From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush is bad for our country
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:01:19 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) says:
>>Just a couple of notes here.  One is once and for all, Fans of Rush 
>>Limbaugh can and do think for themselves. 

>I'm sorry, I can't buy that.  the very term "DittoHead" is very suggestive
>that the person who calls himself that is letting Rush do his thinking for
>him.

    Well, I guess if this is simply a case of a fact that you can't accept 
then it's more your problem than ours. I'm a fan of Rush Limbaugh. I don't 
agree with very much that he says, and I don't consider him in any other 
light than as an entertainer whose subject matter is generally politically 
oriented.

>> If we didn't as university students we would fall into lockstep behind 
>>the political correctness of our professors.

>Oh nonsense.  I am a college grad...I have attended conservative (Rice)
>moderate (Youngstown State) and liberal (Kent State) universities, and the
>one commonality they have is that the professors really don't give a 
>damn about your "political correctness".

    Some of them don't. Perhaps most of them don't. However, I have personal 
acquaintances who really *do* care what their students think outside the 
subject matter covered in their lectures, and they occassionally mention 
their own views in class. Personally I don't think that there's anything 
wrong with it, but obviously some people find it offensive to sit in a class 
and listen to a bunch of stuff they disagree with spoken by a person who 
could theoretically pan their grades if they disagreed vocally.

>  They only care that you do the 
>assigned work in a timely manner, and that you participate.  Most 
>professors, in fact, tend to have more respect for those students who 
>dare to disagree with them, and have the guts to say so.

    I agree with this in general, but I'd say that a few of those same 
professors would be very offended if the methods the students used to 
disagree were patterned on the sort of name-calling that goes on during 
Rush's show. Basically it's the difference between civilly agreeing to 
disagree and uncivilly disagreeing and wanting to rub the other party's 
face in it.

>>  As to the term "lunatic fringe", what James meant to say is that
>>he does not consider himself either lunatic or fringe.  Neither do I.

>I think you delude yourself.  Rush has a radically conservative view of the
>world.  You embrace a majority of those views, yet you deny that you are
>radically conservative.

    What's your point? Rush may appear to be a "radical conservative" to 
you, however I would have thought that "reactionary" was far more 
descriptive and, more importantly, far more accurate. You've come up with 
a label which has lots of negative connotations, and you're surprised that 
people object to being so labelled? Martin may not be the only person who's
being deluded.

>>  In fact we had a short talk about that type of name calling and how 
>>that adds nothing to an argument.  I also told him not to sink to your 
>>level.

>He threw the first stones.  I just replied in kind.

    The best way to respond to that sort of attack is to remain firmly 
standing on the moral high ground. This cannot be accomplished if your 
response involves getting down and rolling around in the mud too. 

>Further, I think you make a grave error in equating all the persons who 
>listen to rush with those who like them.  

    Why is it a grave error for Martin to make assumptions about the mind 
of the average Limbaugh listener but not for you when you do the same thing?

>>Lighten up and get over it.

>I'm sorry, I can't afford to lighten up.

    Humans are never so poor that they can't afford to laugh. The only 
exceptions to this rule are for people who're dead or who're about to 
become that way via ulcers or heart attacks.

>  I agree with the sentiment
>that Rush Limbaugh may be the most dangerous person in America right now

    Well, believe it or not, I would agree with that statement, but you 
don't see me going around moaning about it. You should be happy that the 
arguments presented by "the most dangerous man in America" are so easy to 
refute. You should also be cheered by the fact that the most effective 
arguments against him are based in humor rather than hysteria. The main 
reason to lighten up is not to do any favors to Rush but rather to make 
your own arguments that much more palatable and reasonable.

>and as long as he has a forum to preach his hate and intolerance of all 
>that is not of his liking, and has an audience of willing followers, I 
>will continue to call that fact to people's attention.

    Excellent. Thanks for the public service, I'm sure. You have only to 
reflect at this point whether your message will be better conveyed by 
hysteria or carefully reasoned humor.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:32:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Feminism
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA