals simply aren't achievable. You cannot treat everyone as equal because they simply aren't. The choices some people make during the course of their lives, the beliefs they CHOOSE to cling too...these can make these individuals different. You do not choose to be smart, tall, gay, or of a certain ethnicity. Even weight is largely determined by genetics, though an individual can mitigate the hand they are dealt there.

There is no reason to discriminate people based upon the parts of their lives they cannot control. If however people make the conscious choice to reject reason and embrace pure instinct and emotion…that unbalances the scales. THESE PEOPLE – and that is not meant as an ad homenim attack at all – this group or categorisation of individuals are dangerous. They are dangerous because homo sapiens sapiens is only barely a domesticated animal. Remember that domestication takes a certain number of generations wherein the more peaceful animals are mated together whilst the more aggressive are held back from propagating.

Our species has been breeding to INCREASE hostility, hair triggers and xenophobic behaviour for at least ten thousand years. (Our recorded history.) Given that we went from a prey species to the planetary top predator in just under a million years, I would venture a guess that we have been at this rather breakneck anti-domestication for at least that long.

That means that homo sapiens sapiens does not exactly have kind, fluffy instincts. We are brutal killers, rapists and closed-minded tribalists at our very core. That is who we have had to be in order to survive right up until about the renaissance. That means we have only been breeding (in some areas of this world) selecting for docile mates for a mere handful of generations. It means that “civilisation” is a bloody thin verneer over savagery in all but the most lucky of individuals.

The difference between us and animals is…we can choose to rise above this. There are a few other species on this rock capable of suppressing their instincts, but none quite so successful as us. I argue that those who make the conscious choice to do so are those who have most advanced our civilisation. There is a balance: completely repressing our instincts to the point of a Vulcan-like prudishness has problems too. We do need to eventually mate…and we haven’t reached the point where we can repress our instincts and emotions all the time without going batshit crazy.

Still, putting our xenophobic tribalism, our savagery and our aggression in a bloody box and burying it deep within ourselves is most absolutely what is required if we are to advance as a society. Down every other path lies nothing less than ruin; we have ten thousand years of history to inform of this fact. That is not to say we should be weak; the price of freedom is constant vigilance.

We can however draw our strength from our emotions and instincts without letting those same elements of our individual make ups to rule us. It is what makes us capable of acting as individuals instead of nodes in a hive mind. “Those people” is not ad hominem…how can it be? “Those people” are by and large a group entity. Ruled by communal fears and passions…the truest expression of a hive-mind our species is capable of mustering.

They may even be right…their survival strategy got our species this far. The more extreme variations of it work well for ants.

I personally however reject it. I want no part of the hive mind. I have little (if any) respect for people who willingly surrender themselves to it. I am an individual, I critically asses my environment and make individual judgements based upon the information available to me at the time. I am in tune with my emotions; I recognise they exist, and what I am feeling. I consider the emotional ramifications of my decisions, but I absolutely DO NOT Let my emotions rule my behaviour.

If you want to talk about a cultural clash or a war, then that is the only one I am interested in fighting. The cultural war of intellectualism versus instinctualism. I posit to you that instinctualists are a threat to the continuation of the society I hold dear. Instinctualists have made conscious choices to try to regress our society…to make us less than what we have struggled for millennia to become. There is a true culture war brewing here…a WAR.

Part of war is dehumanising the enemy…something I honestly try not to do. They ARE human…this clash is about the choices made by people, not about some genetic difference. (We simply haven’t diverged for long enough for that to be possible!) What it is about however is determining where our species will go from here. I do not want to fight a war, literally or figuratively. I am perfectly happy with a segregation of society. Why can’t we simply declare X countries as refuges for rationalists and X countries as refuges for instinctualists? From my standpoint their beliefs have as much a right to exist as mine…I have no desire to exterminate those PEOPLE.

The instinctualists however will not give us much of a choice: we must submit to their chosen path and belief system or be ground down into the mud. Even if we managed to segregate our societies in such a way that we managed to create refuges of intellectualism, they would come for us. If history has taught us anything it is that this particular culture has only one way to end: us or them.

I choose “us”.

20
1
FAIL

Hive mind, indeed

I find it amusing that those who claim that their opponents are champions of groupthink and display mental laziness do nothing more than espouse the collectivist and arrogant nonsense spoon fed to them by their leftist mentors.

2
24
Joke

Re: Hive mind, indeed

Oh come on - that text was created by a buzz phrase generator. The individual words make sense, but the whole is surely statistically indistinguishable from random noise.

10
0

Houyhnhnm

In my last post I used your counter-point to illustrate my ad hominem point. That was probably undeserved because actually I have been and continue to oppose LaeMing's too easy de-humanisation of people he/she disagrees with. One could even take a conspiratorial view of that post to suggest that LaeMing was trolling for the other team. No doubt Rush Limbaugh and his active followers understand that there are none so committed to the cause as the demonised. And they are not averse to some self-generated demonisation as means to an end. LaeMing's actual intent is irrelevant. My point remains that demonisation is counter-productive to achieving peace.

To one of your points, segregation is not an option. This idea reminds me of the fourth book in Gulliver's Travels in which the animalistic Yahoo are separated from the intellectual Houyhnhnm. If you read it keep in mind that it's a parody of utopian thinking in the Enlightenment.

In the real, messy world classifications are made and re-made all the time. There's effectively an infinite number of usable dimensions. Through billions of years of evolution animals' brains (including all humans' (including your definition of rational humans')) have become very effective at identifying useful dimensions for problems in their particular domain. I agree with you that rational thinking can sometimes be a useful dimension to categorise actors in our domain, but it's not not the one and only. We are all much richer, more complex and subtle than that. Acknowledging where an individual's strengths lie is a more reliable path to peace than to castigate them for their failure to meet your target on a single dimension.

0
5

@Anonymous Coward

I'm from Alberta, Canada. I grew up raised by rednecks surrounded by rednecks who vote for rednecks while talking with rednecks about things that only matter to rednecks. The local conservative party represents itself with the colour blue. If you put a pig up for office and paint it blue, we'll vote for it. We’re the most fiscally, socially and culturally conservative chunk of Canada and I PROMISE YOU that rural Alberta could give any part of America you could name a run for it’s “ridiculously right wing, fundamental Christian uber-conserative money.”

Hell friend, I grew up 500 meters south of the largest Air Force base in Canada. To the south of us was a great big collection of fields and an Army base. To the east and west were farmers, more farmers some people a-farming and more cows than you could shake a stick at. The city’s changed since then: the fields are gone, the farmers moved north a ways. The two military bases are now one: Army. The jets have all gone north too.

The point is that I was not raised by “leftist mentors.” I was in fact raised to despise leftist liberal commie pinko scum like any God-fearing North American. Even got myself engaged to a lovely prairie harpy: grew up in the middle of nowhere Alberta indoctrinated by some religiosity folks so far gone even the Baptists kicked them out of their club!

None of that brainwashing took, though. I did eventually grow up to think for myself. I loved these things called “books,” yasee. These “books” things…they opened my eyes. They showed me a world that was more than the preconceptions and CONSTANT FEAR OF GOD/TERRORISTS/LIBERALS/OMFGWTFBBQ that I have been raised with. I learned about the true history of the cold war: how Communism failed due to the greed of individuals and how Capitalism lasted only a few decades longer. I learned about Socialism and how it was a reasoned amalgam of both ideas: a free market…but regulated to curb the worst of our instinctual excesses.

I learned about the scientific method, deductive reasoning and literary analysis. I learned that just because someone is Black, Gay, Male or Female they really aren’t all that different from me. I learned that the best part of Christmas wasn’t getting gifts from others…but the look on their faces when then open yours. I learned about myself and the world around me; that at the end of the day I am truly insignificant against the backdrop of SEVEN BILLION OTHER PEOPLE. Greed enriches only the greedy whilst cooperation enriches us all.

I then found that other people in this world think as I do. Outside this narrow-minded environment there are entire populations that believe in concepts like “the needs of the many,” “analysis of consequences before acting” and “generational-scale planning.”

I was raised a conservative sir, and I reject it.

There is no such thing as “leftist mentor,” because if you are truly a believer in intellectualism instead of instinctualism then you are a believer in the concept that an individual must choose their own path. A “leftist” won’t try to mentor you in their beliefs. Quite the opposite; they’ll help you sign for a library card, encourage you to read as widely as possible* and then make your own choices.

*”As widely as possible” means reading authors from all ends of various debates. It does not mean “go to the Library and read only these authors.” One cannot make an informed choice about which path in life they wish to take if they are never shown what the alternatives are.

23
1

@henchan

I don't castigate them for failing to live up to my standards...I'm ****ing terrified of them. There is a difference. Part of being a tolerant individual is the acceptance that other ways of life are as valid as your own. Other beliefs are as valid as those you hold. Unfortunately, as with pacifism in physical conflicts, cultural pacifism only gets you erased from this world.

This is cultural WAR. There can be no peace so long as “those people” seek to destroy what I believe in. I am perfectly willing to let them cultivate instinctualism in their own corner of the world if they would be so kind as to allow myself and others who share my beliefs to cultivate intellectualism in ours.

The problem here is that this is not a belief that the majority of RL’s fanbase similarly hold. To wit: a majority would see me converted to their belief system or dead. Acknowledging that these individuals have a right to their belief does NOT mean that I should allow myself to be converted. It does not mean that I should not be allowed to raise my children such that they are exposed to my beliefs.

Peace takes two sides…and “converting the heathens to your way of life” isn’t peace.

It’s assimilation.

7
1

peace

No, peace does not take two sides. Rather it takes recognition that the whole sides thing was a false dichotomy in the first place. Reading your last post closely, apart from one or two words you might just as well be arguing from the 'opposite' point of view. Don't you think many of those whom you oppose feel fucking terrified of you and your ideas ? I expect they do. And if so, it is partly because it felt easier for you to draw a line and start attacking a position than to try to find common ground. Assimilation is a good thing in my mind. It is not one-way process.

I don't think this is any longer a fruitful discussion and I opt to discontinue it.

1
13

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums