I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the right ferociously defend Limbaugh during that scandal? Is it fair to insist that the left throw its people to the wolves during an embarrassing moment while the right is apparently allowed to close ranks?
I don't think a party closing ranks or supporting one of its own through a scandal can be viewed as a double standard, since it's just standard practice for both parties at this point.
Also, isn't Hustler a known peddler of smut in the first place? I mean, I guess some people would say the same about Limbaugh, but he's at least posing as a serious source of social commentary, which means he has to hold himself to a slightly higher standard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Crashing00-It depends on your definition of defend. If you mean condoning or supporting then NO, if you mean pointing out the hypocrisy and absurdity of the lefts attack on him and then calling Rush an idiot and distancing yourself from him then Yes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the right ferociously defend Limbaugh during that scandal? Is it fair to insist that the left throw its people to the wolves during an embarrassing moment while the right is apparently allowed to close ranks?
I don't recall anyone actually actively defending Limbaugh during the Sandra Fluke fiasco. Most sensible Republicans actually distanced themselves from him.
Doesn't change the fact that it reflects badly for the left wing when they viciously defend one of their own, and ignore even worse acts of sexism against another woman simply because of her political ideology.
I don't think a party closing ranks or supporting one of its own through a scandal can be viewed as a double standard, since it's just standard practice for both parties at this point.
It's not really standard practice. Often, when a member of the right wing ****s up...he gets tossed under the bus. And if he survives that, he can pretty much count on not getting re-elected again. The left wing is the one that tries to keep it's people in power regardless of what they do wrong.
Case in point: Dan Crane and Gerry Studds. Both were Congressmen who were censured in 1983 by the House of Representatives for engaging in underage sexual relations with 17 year old pages in 1983. Dan Crane was a Republican Representative who had sex with a 17 year old female. Gerry Studds was a Democrat who had sex with a 17 year old male.
Dan Crane lost re-election in 1985 after his censure.
Gerry Studds was re-elected six more times, eventually retiring in 1997. Following his censure, he received a standing ovation from his constituents.
Also, isn't Hustler a known peddler of smut in the first place? I mean, I guess some people would say the same about Limbaugh, but he's at least posing as a serious source of social commentary, which means he has to hold himself to a slightly higher standard.
There is a difference between what Hustler typically peddles, and this. What Hustler typically peddles is willfully engaged in by the females. This wasn't willful engagement - it is an artificially altered image. How would you feel if a similar image appeared on the Internet of your mother/sister/wife/fiancee/girlfriend/whatever? S.E. Cupp never gave her consent for a visual representation of herself to be used in that fashion, and it is (at minimum) at least as irreprehensible as what Rush said about Sandra Fluke.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
What I don't see is that liberal politicians have any particular reason to speak out against it unless they're asked specifically.
Rush Limbaugh is a popular conservative figure, and many Republican politicians have had association with him over the years, he speaks at events for conservatives, etc. etc.
Hustler carries no weight in liberal circles. It is not a magazine of liberal thought. Democratic politicians do not seek Hustler's endorsement nor do they go to liberal events to hear representatives of Hustler speak.
Just because a conservative is attacked by a porn magazine doesn't mean that anyone liberal should have to release a statement about it.
Certainly no more than I would expect conservatives to release statements if a well-known liberal celebrity like Angelina Jolie had a similar stunt pulled against her (even if the accompanying text mentioned her liberalism).
Why isn't Hustler being attacked by Obama? Because Hustler doesn't matter for **** in politics, that's why. Not because they condone the attack on SE Cupp, but because what Hustler does is just generally irrelevant to politics.
I don't recall anyone actually actively defending Limbaugh during the Sandra Fluke fiasco. Most sensible Republicans actually distanced themselves from him.
I'll defer to you, because my memory is hazy on the subject. To me it was just another stupid thing Limbaugh had said and I didn't pay much attention to the inevitable fallout. I do, however, remember that around the same time, Bill O'Reilly also equated the desire for universal availability of birth control with a supposed desire amongst young women for American taxpayers to "pay them to have sex." He stopped short of actually slandering a specific individual like Limbaugh did, but if that's not complete agreement in principle with Limbaugh's view then I don't know what is.
It seems to me that that's exactly what the right, or at least the portion of the right that constitutes the base audience of Limbaugh and O'Reilly, actually thinks -- so why should they be ashamed to say it? If they did turn on each other, and I'll just take your word that they did, I disagree with that course of action. Why falsely distance yourself from someone who really believes exactly as you do?
A hollow apology from Limbaugh is less than meaningless. We all know that he actually still thinks of Sandra Fluke as a prostitute who wishes to be paid with public money. And he was just saying the same thing that all the other major right wing commentators were saying; he just made a poorer choice of words.
Why do we care about the theatricality of someone apologizing for something that they don't actually regret, or watching individuals and organizations heap censure on someone they actually agree with? This goes for both right and left, obviously.
Doesn't change the fact that it reflects badly for the left wing when they viciously defend one of their own, and ignore even worse acts of sexism against another woman simply because of her political ideology.
I simply do not think that historical evidence merits the charge that the left circles wagons and defends their own more than the right does. If you're just saying that defending this reprehensible behavior is wrong, then yeah, I agree. But if you're saying that one side defends more reprehensible behavior than the other, I'm not seeing it.
As far as sexism goes, I think the reason you're not seeing that charge here is that depicting this woman in a sexual context, while disgusting, is not a pressing social issue, whereas the status of women's healthcare actually is. This elevated importance causes an amplification effect which pushed Rush's sexism onto the national stage.
It's not really standard practice. Often, when a member of the right wing ****s up...he gets tossed under the bus. And if he survives that, he can pretty much count on not getting re-elected again. The left wing is the one that tries to keep it's people in power regardless of what they do wrong.
Really? How many terms has Newt Gingrich served again?
Dan Crane lost re-election in 1985 after his censure.
Gerry Studds was re-elected six more times, eventually retiring in 1997. Following his censure, he received a standing ovation from his constituents.
Not that I approve of the actions of either of these men, but I'll point out the word constituents here. This is a democracy, and if his constituents saw fit to re-elect him, then that's that. I think the real issue that you're dancing around here is that liberals (usually) believe that an individual's sexual behavior -- even if that behavior is bizarre or illegal -- does not actually have any bearing on their efficacy as a legislator; conservatives (usually) believe the opposite. (cf. Clinton)
Thus, a liberal constituency is likely not to regard a person with a sordid sexual past as unelectable, whereas a conservative constituency might. This isn't a case of hypocrisy, it's an instance of disagreement on core values.
There is a difference between what Hustler typically peddles, and this. What Hustler typically peddles is willfully engaged in by the females. This wasn't willful engagement - it is an artificially altered image. How would you feel if a similar image appeared on the Internet of your mother/sister/wife/fiancee/girlfriend/whatever? S.E. Cupp never gave her consent for a visual representation of herself to be used in that fashion, and it is (at minimum) at least as irreprehensible as what Rush said about Sandra Fluke.
Let me be clear -- I don't condone the actions of Hustler. I think they are in poor taste, probably constitute legal defamation, and they shouldn't pull crap like this.
However, Hustler defaming a single individual simply does not rise to the level of actual and pressing social importance in the way that the debate about female contraception does. If you were expecting the same kind of dogpile that Rush got, your expectation was irrational, because this just isn't as important or nationally-interesting.
If Hustler defamed someone close to me in this fashion, I'd certainly be mad about it, but I'd have no rational reason to expect Obama to speak about it or to find it on CNN.
Right... I concede the moral equivalency of Hustler's Larry Flynt and Rush Limbaugh.
Why no outcry?
Perhaps liberals simply don't read Hustler. Apparently many conservatives do. Rush probably does: "while I was reading magazines at 7-11, I picked up a Hustler magazine which i read for the articles, and leafing through it, I was shocked to find a fake photo of S.E. Cupp!!"
Lulz, Larry Flynt, the liberal version of Rush Limbaugh... ㅋㅋㅋ
So you're saying Rush Limbaugh is the equivalent of Hustler magazine? Why does he have any political clout given that you're now admitting that he is the same as a smut peddler?
So, just to be clear, the OP is trying to equivocate gender bias in a porn magazine with fewer than 500,000 MONTHLY subscribers to gender bias in a conservative talk show host with (supposedly) 15,000,000 DAILY listeners?
I think the simplest explanation is that Hustler has no real cultural and political influence while Limbaugh does.
Outrage over Hustler would be the equivalence of Global Warming activist being outraged over melting ice cubes.
So, just to be clear, the OP is trying to equivocate gender bias in a porn magazine with fewer than 500,000 MONTHLY subscribers to gender bias in a conservative talk show host with (supposedly) 15,000,000 DAILY listeners?
I think the simplest explanation is that Hustler has no real cultural and political influence while Limbaugh does.
Outrage over Hustler would be the equivalence of Global Warming activist being outraged over melting ice cubes.
So if Hustler had done the same thing, only with Nancy Pelosi or Michelle Obama...it would be no big deal either?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
So if Hustler had done the same thing, only with Nancy Pelosi or Michelle Obama...it would be no big deal either?
I don't see what difference the depicted woman's political inclinations would make. It's classless. It's from a pornographic magazine. What'd you expect?
Are you actually expecting people to argue that Hustler should only be allowed to have photoshopped images of Republicans?
So if Hustler had done the same thing, only with Nancy Pelosi or Michelle Obama...it would be no big deal either?
Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama would probably comment that they have "no comment" or maybe "disgusting" if somebody asked them directly. They would certainly not dignify it with giving it free publicity.
And really how many conservatives are actually talking about Hustler magazine and S.E. Cupp's picture? Do you hear Mitt Romney bringing it up?
And really... S.E. Cupp? She's yet another conservative teenage male fantasy, like Ann Coulter, who gets way, way too much attention for her looks in the shallow contestant pool of conservative smart hotties. If she hadn't made those outrageous comments about planned parenthood we wouldn't even know who she is.
But thanks to the Hustler controversty we all know who she is. In fact, *I* honestly didn't know who she was before this news article on the Hustler controversy.
S.E. Cupp's career will BENEFIT because of this controversy. Because thousands of adolescent young republicans will now be rubbing one out to Cupp's picture instead of Ann Coulter or Dana Loesch.
You're just giving Hustler AND S.E. Cupp free publicity with this nonsense, playing right into Larry Flynt's hands.
If this were, say, Obama passing around copies of Hustler laughing about whatsherface, then maybe you'd have an argument. But Hustler isn't exactly our secret liberal bastion where pass around all of our secret "corrupt the conservative youth" literature.
It's not? How is Rush going to explain his monthly subscription to his wife and his mistresses then?
Seems toned down from the Hustler comic of Ann Coulter getting gang-raped by republican pundits, whose orgy is then exploded with 1.5 Wile E. Coyotes of explosives.
Considering Hustler as a representative of the left is akin to considering white supremacists representative of the right. Absurd.
Seems toned down from the Hustler comic of Ann Coulter getting gang-raped by republican pundits, whose orgy is then exploded with 1.5 Wile E. Coyotes of explosives.
Considering Hustler as a representative of the left is akin to considering white supremacists representative of the right. Absurd.
The irony of this is that, while I agree it is absurd, a few people around here do have that characterization of the right.
dcartist-WOW if I were to say anything of the sort about an attractive female liberal I would be flamed into oblivion on this site. I like how incredibly sexist liberals can be as long as their target is a successful conservative woman.
dcartist-WOW if I were to say anything of the sort about an attractive female liberal I would be flamed into oblivion on this site. I like how incredibly sexist liberals can be as long as their target is a successful conservative woman.
I think only someone abjectly ignorant to Hustler's general modus operandi could be offended by this type of thing.
They've been doing similar stuff with look-alikes for years now. And altered images a la 4chan isn't exactly a huge moral jump from that. (i.e. "Nailin' Palin" and many others previous)
Heck, isn't the reason Larry Flynt got shot and put in the wheelchair in the first place because of pushing 1st Amendment originally? (I know it occurred over the same timeframe as his first big court case - forget if it was directly related, but I think it was)
Vaclav-Hustler may be smut but it's commentary is liberal propaganda thru and thru and attacking conservative woman using derogatory sexist language is hardly limited to Hustler it's just that this is the most easily recognized example of it on the slate at the moment.
Because it doesn't have to cater to, and in fact pushes back against, the religious right? I mean, its not exactly a political publication, but nobody should be surprised that it leans in favor of liberal ideology when it does express something.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't think a party closing ranks or supporting one of its own through a scandal can be viewed as a double standard, since it's just standard practice for both parties at this point.
Also, isn't Hustler a known peddler of smut in the first place? I mean, I guess some people would say the same about Limbaugh, but he's at least posing as a serious source of social commentary, which means he has to hold himself to a slightly higher standard.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I don't recall anyone actually actively defending Limbaugh during the Sandra Fluke fiasco. Most sensible Republicans actually distanced themselves from him.
Doesn't change the fact that it reflects badly for the left wing when they viciously defend one of their own, and ignore even worse acts of sexism against another woman simply because of her political ideology.
It's not really standard practice. Often, when a member of the right wing ****s up...he gets tossed under the bus. And if he survives that, he can pretty much count on not getting re-elected again. The left wing is the one that tries to keep it's people in power regardless of what they do wrong.
Case in point: Dan Crane and Gerry Studds. Both were Congressmen who were censured in 1983 by the House of Representatives for engaging in underage sexual relations with 17 year old pages in 1983. Dan Crane was a Republican Representative who had sex with a 17 year old female. Gerry Studds was a Democrat who had sex with a 17 year old male.
Dan Crane lost re-election in 1985 after his censure.
Gerry Studds was re-elected six more times, eventually retiring in 1997. Following his censure, he received a standing ovation from his constituents.
There is a difference between what Hustler typically peddles, and this. What Hustler typically peddles is willfully engaged in by the females. This wasn't willful engagement - it is an artificially altered image. How would you feel if a similar image appeared on the Internet of your mother/sister/wife/fiancee/girlfriend/whatever? S.E. Cupp never gave her consent for a visual representation of herself to be used in that fashion, and it is (at minimum) at least as irreprehensible as what Rush said about Sandra Fluke.
The difference between this and the Fluke thing, on the other hand, is rather clear to me:
Limbaugh/Fluke = Conservative talking head/Liberal woman
Hustle/Cupp = Porno mag/Conservative politician
So in the case of Limbaugh v. Fluke, it was right vs. left. In this case, it's porn vs. right.
A better comparison would be if some Liberal talking head like Matthews or Maddow disparaged Cupp.
What I don't see is that liberal politicians have any particular reason to speak out against it unless they're asked specifically.
Rush Limbaugh is a popular conservative figure, and many Republican politicians have had association with him over the years, he speaks at events for conservatives, etc. etc.
Hustler carries no weight in liberal circles. It is not a magazine of liberal thought. Democratic politicians do not seek Hustler's endorsement nor do they go to liberal events to hear representatives of Hustler speak.
Just because a conservative is attacked by a porn magazine doesn't mean that anyone liberal should have to release a statement about it.
Certainly no more than I would expect conservatives to release statements if a well-known liberal celebrity like Angelina Jolie had a similar stunt pulled against her (even if the accompanying text mentioned her liberalism).
Why isn't Hustler being attacked by Obama? Because Hustler doesn't matter for **** in politics, that's why. Not because they condone the attack on SE Cupp, but because what Hustler does is just generally irrelevant to politics.
The same can't be said for Rush Limbaugh.
I'll defer to you, because my memory is hazy on the subject. To me it was just another stupid thing Limbaugh had said and I didn't pay much attention to the inevitable fallout. I do, however, remember that around the same time, Bill O'Reilly also equated the desire for universal availability of birth control with a supposed desire amongst young women for American taxpayers to "pay them to have sex." He stopped short of actually slandering a specific individual like Limbaugh did, but if that's not complete agreement in principle with Limbaugh's view then I don't know what is.
It seems to me that that's exactly what the right, or at least the portion of the right that constitutes the base audience of Limbaugh and O'Reilly, actually thinks -- so why should they be ashamed to say it? If they did turn on each other, and I'll just take your word that they did, I disagree with that course of action. Why falsely distance yourself from someone who really believes exactly as you do?
A hollow apology from Limbaugh is less than meaningless. We all know that he actually still thinks of Sandra Fluke as a prostitute who wishes to be paid with public money. And he was just saying the same thing that all the other major right wing commentators were saying; he just made a poorer choice of words.
Why do we care about the theatricality of someone apologizing for something that they don't actually regret, or watching individuals and organizations heap censure on someone they actually agree with? This goes for both right and left, obviously.
I simply do not think that historical evidence merits the charge that the left circles wagons and defends their own more than the right does. If you're just saying that defending this reprehensible behavior is wrong, then yeah, I agree. But if you're saying that one side defends more reprehensible behavior than the other, I'm not seeing it.
As far as sexism goes, I think the reason you're not seeing that charge here is that depicting this woman in a sexual context, while disgusting, is not a pressing social issue, whereas the status of women's healthcare actually is. This elevated importance causes an amplification effect which pushed Rush's sexism onto the national stage.
Really? How many terms has Newt Gingrich served again?
Not that I approve of the actions of either of these men, but I'll point out the word constituents here. This is a democracy, and if his constituents saw fit to re-elect him, then that's that. I think the real issue that you're dancing around here is that liberals (usually) believe that an individual's sexual behavior -- even if that behavior is bizarre or illegal -- does not actually have any bearing on their efficacy as a legislator; conservatives (usually) believe the opposite. (cf. Clinton)
Thus, a liberal constituency is likely not to regard a person with a sordid sexual past as unelectable, whereas a conservative constituency might. This isn't a case of hypocrisy, it's an instance of disagreement on core values.
Let me be clear -- I don't condone the actions of Hustler. I think they are in poor taste, probably constitute legal defamation, and they shouldn't pull crap like this.
However, Hustler defaming a single individual simply does not rise to the level of actual and pressing social importance in the way that the debate about female contraception does. If you were expecting the same kind of dogpile that Rush got, your expectation was irrational, because this just isn't as important or nationally-interesting.
If Hustler defamed someone close to me in this fashion, I'd certainly be mad about it, but I'd have no rational reason to expect Obama to speak about it or to find it on CNN.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
HEY EVERYBODY! WATER IS WET! I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW! THERE WILL BE A NEWS CONFERENCE ON THIS AT 11:00.
Why no outcry?
Perhaps liberals simply don't read Hustler. Apparently many conservatives do. Rush probably does: "while I was reading magazines at 7-11, I picked up a Hustler magazine which i read for the articles, and leafing through it, I was shocked to find a fake photo of S.E. Cupp!!"
Lulz, Larry Flynt, the liberal version of Rush Limbaugh... ㅋㅋㅋ
I think the simplest explanation is that Hustler has no real cultural and political influence while Limbaugh does.
Outrage over Hustler would be the equivalence of Global Warming activist being outraged over melting ice cubes.
So if Hustler had done the same thing, only with Nancy Pelosi or Michelle Obama...it would be no big deal either?
I don't see what difference the depicted woman's political inclinations would make. It's classless. It's from a pornographic magazine. What'd you expect?
Are you actually expecting people to argue that Hustler should only be allowed to have photoshopped images of Republicans?
And really how many conservatives are actually talking about Hustler magazine and S.E. Cupp's picture? Do you hear Mitt Romney bringing it up?
And really... S.E. Cupp? She's yet another conservative teenage male fantasy, like Ann Coulter, who gets way, way too much attention for her looks in the shallow contestant pool of conservative smart hotties. If she hadn't made those outrageous comments about planned parenthood we wouldn't even know who she is.
But thanks to the Hustler controversty we all know who she is. In fact, *I* honestly didn't know who she was before this news article on the Hustler controversy.
S.E. Cupp's career will BENEFIT because of this controversy. Because thousands of adolescent young republicans will now be rubbing one out to Cupp's picture instead of Ann Coulter or Dana Loesch.
You're just giving Hustler AND S.E. Cupp free publicity with this nonsense, playing right into Larry Flynt's hands.
It's not? How is Rush going to explain his monthly subscription to his wife and his mistresses then?
Considering Hustler as a representative of the left is akin to considering white supremacists representative of the right. Absurd.
Moderator Help Desk
Sales Thread
The irony of this is that, while I agree it is absurd, a few people around here do have that characterization of the right.
Seriously though. Hustler being smut isn't news.
Moderator Help Desk
Sales Thread
I think only someone abjectly ignorant to Hustler's general modus operandi could be offended by this type of thing.
They've been doing similar stuff with look-alikes for years now. And altered images a la 4chan isn't exactly a huge moral jump from that. (i.e. "Nailin' Palin" and many others previous)
Heck, isn't the reason Larry Flynt got shot and put in the wheelchair in the first place because of pushing 1st Amendment originally? (I know it occurred over the same timeframe as his first big court case - forget if it was directly related, but I think it was)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Because it doesn't have to cater to, and in fact pushes back against, the religious right? I mean, its not exactly a political publication, but nobody should be surprised that it leans in favor of liberal ideology when it does express something.