Skip to main content

(Or... what to say when you need an escape hatch)

"Just Kidding!"

Argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument from absurdity
In the early days of Rush Limbaugh’s radio career, he started claiming to use absurd statements and gimmicks in an effort to illustrate what he deems absurd. During a 1992 interview with Phil Donahue, Limbaugh defends his absurd statements: http://www.youtube.com/...
Following the backlash of his inaccurate and vicious statements against Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke, Limbaugh offered this explanation:
“For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, and five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.”
What does “For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity,” exactly mean?
This is an idiomatic phrase that can mean to overlay folly with folly, or overlay shame with shame. Its Limbaugh’s attempt to prove someone is being absurd by committing another absurdity. Is the phrase “illustrate the absurd with absurdity” a set phrase, or just Limbaugh special rhetoric?
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument from absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.
The "absurd" conclusion of a reductio ad absurdum argument can take a range of forms:
Rocks have weight, otherwise we would see them floating in the air.
Society must have laws, otherwise there would be chaos.
There is no smallest positive rational number, because if there were, it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.
The first example above argues that the denial of the assertion would have a ridiculous result, against the evidence of our senses. The second argues that the denial would have an untenable result: unacceptable, unworkable or unpleasant for society. The third is a mathematical proof by contradiction, arguing that the denial of the assertion would result in a contradiction (there is a smallest rational number and yet there is a rational number smaller than it).
This doesn’t seem to fit the statements made by Limbaugh. For example when he claimed that Sandra Fluke: “is asking the government to subsidize her sex life.” That was a falsehood. Then he went deeper into the mire, "What does that make her?" he asks. "It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.” This isn’t reductio ad absurdum. It is out and out slander. He slandered her reputation by making false accusations against her.
Limbaugh’s latest victim was Netflix, whom he claimed was raising rates to subsidize poor subscribers. He quickly withdrew his claim after a break, saying he was just trying to make a point. Subscribers cancelled their accounts and by the end of the day Netflix stocks were down.
It is my opinion Limbaugh’s style is not absurdity to illustrate the absurd. I believe what he does more often falls into the Straw Man Argument.
Straw Man argument
An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example:
Politician A: "We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch and further worsen the obesity epidemic by doing so."
Politician B: "What, do you want our children to starve?"

Limbaugh lures his audience in by making an over the top statement, reassembling the truth and persuades them to support his thesis.  When the truth is found out he bails, claiming he uses absurdity to illustrate the absurd. When that doesn’t work he reminds us he is an entertainer not a newscaster. It’s like the school yard tease who after calling other kids horrid names and playing nasty tricks on them says, “I’m just kidding.”

Frankly, Limbaugh we don’t find you entertaining. Your jokes are not funny.

Join:  The Flush Rush Facebook community
 Visit:  The StopRush sponsor database
 Tweet:  #stoprush Twitter campaign

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  First Amendment Parody has a large umbrella (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    palantir, Weezerr1

    unfortunately, the "low-information" dittoheads cannot distinguish between style and substance, nor between satire as criticism and parody as meta-criticism

    Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 Acedia is essentially a flight from the world that leads to not caring even that one does not care

    by annieli on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 03:13:37 PM PDT

  •  Your Last Graph Could Not Be More Spot On (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    palantir, Weezerr1, exterris, tundraman
    Limbaugh lures his audience in by making an over the top statement, reassembling the truth and persuades them to support his thesis.  When the truth is found out he bails, claiming he uses absurdity to illustrate the absurd. When that doesn’t work he reminds us he is an entertainer not a newscaster. It’s like the school yard tease who after calling other kids horrid names and playing nasty tricks on them says, “I’m just kidding.”
    That is exactly what he does. Sad but true.

    When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

    by webranding on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 03:13:42 PM PDT

    •  please note: Rush does not read; he has headers (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Weezerr1, exterris

      read to him and then he has the first paragraph of the ones that catch his interest read to him and he is off to the races,  That is why info deeper in the articles is never cited or else explains his factual mistakes

    •  Thank you so much! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      exterris

      Sometimes putting it into words is very difficult. I watched all six Phil Donahue interview segments with Limbaugh (posted in the diary) in prep for this diary. People seem to really have a hard time explaining exactly what it is they don't like about Limbaugh. Sounds weird, right? We all know why, but to say exactly what he does is hard, when he says he's just being absurd, hides behind the 1st Amend or says he's just kidding.

  •  why are we applying the rules we learned in (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    certainot, Weezerr1, exterris

    Logic 301 (Copi's Symbolic Logic was the text) when Rush never made it past his second semester and therefore even missed Phil. 201?

    His argument to use absurdity to illustrate the absurd is roughly analogous to painting a red brick wall with red paint so as to make the wall red.  If a thing is absurd, then the absurdity is self evident and needs no explication.

    However Rush, in missing Phil 201, also missed out on the definition of absurd; otherwise he would realize (or perhaps he does but thinks his audience does not) that any statement is potentially absurd when extrapolated to the extreme (to use one definition of absurd) or to realize the entire universe is absurd (to use another).

    I note that Rush is down to fewer than 50 national advertisers with local ads now carrying the weight of his show.  For a nationally broadcast show, that is absurd    

    •  Absurdity Rule: (0+ / 0-)

      The absurdity rule obliterates any distinctions that one might intuitively maintain among different kinds of inconsistent theories. It ensures that there is only one inconsistent theory---namely, the whole language.

  •  Never ascribe to rhetoric... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Weezerr1, tundraman

    what can be much more easily ascribed to misogyny.

    Judging from the Corpulent one's earlier statements.

    He doesn't use rhetoric.  He just remembers the word when he gets caught saying what he's actually thinking.

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 03:29:26 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site