So there's this: https://t.co/7Ky4RA3nkZ & receipts:
https://t.co/ScpDZ4wEPf
This is how Rush's death should be honored. Let's not speak ill of the dead, let's quote Rush speaking ill of the dead.
— Sane English (@SaneEnglish) February 17, 2021
1/ A thread of comments & observations about the death of the cackling vampire Rush Limbaugh.
My first observations in the main thread are here, but this offshoot is needed because there's been so many wise & witty things I've
37.90/ Limbaugh was a cruel hate-machine who made a fortune off hurting people. To say "don't speak ill of the dead" is the attitude of abuse enablers.
— Joshua Cypess (@JoshuaCypess) February 18, 2021
If you can't condemn a ghoul who dedicated his life to destroying society, you're part of the problem! https://t.co/ijvG2zDACH
So there's this: https://t.co/7Ky4RA3nkZ & receipts:
https://t.co/ScpDZ4wEPf
https://t.co/kexrXMcotl
It's easy to make fun of Rush Limbaugh right now, but it's important to remember that he also brought a lot of people a lot of joy by dying
— Mike Drucker (@MikeDrucker) February 17, 2021
https://t.co/c5nNjJkSip
It\u2019s ok\u2014essential, even\u2014to speak the truth about people who caused great harm.
— Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg (@TheRaDR) February 17, 2021
Even after their death.
https://t.co/BtM3xCBrpU
&
https://t.co/bOYbGjpbBQ
today i said Jewish culture requires dancing on the graves of those who have wronged us and i picked up like 300 followers LMAO
— Erin Biba (@erinbiba) February 18, 2021
people love Jewish vengeance \U0001f923\U0001f923
wait till they hear about Purim
https://t.co/IOzySYGTyc
Breaking News: Right-wing leaders are mourning the death of 70-year-old talk radio bigot and peddler of cruelty and lies, Rus \u2014\u2014 pic.twitter.com/lvqb4jvc9P
— Rabbi Mike Rothbaum (@Rav_Mike) February 17, 2021
a) https://t.co/k1q6tClH72
b) https://t.co/k4pRzpuZPe
c) https://t.co/X8elhOzApf
the question people need to be asking themselves when talking about rush limbaugh is "am i being too nice" and the answer is usually always "yes"
— neurotypicals aren't valid (@RealEvilkitten3) February 17, 2021
https://t.co/dYi1eMTNsS
& https://t.co/JmlhvZvdiw
The fact that Rush Limbaugh had a career at all shows you how broken this country is, he made 85 million a year because he made racist white losers feel a little less alone.
— NoelCaslerComedy (@CaslerNoel) February 18, 2021
Really, examine yourself if you laughed along with him. It's not 'humor'
https://t.co/SbbSLhZ3sD
&
https://t.co/FO2yTBpZwV
Oh, we completely understand that his appeal was that his listeners found him funny.
— Matthew Chapman (@fawfulfan) February 18, 2021
That says a lot more about his listeners than it does liberals. https://t.co/CzKheS5wR5
https://t.co/sETuC5Qt93
and the connection between the two monsters is important to highlight
https://t.co/k83TxEmhvp
& https://t.co/EaxN91mjTe
The thing Trump and Limbaugh understood is that Republican voters want to be entertained. The grievance mill of Hawley/Cruz/Carlson may rile, but what the beating MAGA hat middle class heart of the GOP wants is permission to be petty assholes for the sake of their own amusement.
— Zeddy (@Zeddary) February 18, 2021
So here he is mocking AIDS patients. WHAT?!?
https://t.co/9RI0tmrCNi
& https://t.co/fFAqdJ0aLZ
& https://t.co/a0l88y0qHm
\u2705 Yes, Rush Limbaugh had an "AIDS Update" segment that mocked the deaths of gay people.
— snopes.com (@snopes) February 17, 2021
https://t.co/DfAydpft32 pic.twitter.com/tGhz8ApkhI
https://t.co/i0TNFoFBe6
and here about abortion
https://t.co/LVwsnxIZKv
Seriously, how can someone say they listened to him with fondness? This is inexcusable immoral poison.
\u201cLook, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.\u201d
— Charlotte Clymer \U0001f3f3\ufe0f\u200d\U0001f308 (@cmclymer) February 17, 2021
-- Rush Limbaugh
Do people understand that anyone who does that is the worst sort of person?
https://t.co/ZTGpm7hHMo
That time Rush Limbaugh made fun of Michael J Fox and his Parkinson\u2019s disease. pic.twitter.com/7CuHlE5Lpy
— Sage Rosenfels (@SageRosenfels18) February 5, 2020
https://t.co/YiTQEFAw7e
there's something deeply perverse about how Twitter lets its 'trending' bar get turned into a smug Death Jubilee every time a right-wing person dies (or even might die!), and goes to the heart of what is fundamentally unhealthy about this medium and what it does to people.
— Jeff B., who on earth is this guy?? (@EsotericCD) February 17, 2021
https://t.co/ITh28xuVKX
This is one witty response to that: https://t.co/wqCDE7sqAf
but this is a correct response: https://t.co/3zdhFe6dnV
Liberals who didn\u2019t listen to Rush, and just read the Media Matters accounts, never understood how *funny* he was. What set him off from his many imitators was how wildly entertaining he was, and the absolutely unbreakable bond he formed with his listeners.
— Rich Lowry (@RichLowry) February 17, 2021
@threadreaderapp please unroll.
@threader_app please compile.
More from Joshua Cypess
1/ OK a few more #Exodus thoughts (because I'm going through a mountain of parsha stuff amidst all my other writing) connected to the #DvarTorah here about the nameless collective-compassionate action of the multitude being the engine of the salvation.
2/ It struck me to link to another conundrum (kinda like the large plague frog in the room): how Pharaoh has his free will removed
So, the nameless action could be a purposeful contrast to the singular powerful individual who normally is history's
3/ IMO God manipulates Pharaoh in order to prevent one person making too much of a difference!
This ties into another larger point I often make about the culpability of the Egyptians & how actually they, not Pharaoh, are the focus of the plagues.
4/ My point contrasts how the Egyptians - who were responsible for being enslavers, for dehumanizing & stealing the labor of Israelites up to the point of joining in the Pharaoh command of infanticide (see
5/ These individuals needed to make their choices without coercion from the autocrat, hence Pharaoh lost 'free will' in his capacity as someone who can move the engines of political power.
He lost free will in order to preserve the free will & action of his subjects
1/ Another observation the #Literalist fallacy I see about how much Trump (ym'sh) has planned all of the chaos & violence. My overarching point will be that society is structured & that means there's an inherent pattern to effects no matter the 'intelligence' behind the causes
— Joshua Cypess (@JoshuaCypess) January 12, 2021
2/ It struck me to link to another conundrum (kinda like the large plague frog in the room): how Pharaoh has his free will removed
So, the nameless action could be a purposeful contrast to the singular powerful individual who normally is history's
3/ IMO God manipulates Pharaoh in order to prevent one person making too much of a difference!
This ties into another larger point I often make about the culpability of the Egyptians & how actually they, not Pharaoh, are the focus of the plagues.
4/ My point contrasts how the Egyptians - who were responsible for being enslavers, for dehumanizing & stealing the labor of Israelites up to the point of joining in the Pharaoh command of infanticide (see
5/ These individuals needed to make their choices without coercion from the autocrat, hence Pharaoh lost 'free will' in his capacity as someone who can move the engines of political power.
He lost free will in order to preserve the free will & action of his subjects
More from Society
1/ One year of destroyed economies, social isolation & deep social splits calls for an anniversary ⬇️thread ⬇️ to celebrate the RT-qPCR manuscript by Christian Drosten (@c_drosten) & Victor Corman (@vmcorman), submitted on 21st Jan 2020 to @Eurosurveillanc. #UnbiasedScience
2/ Before this very publication, virologists were neither treated like superstars, nor were they considered icons or half-gods. In 2009, Drosten almost succeeded in installing the false premise virology could supersede holistic medical sciences as discussed in this thread.
3/ Drosten is a virologist. He neither has any background in epidemiology, nor has he ever worked in the civil service. He also doesn’t have a background in public health. Yet he and his colleagues affect our daily lives to the level of whom to meet up or how to flush the toilet.
4/ Before January 2020, Drosten and Corman were common virologists at Charité Berlin, whenever they were not involved in economic implications (https://t.co/UTDwG8U7Du). Other than that, they looked at coronaviruses in dromedary calves in the Middle East or Africa. 😍 #cute
5/ Finally in Jan 2020, the published paper laid the theoretical grounds for the current pandemic, the RT-qPCR mass testing-religion, for which he was awarded his second German Federal Cross of Merit (he received the first one in 2005 for developing the SARS-CoV PCR test).
2/ Before this very publication, virologists were neither treated like superstars, nor were they considered icons or half-gods. In 2009, Drosten almost succeeded in installing the false premise virology could supersede holistic medical sciences as discussed in this thread.
3/ Drosten is a virologist. He neither has any background in epidemiology, nor has he ever worked in the civil service. He also doesn’t have a background in public health. Yet he and his colleagues affect our daily lives to the level of whom to meet up or how to flush the toilet.
4/ Before January 2020, Drosten and Corman were common virologists at Charité Berlin, whenever they were not involved in economic implications (https://t.co/UTDwG8U7Du). Other than that, they looked at coronaviruses in dromedary calves in the Middle East or Africa. 😍 #cute
5/ Finally in Jan 2020, the published paper laid the theoretical grounds for the current pandemic, the RT-qPCR mass testing-religion, for which he was awarded his second German Federal Cross of Merit (he received the first one in 2005 for developing the SARS-CoV PCR test).
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
1/OK, data mystery time.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.