Rush Limbaugh used an analogy including the words slut and prostitute, and the liberal media and political sphere went wild.
It was just what Media Matters, Think Progress, and others needed to organize attacks on advertisers in an attempt to force Limbaugh off the air.
The self-righteous indignation that a woman had been insulted was laughable coming from a crowd which worships people who engage in sexualized attacks on conservative women, with Sarah Palin being a primary target. As Kirsten Powers pointed out, there is a long history of sexualized attacks on conservative women from prominent liberals on television, but no one ever boycotts them or attacks their advertisers.
So it’s pretty satisfying to see that a lone voice, Greta Van Susteren, has caused libreal comedy icon Louis C.K. to withdraw from the 68th Annual Radio & Television Congressional Correspondents Dinner on June 8.
Greta didn’t threaten anyone, she just announced that she would not attend because of the nasty rhetoric Louis C.K. used against Palin, including this (via Powerline):
Louis C.K. says of Palin: “her f*** retard making c***” and “the baby that just came out of her f**** disgusting c***.”
To Palin: just “stick your t** in its mouth and shut up.”
And here is more: ”…her f***** retard making c****”
Need more to convince you? Here is what he says on twitter:
“I want to rub my father’s c*** all over Sarah Palin’s fat t***”
A little sunshine went a long way, as it did for Bill Maher’s efforts to help Democrats this election cycle.
Some writer at Gawker is very upset and is calling for a boycott of Greta:
Before we jump off into a hellish debate about conservative and liberal media bias, let’s all just remember one thing: Louis C.K. is a hilarious genius. And Greta Van Susteren has stopped him from entertaining us. Is she even on television anymore? Does she write for someone? I don’t know really, but let’s just all agree to never pay attention to anything she does ever again.
This would be the Gawker which spread false rumors that Sarah Palin had breast enlargement surgery and published the alleged details of Christine O’Donnell’s pubic hair. And the founder of Gawker is proud of these sort of sexualized attacks.
Loiuis C.K. is just the start. All it takes is a little sunshine.
The anti-conservative media and punditry is finding out they live in glass houses.
Update: Ann Althouse asks, “What will happen to all the left-wing comedians after all the attention to Rush Limbaugh’s ‘slut’ controversy?” I’ll rephrase the question: “What happens when you wish too hard for something and you get it?”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
[…] JACOBSON: “Louis C.K. is just the start. All it takes is a little sunshine.” Do it for Sasha and […]
Louis C.K. has a party affiliation?
Who’s Louis C.K.?
Here’s another attack against Rush Limbaugh:
http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/06/10590928-stephen-colbert-rush-limbaugh-is-a-prostitute
(There’s a difference between satire and a three-day long smear. There’s a difference between attacking a powerful public figure with access to their own media outlet, and someone who is essentially a private citizen.)
Seriously, who is Louis C.K.? I have never heard of him but then I don’t watch TV any more…
Interesting. I just looked him up. He seems to be a “Z-List Celebrity” and his only claim to fame is insulting Palin.
In other words he is a foul-mouthed leftist who has never done anything but insult women. That is sufficient to make him a minor deity in the pathetic leftist pantheon…
a quick Google says he is a star
“The standup comedian and creator/star of FX’s Louie”
Really? Why don’t you take a few minutes and elaborate.
Was Sandra FLUCK a “private citizen”? Tell us about that.
Tell us about how Rush “smeared” her for three days.
Would I be “smearing” her if I said she was a lying Collectivist tool?
It’s been a while since I studied my defamation law, but if I’m recalling Gertz and progeny correctly, an individual loses the private citizen status and becomes a public figure with regard to a particular issue when he or she deliberately injects himself or herself into a newsworthy public debate.
In this case, Fluke and her cohorts themselves created the controversy and the “news” when they widely published her position statements and worked hard to thrust her into the limelight with the assist of public relations professionals.
For purposes of defamation law, Fluke is not a “private citizen.”
Colbert? Really? “I’ll playact at being a conservative and make up idiotic things I think they believe.” Wow. Genius. The guy is a one-trick pony and his entire shtick is nothing but a never-ending straw-man argument.
It takes a real tool to consider that edgy or even slightly humorous.
RKae: Colbert? Really? “I’ll playact at being a conservative and make up idiotic things I think they believe.”
1. SIGNIFICANCE: Limbaugh is not just a minor personality, but a significant figure in the Republican Party, unlike Louis C.K.
2. POWER DIFFERENCE: The success of the humor wasn’t the point, but to draw the distinction between criticism through satire of a significant political figure with his own media outlet to defend himself, and a days-long smear of an essentially private person.
3. SATIRE V. SMEAR: While Colbert called Limbaugh a prostitute, it was clearly not meant literally, while Limbaugh argued over three days that the student was an actual prostitute and slut.
4. DIFFERENT MEANINGS: Compare to crass language used against Palin by comedians. C**t, a**h*** and such words are hackneyed and unimaginative variations of ugly jerk, “extremely loud incredibly gross”, and so on, used for shock value. They contain no specific accusation, unlike prostitute or slut. In any case, Palin has a platform with which to respond.
SLUTS RESPOND
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/sluts-respond-to-rush-limbaugh_n_1332547.html?ref=comedy
It does not matter if he is insignificant as an individual, he was invited to headline the TV and Radio broadcast dinner. He is free to spread his viile filth to his hearts content, but many of those set to attend the dinner are important media figures who have embraced Obama’s call for civility (sarcasm).
We should have been fighting back aggressively a long time ago. We conservatives supposedly outnumber liberals two to one so maybe the liberals have at long last awakened a sleeping bear. We need to drag this on and on and on and on until it becomes so expensive for companies buying ad time that “no politics” becomes the universal corporate policy.
The sleeping bear may be awake, but a Romney nomination means he is in chains.
Progressive liberalism has devolved into a violent cult. Occupy has proven their violent status and their utter lack of self-awareness confirms their cult nature
Greta Van Susteren has stopped him from entertaining us.
Preventative Boredom Rights…
Heh.
I liked Louis C K the first time I heard him and while I’m not a rabid conservative or Republican or even a Christian I can’t stand him anymore. He isn’t funny, he is cruel and mean-spirited and those who laugh at his jokes reveal something of their true nature.
Greta makes a very good point:
“I think the organization that hired him is just as bad as he is. It is no secret that he denigrates women.”
If Limbaugh’s “assault” was so bad, why would the Radio and Television Correspondents Association hire this vile misogynist to “entertain” everyone? As Kirsten Powers said about the claim that it’s just comedy, “where’s the humor?”
Indeed … what is the root of “humor” which evokes lewd images of strong women being sexually compromised? Are these “progressives” so threatened by strong women that they regress into some sort of animalistic frenzy, where they imagine sexual humiliation as their avenue to expressing dominance?
This professional organization saw no problem with this pig’s lack of standards? Or was it exactly the tone they wanted?
I may misstate it, but Drago’s First Law:
“Collectivists do not…and never have…conform to the demands they make on everyone else.”
Rules are for you and me. They can be as nasty as they wannabe.
and I appreciate you bringing it back to the fundamentals. 🙂
But beyond (or behind) the double standard and collectivism, there seems something almost evil. Kennedy and Clinton, icons of the left, vile in their treatment of women.
This professional organization invites a guy that “jokes” about women in ways that would be a firing offense in the workplace. There is something “primal” at the root of these “sophisticates” and their pretense of some highly evolved system.
Think about what Collectivists have proven themselves capable of in the last 150 years.
And it is a primal evil, conducted in the name of science and good government. Or just good.
Which means they can rationalize anything, and have, and DO.
One could almost imagine a conspiracy where they are teaching sex to young school girls so they can become good little prostitutes for the leftist pigs. The pigs don’t even have to wear condoms because the girls have contraceptives planted in their arms and if all else fails they can ship her off to Planned Parenthood to get the contents of her womb sucked out. It’s a win win world for the leftist cavemen.
[…] via Legal Insurrection we discover that our friends on the left have decided to take the decisive action, of calling for a […]
Louis C.K. is not some unknown – I actually watched a video of his yesterday about Cinnabun (which is actually pretty funny), but in it he says that Cinnabun should change the name of their product to the “fat fa**ot treat”. Not really the model of Liberal acceptance – I thought they were all about gay rights.
I wrote about Kirsten Powers’ intellectual honesty in this article:
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-minneapolis/bill-burton-rationalizes-bill-maher-s-mysogyny
Here in Minnesota, the rabid left declared war on a GOP legislator after she said something they disagreed with:
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-minneapolis/far-left-declares-war-against-rep-franson
They threatened her with the possibility of sexual assault, mutilation of her body, not to mention the abusive language used in the emails.
Last night, Rep. Paul Thissen, the House Minority Leader, said on TV that “After all this, she’s [Rep. Franson] is going around acting like she’s the victim in all of this.
HINT TO REP. THISSEN: People that are threatened with sexual assault or sexual mutilation ARE victims.
Conservative vs. liberal? Meh, good vs. evil.
Hammer meets nail.
I was thinking that some of the conservative/liberal test-questions would be:
Please select the one that you agree with most:
(a) It is wrong for sexist comments to be made by anyone
(b) It is wrong to make sexist comments, except when making fun of conservative women.
If a man makes a sexist comment, does that make him:
(a) a conservative
(b) Bill Maher
If a comedian makes a derogatory, sexist joke, is it OK to laugh if:
(a) it is about a conservative woman
(b) it is never OK to laugh at derogatory, sexist jokes
If a well-known person has a public history of making derogatory sexist comments, please mark all you agree with:
(a) It is OK to take campaign funding from them
(b) It is OK OK to hire them on your campaign staff
(c) You should boycott them
(d) You should return any campaign funding they give you
(e) You should not hire them
(f) you should repudiate any endorsements they give you.
I wonder how most people would score themselves?
“Louis C.K. is just the start. All it takes is a little sunshine.” And you wouldn’t want President Obama to have to explain these people to Sasha and Malia.
–Prof. Reynolds at InstaPundit
Heh!
We better start boycotting Gawker for boycotting Greta for boycotting Louis CK because of the Rush boycotts, LOL.
Thx for the pep talk, Professor. I have a feeling that you are right about this just being the start. We conservatives really are all done with being punching bags.
Over time I find most comedy to be nothing more then bullying, of known entertainers. I think Ellen DeGeneras(sp?) is good at non-bullying entertainment. She makes an effort at laughing at ourselves, with viewer submissions, rather then targeting a person. I don’t watch her program often, only because celebrity chit chat makes me ill.
The fun part of this is Greta is a liberal Democrat. I can barely get my mouth or fingers around this, but she seems to be an, um, er, ah, hon-hone-honest Democrat.
His attacks on Trig Palin are very telling. Keep in mind that the left is made up of creepy people who think “retards” should be exterminated – even after they’re born.
These are scary, scary people.
I read an article last week claiming that medical ethicists had concluded that killing an infant was no different than killing a fetus and that it should be allowed for the same reasons (selfish not just medical reasons). I have a newborn infant so reading this absolutely terrified my heart on the deepest level. I sobbed and trembled for an hour. If this is what science is about then they can take back my degree, I want nothing to do with it. I had a nightmare after reading this article. In my dream Kathleen Sebelius came into the delivery room after I had given birth and said “I’m sorry you have not been approved for a birth certificate, we are going to have to euthenize”. That is going to be the first sentence of my dystopian novel.
It might also have been a philosophical point.. Just when can the killing a baby start & end?
Here is a question that I put to progressive individuals I know, and so far I haven’t received a good answer: if a ‘comedian’ like Louis C.K. or Bill Maher were to make ‘jokes’ using vulgar, sexist language directed at (for example) Michelle Obama, would that be okay?
You know, because it’s a ‘comedian’ doing the insulting?
What if the same comedian used a certain word of insult used against African-Americans? Would that be okay?
Tell me, my dear progressive friends, since I’m not clear: where do you draw the line?
If it is inappropriate to use the ‘n’ word against people of color, why is it cool to use the ‘c’ word against women? What’s the difference?
Perhaps they could enlighten us all by explaining where the line is for ‘comedians’.
One progressive friend retorted that the difference is that Louis C.K. (for example) is ‘funny’, whereas Rush Limbaugh is not, and that if I didn’t understand the difference he wouldn’t be able to explain it to me. So apparently the defense is that one can use any language one wants to attack another person so long as the audience (or some of the audience, or at least one person in the audience) finds it ‘funny’.
I then asked this question in response: if Rush had said that his words towards Ms. Fluke had been a ‘joke’, and conservatives across the land had laughed and replied, “great ‘joke’ Rush, that’s funny!”, would it then have been okay to call the woman a slut?
I think it is important to understand the defense here: it is acceptable to use this sort of language as long as it is ‘funny’.
Then again, the progressives decide what is humorous and what isn’t, don’t you know.
Progressives draw the line? The Fluke Affair is Orwellian. Who brought us the “humor” of Penthouse, Playboy et al.? Who puts out the mindless rot emanating from Hollywood? Who dominates the music industry, especially the rap filth masquerading as “art” that is fed to children?
An adult woman who actively seeks media attention to push her demands that others pay 100% for contraception so that she and her friends can have casual sex — so casual that they can’t even seek a contribution to cover these costs from the male partner, but have to be prepared for the spontaneous one-night stand — IS a slut. And a schnorrer.
Liberals like to make the case that they as a group are so much better educated/sophiticated than the rednecks in fly-over ciuntry.
If that were true wouldn’t they be able to make the leap to inderstanding that denigrating women at the most gutter level is not appropriate regardless of whether they are public or private figures?
Using liberal logic we should be able to call Michelle Obama the same slurs they called Palin – after all MO is a public figure. Ditto on the Obama girls – do they deserve more consideration than the Palin children got? Omagine the hissyfits that would be thrown about that.
Now, what we need to know is just who invited Louis C.K., hilarious genius, to the dinner. I vote for valerie Jarrett.
I wonder if the courageous hilarious genius decided not to attend on his own, or if he was uninvited. Just wonderin’.
Anybody remember Andrew Dice Clay?
Sorta. My memory of him is …Fuzzy….
While I think Greta did a good thing and I applaud the outcome, I don’t think CK is really a liberal comedy icon.
His act isn’t political at all from what I’ve seen. He doesn’t tell political jokes. Doesn’t get into those issues. He’s not someone like Maher, Stewart, or Colbert. Their material is around 100% political in nature. CK’s is around 0% political.
For some reason, though, Palin really touched a nerve with him. To be fair, I did read an interview with GQ where he largely apologized for many of the comments he made. He said many of those tweets were made on a cross country flight that he was totally drunk during and that the alcohol had a lot to do with it. He said he regretted it, which is a lot more than many others have said.
He also talked about how soon after he said something regarding Trig Palin that someone wrote him an email and told him how he and his wife had a child with down syndrome and that it totally ruined their lives and that it affects you every second of every day. He wrote the guy back and had some nice things to say.
OTOH, he also said in that same interview that he thought Palin would “Hitler up the place” if she was elected. How a VP with 0 constitutional authority to do anything would do that I have no idea. Does he mean a VP Palin would have her own army of SA and brown shirts and pass restrictive laws against Jews? Would a VP Palin burn down the capitol and blame it on the dems? Would a VP Palin set up a system of concentration camps? Would a VP Palin invade Canada and Mexico in a quest for lebensraum?
So, I’m glad he won’t be performing. They’ll probably find someone just as bad, though.
Here’s why I wish CK wasn’t such a pillock: A couple months ago, he tried an experiment… He paid for – on his own – the creation of a web-store system for buying an mp4 file, the booking of a venue, and the taping and production of a comedy DVD which he then sold as said pm4 file (without any DRM at all), all without any outside producer or aide.
It worked amazingly, proving that if you make a product people want, charge a reasonable price, and make it as easy as possible for it to be purchased (no log in or registration, no mailing lists, none of that – just name your method of payment, make the payment, get the file), and you will make pretty good bit of money because people will actually pay for it instead of downloading a pirated version.
That being said: I find him funny, but not so funny that I would see out anything he does.
As for the bumblef*cks at Gawker, who claim that Greta is keeping him away from the mic, they can go toss off. She simply said that, due to his horrible comments regarding Palin, she would not attend the Dinner. Maybe the people who run the event told CK to take a powder, but it certainly wasn’t Greta.
She did something she is perfectly free to do, and the anger you see coming from the Land of the Dimwitted that is Gawker is not because CK isn’t performing, but because they are starting to realize that the standards are starting to be applied evenly.
Were I Greta, I still wouldn’t go based on the fact that someone apparently thought CK was a good choice at some point, and I wouldn’t attend a function run by someone that thunderingly stupid.
Is Gloria Allred going to seek the arrest of Louis C.K.? Hmmm, why the double standard Gloria?
If Louis C.K. is the new standard for comedy… then give me boring!
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw boomerangs.
[…] Because of the left’s blatant double standard and rank hypocrisy, many of the slings and arrows meant for Rush have riccocheted back and hit them in the butt…. […]
“When even casual sex requires a state welfare program, you’re pretty much done for.” Mark Steyn, National Review Online
“It shouldn’t be “important enough” at $1,000 a year either, or $10,000 for that matter. What we’re really embroiled in here is a very old argument, made possible by conceding the foundational principle of socialism: some people’s needs are important enough to over-ride other people’s rights.
Once that door has been cracked open, and the concept of “inalienable rights” derived from an authority higher than the State has been discarded, all else is negotiation.” John Hayward at Human Events
[…] Because of the left’s blatant double standard and rank hypocrisy, many of the slings and arrows meant for Rush have riccocheted back and hit them in the butt…. […]