Subscribe via RSS Feed

Metaphor!!!!

[ 64 ] January 18, 2013 |

Oh man, this is great.

Remember back, a long long time ago. There was a man. He was me. And he said he wanted Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick in the aftermath of Newtown shootings. You know who was really outraged by this common metaphor that all sane people knows actually means “this person should be held accountable for their actions?” Michelle Malkin. All I suffered was a few death threats and various other things I’d rather not recall.

Today, Amanda Marcotte lambasted Rush Limbaugh for saying, “You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun.” Actual violence and intimidation occurs against women trying to obtain their constitutionally guaranteed right to abortion. Limbaugh and others incite people to violent actions (assisted by the high-powered assault rifles and huge magazine clips the NRA supports) against abortion clinics and abortion doctors. Ask the family of David Gunn, of George Tiller, of Shannon Lowney and of Lee Ann Nichols. So it’s far from clear that Limbaugh isn’t completely serious when he says these things.

You know is outraged by Amanda supposedly not understanding metaphor (well hyperbole technically)? Yep, Michelle Malkin.

Ugh indeed, Amanda. Anyone familiar with Limbaugh is well aware of his hyperbolic style and understands that his point wasn’t that abortions should be performed with guns; he was saying that the Left would actually care about the lives snuffed out by abortions if guns were involved.

The gall, the gall, the gall of these people.

Comments (64)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Brenda Johnson says:

    Rush Limbaugh was not being metaphorical. That’s the only thing undermining your position.

  2. Pinko Punko says:

    I think that Rush was probably using it the way that Malkin claims, but only because he is either so saturated with misogyny that it didn’t occur to him that it would appear otherwise, or that he was getting two-for-one. Of course the reality being that nobody would think about the way Malkin claims because most non-sociopaths realize that even in the hyperbole of shooting a fetus with a gun, there is no way to not kill the mother. She of course is entirely inconsequential to the argument that “Liberals hate guns so much they wouldn’t even use them to shoot fetuses, which they also hate, but less than guns”

    Nutjobs.

    • What’s weird is they keep claiming I took it out of context. I did, but only because, in my opinion, the context made it worse. He said this in response to a caller the claimed that women who get abortions—which is 1 in 3 American women—are murderers. Calling someone a murderer and then suggesting that guns be used against them in a context where violence is already commonplace is incitement.

      • Pinko Punko says:

        Yeah, for sure- their blind spot is that they are so nuts that they only see the side of it as the joke equation “what do libruls love more, dead babies or hating gunz- woldn’t you know, it’s hating gunz, nyuk nyuk!” Because the possibility of dead uterus holders is not of any of their concern.

        • I’m far from convinced that it’s that innocent. For some, maybe! My dad is a Limbaugh fan, and I doubt he’d connect it to clinic violence. But I think Limbaugh’s pretty clever and I suspect he knew exactly how to speak to multiple audiences, those who pass right over that and those who immediately grasp the connection to real world violence.

          • Pinko Punko says:

            Well I would never call any of it innocent. Total marination in misogyny is enough for me to say reckless endangerment versus say radio as vehicular homicide is still intolerable. People talking about “being bigoted against guns” is enough to let me know that the idea of a gun is so dominant in these guys minds that they could easily put some gun peanut butter in their abortion chocolate as an unhappy accident. I can’t parse Rush’s intent on this because he is a twisted sort of wretched, but I will say I’ve seen really oddball takes that are so tangential to how most people think that I never would have conceived of Malkin’s excuse until I ready it, but then my nut-sense kicked in and it so possibly true in the vein of too many wtf e-mails from crazy college conservative friends.

            • Yeah, the casual use of terms like “baby killer” is really enough to be absolutely floored at their utter lack of basic human decency. Accusing someone of murder, over and over and over again, to a crowd that has a fetish for violence and loves guns, is basically begging someone to enact a little “justice”. It’s surprising terrorism doesn’t happen more often. I wish I could say it’s because they know—as we all do—that they don’t really think it’s murder (or else they’d want legal penalties for women who seek abortion). But it’s not that. I mean, misogynists in other cultures feel perfectly fine enacting street death penalty for women they deem violators of other sexual rules, such as not wearing certain clothes or having premarital sex. I think they’re just mostly afraid of getting into trouble with the law.

              • proverbialleadballoon says:

                I don’t have anything to add; just stopped by to say that your article was the most incisive opinion piece I’ve read so far this year. No wonder they’re howling.

              • cpinva says:

                why?

                Yeah, the casual use of terms like “baby killer” is really enough to be absolutely floored at their utter lack of basic human decency.”

                it’s limbaugh’s (and hannity, coulter, malkin, o’reilly, etc) stock-in-trade. he, and they, know exactly who their audience is, and give them exactly what they expect to be given by him, and them.

                to limbaugh, it’s just a show, grifting cash from the rubes. i have no idea if he believes even half the BS he spews, but it doeasn’t matter, because it pays him millions a year to spew it. “basic human decency”, unless it brings in cash, doesn’t factor in.

        • Sly says:

          Because the possibility of dead uterus holders is not of any of their concern.

          You ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie:

          Pro-choice marchers recalled a particularly painful event last month when a woman whose baby had died en utero was coming to the [Alabama Women’s Center for Reproductive Alternatives] to have it removed. In an awful coincidence, that was the day, Watters said, when the pro-life demonstrators collected a children’s choir on the sidewalk to sing “Happy Birthday Dead Baby” to anyone driving in.

          “Will had to physically restrain the father,” Watters said, nodding to one of the men marching in a pro-choice jacket. “And by the time she walked through them, she was an emotional wreck.”

          • Anna in PDX says:

            Nice people.

          • JL says:

            I’m a clinic escort, and I have seen several situations where people coming in to get care for their miscarriages, tests for ovarian cancer, and the like, were driven nearly to tears by clinic picketers.

            A couple of months ago, I watched a young woman explain to a clinic picketer who was hassling her that her baby had died in utero, and the clinic picketer told her “Oh honey, it’ll come out on its own, you don’t need to go in there.” I am normally pretty good about not reacting to the dumb things they say. In this case I had to disguise my reaction with a faked coughing fit.

  3. Dano says:

    IOKIYAR.

    Nevertheless, one must always stand up to bullies – often they hide their weakness with bluster.

    I hope all that nincompoopery has blown over, sir.

    Best,

    D

  4. Malaclypse says:

    “You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun.”

    I have absolutely no idea what this could possibly mean, except a threat to shoot women. “Head on a stick” is an actual figure of speech. “Use guns for abortions” isn’t the same sort of thing at all, actually.

    • Erik Loomis says:

      Right–I was calling for the direct murder of Wayne LaPierre. Limbaugh was using a commonly known metaphor!!!

    • STH says:

      I saw the context somewhere . . . a caller was asking why it’s okay to abort fetuses but not okay to shoot kids (LOL AMIRITE?) Will try to dig up link.

      • STH says:

        CALLER: I think it does. It’s just terrible that 26 people died in Sandy Hook and 20 of them were children. Terrible. Very sad, coming up to Christmas. Hopes and dreams the young children had, their parents and weddings and congratulations that will never occur. However, on any given day in America, more than 3,000 children are killed from abortion, and we have no problems with that. We’re okay with that; it’s not an issue.

        You can’t spend 40 years telling people and telling children that if I make a mistake — if something comes up and this child that I don’t want is in the way of my future and the way of me graduating high school, is in the way of me going to college, is the way of me being happy, is in the way of whatever I want out of life — then it’s okay for me to kill the baby. But later on when I become a disgruntled employee, when I become an unhappy student at school because children are bullying me, then I want to eliminate them to get them out of the way? It’s the same concept.

        RUSH: Well, it’s a good point. You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun.

        http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/01/16/revenge_on_the_bitter_clingers

        • R. Porrofatto says:

          However, on any given day in America, more than 3,000 children are killed from abortion, and we have no problems with that.

          Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are not children. At least not until the IRS allows a dependent deduction for them. (At which point I’m getting a freezer full of ‘em.)

          • DrDick says:

            Nor are they in the Judeo-Christian tradition, which these whackjobs claims is the basis for their opposition to abortion.

          • GeoX says:

            And the thing is, these fuckers don’t even THINK they’re children. They’re arguing in complete bad faith (I mean, okay, duh). I will give them enough credit for having normal human feeling that I assume that most of them were genuinely horrified by the Newtown shootings. But if they genuinely believed that each of those murders was equivalent to an abortion, they would have be hundreds of times more horrified about all the abortions taking place every single day. Which they transparently are not. I have no fuckin’ idea at this point whether they’re fooling themselves and whether they genuinely think they’re fooling anyone else. I do know they’re not good people, though.

            • John says:

              Certainly the idea that Rush Limbaugh, in particular, feels empathy for fetuses is totally ludicrous.

            • brewmn says:

              I assume that most of them were genuinely horrified by the Newtown shootIings

              I assume no such thing. I assume they were much more horrified by the Newtown shootings leading to more restrictive gun laws.

              • GeoX says:

                I’m willing to believe that, aside from the hardest of the hardcore, most random anti-choicers who aren’t actually republican party apparatchiks aren’t complete sociopaths, and that their first reaction to hearing about the murders was visceral horror. Now, for the large overlap between anti-choicers and gun nuts, that clearly–for the evidence is all around us–quickly morphed into MOREGUNSMOREGUNSOMGTHEYWANTTOTAKEOURGUNS, but that doesn’t mean that they laughed off the killings right from the start. Rhetoric rarely is an exact match for visceral feeling.

                They’re ultimately bad people, sure; nobody’s denying that, but I think it’s a bit much to assume that more than a minority of them are literally incapable of normal human emotion.

          • chmsjm says:

            Unless you live in Michigan, where we now have a tax deduction for fetuses but not children.

        • drkrick says:

          I’m trying to figure out how stupid you have to be to honestly describe the current status of abortion in America as “not an issue.” I don’t think it can be done by someone who’s capable of dialing a phone without help.

    • Pinko Punko says:

      Mal, see above- Rush is playing a little game.

    • Rarely Posts says:

      I have to agree with this.

      I didn’t really think that Limbaugh wanted abortions to be provided by gun (obviously), but I inferred that his point was that if abortion were punishable by the death penalty, we’d stop abortion. Now that I think about it though, that doesn’t really seem to be what he’s saying. In fact, the more I think about it, the more this really does look like an incitement to violence, because it doesn’t make any sense any other way. Malkin’s interpretation (that liberals would suddenly care if it involved guns) doesn’t make any sense because the reason liberals would suddenly care is (obviously) that it would involve killing women.

      • Pinko Punko says:

        No, it’s not as if abortion were to be punished by the death penalty, it is as if abortion docs wanted to use guns to perform abortions, liberals would be against abortions (of course that is cognitive dissonance for liberals)- the love of killing babies and the hating of guns. This is Rush’s idea of painting someone into a rhetorical corner, in as offensive and stulted way possible. You do see some of the arguments on the internet right? This is that level of idiocy. The casual misogyny is an afterthought, though Rush’s behavior constantly endorses many meanings of that language, because he’s such a dirtbag.

  5. cpinva says:

    ann coulter will be coming out with a well footnoted book on the subject. none of the footnotes will actually have anything to do, with the item being footnoted, but no matter, it shall be a bestseller.

    grifters all, shameless and unaccountable, with idiots for audiences. one positive note, their audience is dying off.

  6. shah8 says:

    My mind is broken, I think.

    I mean, Rush Limbaugh *wants* women to be shot in the belly, sometimes. I mean, I really think he probably genuinely wants that at more times than I’d care to think. And it makes enough sense that we’d think he was being entirely serious, right up until he could be blamed for incitement of some act.

    And Michelle Malkin thinks that other people would care about abortion if a gun is involved–that’s what Rush was sarcastically suggesting? Lurking in the mind of every fetus, is the fear that some law abiding person is going to go nuts and shoot its brains out for no reason. Or is it the fear that the womb is only a temporary home? Eh, whatever. What I want to know is, don’t people who shoot at women, pregnant or not, go to jail already?

  7. Jim Lynch says:

    WTF? You sound surprised at such behavior. Why? These are the same people who advocated the unleashing of war, and who, moreover, remain proud that the United States unleashed war upon the people of Iraq. They are scum, and, if not personally bloodthirsty, endorse those who Big Lied the nation into that conflict.

    You sound like a babe in the woods.

  8. timb says:

    I suppose I will be the only to sacrifice my DISQUS profile to point this out to her screaming fans?

  9. Repsac3 says:

    You can’t expect the kind of people who went all hair on fire over your “…on a stick” thing to be the least bit consistent or intellectually honest. It was an invented nontroversy for the purposes of attacking Eric and all of us communist nihilist fascist whatchamawhozits that they seem to believe share his brain or whatever… Hardly worth taking seriously (and a serious loss of cred for those reportedly otherwise sane individuals who did… I’m lookin’ at you, URI prez.)

    And Malkintent?

    Not even with your stick…

    • Anonymous says:

      I think it is important, though, in the context of the response of others to the attempt to mau-mau Erik out of his post at URI. It’s important the next time this happens to someone (and indeed this time) to show people who don’t follow the mental hospital that is the modern right that they do not mean what they say, ever, that the outrage is fundamentally unserious, and that this is a ploy. I think that is often not understood by ordinary folk. At least, not yet.

  10. commie atheist says:

    Anyone familiar with Limbaugh is well aware of his hyperbolic style and understands that his point wasn’t that abortions should be performed with guns

    Librul professors, on the other hand, mean literally everything they say, and must be held accountable for it.

    I think someone needs to invent a term that goes beyond “double standard” and into some quantum realm of projection in order to explain people like Malkin.

  11. NewHavenGuy says:

    Ted Bundy-dishonest, that’s old news. We’re looking at a leaf here. What if there’s a tree there, or a forest? I mean, we practically have a Tim McVeigh Caucus in the House of Reps now.

    I ran into something that Omer Bartov said to Salon (“The Hitler Gun Control Lie”, Alex Seitz-Wald) that scared the shit out of me. Not a new thought by any means, but what if whatever is going wrong on the Right is a lot worse and a lot more advanced than we thought?

    Not sure of that and Jesus, I hope not. Bloody Kansas and what came out of that was bad enough. Unfortunately I think outcomes that bad might be on the table already. The Right today hates more and harder than Nixon himself did. A lot better funded too, by idiots playing Mickey and the brooms with very deep and toxic American demons. Nothing could possibly go wrong there, whew.

    I can’t wait to be proved wrong, honest. I’d breathe a lot easier.

    • drkrick says:

      I’m reading a book on the English Civil War right now. The currency of the descriptions of the “godly” who think their own piety depends on enforcing their standards on everyone around them by any means necessary is a bit unsettling.

  12. foo says:

    why does anyone care what some filipina says ? i mean, they typically don’t have a good grasp of english anyway

  13. c u n d gulag says:

    GOP POV:
    Liberals use metaphors to bludgeon Conservatives with murderous intent.

    We Conservatives use metaphors as good, clean fun.

    Liberals have no sense of humor.

    For example: When Libtards see some old lady slip on a banana peel, and get killed when a city bus rolls over her, they are appalled!

    We, on the other hand, wet and poop ourseleves from laughter!

    See, this is an old lady that DIED, and Libtards LOVE old ladies ’cause they’re on Social Security and Medicare, by slipping on a GREEN banana peel, that only some Vegan would eat, and then that Vegan littered, and the old lady slipped on that litter and was run over by a government-run public conveyance, and now, neither Social Security nor Medicare nor the government can save her.

    See what we’re sayin’ here?

    Sh*t, you gotta admit THAT’S FUNNY!!!

  14. Joe says:

    Amanda Marcotte was on Lawrence O’Donnell (Ezra Klein) yesterday to talk about Notre Dame.

  15. Bruce Vail says:

    Please stop mentioning Michelle Malkin in your posts, or I will have your head on a stick.

    Sincerely,
    America

  16. Bob in Pittsburgh says:

    Getting back to the first metaphor, I too would like to see Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick… and I was thinking about how Vlad would have done it.

  17. [...] a break from talking to his students about historical dildos to complain about death threats and defend his use of metaphorical language once again. He cited this Twitchy post as evidence of blatant hypocrisy on the part of Twitchy owner/founder [...]

    • repsac3 says:

      “Adolph Obama” – The phrase “rebuts itself” comes to mind. ‘Nuff said.

    • Patrick Phelan says:

      The thing that gets me about that title and excerpt – ’cause I am NOT getting out of the boat – is how many ‘assumed horribles’ there are there.

      “claims Rush Limbaugh incites violence”
      “accuses Michelle Malkin of hypocrisy”
      “talking to his students about historical dildos”

      …None of these are bad things, and all of them are, y’know, justified. And yet!

      Also, I hate that Chrome’s spellchecker recognises Limbaugh.

  18. Billcop4 says:

    We should all take random example from the Luther insult-generator and post them on a Malkinian site,

    WMC

  19. I just couldn’t go away your site prior to suggesting that I actually enjoyed the usual information a person supply for your guests? Is gonna be again regularly to check out new posts

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site