When I was 25, I worked as a legislative assistant in the Missouri General Assembly.

It was a dream job, honestly.

But that dream dissipated the day the #MoLeg decided to name Rush Limbaugh as an “honorable Missourian” and place his bust in the “Hall of Famous Missourians.”

1/

The Hall of Famous Missourians sits in the Missouri State Capitol.

There are busts of Mark Twain, Dred Scott, Josephine Baker, Harry Truman and other legends of history.

The day I learned Rush Limbaugh would join their ranks, I thought it was a joke.

2/
We received phone calls from constituents appalled that Missouri would honor a man who had become infamous that year for calling a college student a “slut.”

And who just that week had continued spreading the racist birtherism lie about our then-President, Barack Obama.

3/
What I learned that day is that it wasn’t *despite* his racism, but because of it that he received this award.

It’s because he created a universe where it was permissible to lynch with language America’s first black President.

4/
Several State Representatives and their staffers intended to protest the vote and the selection.

By the time we made it to the doors of the House Floor, we weren’t allowed in. It was Republicans only. The doors were locked and secured by the Highway Patrol.

5/
There had been contentious fights before. Debates over important issues happened frequently.

It was highly unusual.

We learned later—it was an “invitation only” event. And despite being elected officials, Democratic State Reps didn’t make the cut.

6/
In fact, part of the reason for the mobilization by staff was that constituents couldn’t be here—and that’s because the entire event was kept under wraps until about an hour before it happened.

They intended to give Rush Limbaugh this great honor in darkness.

7/
Later—because I was not willing to fight the armed guard at the door—I learned that Limbaugh said this:

"They literally are deranged, our friends, so-called friends on the other side of the aisle, are deranged...” in response to the vehement protest against him that day.

8/
The Missouri Republicans forced him on us, against our will, without our knowledge or consent.

And they giggled while they did it. Proud of their superiority. Proud of the force they could exert.

That’s what I remember about Rush Limbaugh.

He empowered + encouraged hate.

9/9

More from Lindsey Simmons

Dear Senator Hawley's Staff--

I'm sure you're loyal to your boss, but this man incited violence and you helped him. There is no "following orders" defense that will save you. You are part of this now.

And it is so much more serious than him simply "raising concerns."

🧵


Prior to November 3rd, Joshua had nothing to say about Pennsylvania's vote by mail legislation.

2/


In fact, Joshua didn't have squat to say about election integrity either.

3/


By November 4th, when it was apparent that Trump would likely lose the election, Joshua--as a sitting US Senator--started tweeting out that Michigan was hiding secrets from the public.

Sowing doubt. Fanning the flames.

4/


So Joshua started this fake call for election integrity--a call he'd never made before.

At first he threw the whole kitchen sink out there--BigTech, ballot harvesting, poll watchers, counting, etc.

Sowing doubt. Fanning the flames.

5/

More from Society

You May Also Like

Trending news of The Rock's daughter Simone Johnson's announcing her new Stage Name is breaking our Versus tool because "Wrestling Name" isn't in our database!

Here's the most useful #Factualist comparison pages #Thread 🧵


What is the difference between “pseudonym” and “stage name?”

Pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie stars,” while stage name is “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”

https://t.co/hT5XPkTepy #english #wiki #wikidiff

People also found this comparison helpful:

Alias #versus Stage Name: What’s the difference?

Alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while stage name means “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”

https://t.co/Kf7uVKekMd #Etymology #words

Another common #question:

What is the difference between “alias” and “pseudonym?”

As nouns alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie

Here is a very basic #comparison: "Name versus Stage Name"

As #nouns, the difference is that name means “any nounal word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing,” but stage name means “the pseudonym of an
So the cryptocurrency industry has basically two products, one which is relatively benign and doesn't have product market fit, and one which is malignant and does. The industry has a weird superposition of understanding this fact and (strategically?) not understanding it.


The benign product is sovereign programmable money, which is historically a niche interest of folks with a relatively clustered set of beliefs about the state, the literary merit of Snow Crash, and the utility of gold to the modern economy.

This product has narrow appeal and, accordingly, is worth about as much as everything else on a 486 sitting in someone's basement is worth.

The other product is investment scams, which have approximately the best product market fit of anything produced by humans. In no age, in no country, in no city, at no level of sophistication do people consistently say "Actually I would prefer not to get money for nothing."

This product needs the exchanges like they need oxygen, because the value of it is directly tied to having payment rails to move real currency into the ecosystem and some jurisdictional and regulatory legerdemain to stay one step ahead of the banhammer.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?