A reader on the above compilation of Limbaugh's 70 smears against Fluke:
He is almost surreal in his foulness. I just sat here stunned – not because I didn't realize he was capable of it, but because it's inconceivable that anybody with at least one brain cell would buy his "it wasn't personal" apology as anything but the 71st insult to Sandra Fluke. And to women in general.
Many readers are taking issue with my assertion that "No one is involuntarily exposed to [Limbaugh's] poison." One writes:
I make all sorts of efforts to not listen to Rush Limbaugh – namely, I don't like his bullshit and don't want to hear it so I don't listen to it on the radio. The closest I ever got to regular exposure was a janitor at a church I used to work at who would listen to Rush on a private radio while cleaning the Fellowship Hall, and even then I could usually bear about two minutes of it before I found another place to eat my lunch. It's not that hard, really, by and large, to avoid Rush Limbaugh's poison.
But now your blog lights up with his vitriolic misogynistic garbage, as does the rest of the Internet. Even in Lent, where I've limited my hours spent reading Internet people, I can't escape it; my Daily Show/Colbert Report wind downs in the evenings are mired in it; Maddow is talking about it; there's no escape in CNN. I suppose I could limit my television to, I don't know, Top Chef and RuPaul's Drag Race, but I like to stay reasonably connected to the news.
And what Rush Limbaugh says, for whatever damn reason that is beyond me, is news. In order for me to consume any amount of news, in almost any medium I regularly stay attuned to, I'm exposed to Rush Limbaugh.
Another writes:
I love you Andrew, but you are so wrong on this, and for reasons you yourself have pointed to repeatedly. Does the term "epistemic closure" not ring any bells?
Do you really think the things Limbaugh says can be argued against, debunked, etc? This isn't a debate where the person with the most persuasive facts wins. Goodness, I wish that were the case – if it were, Rush would have been off the air decades ago. Do you really think a persuasive argument backed up by research would have any effect on Rush or his listeners? Do you think it hasn't been tried?
Does economic pressure come from an "illiberal place", as you claim? I'm not so sure. One thing I am sure about is that the only pressure Limbaugh, and those in his business, will respond to is economic. Please keep in mind that they say the things they say for money. It is their job. I call them "outrage mongers." In order to keep their listeners coming back they crank the outrage and sense of victim hood up to 11. You don't stop that kind of behavior via facts and reason; you stop it by taking away the incentive.
Another:
Well, actually we are "involuntarily exposed to his poison." Because Limbaugh isn't just any old foul radio personality. He's a man with a great deal of influence on one party of a two-party system. He is one of their loudest megaphones and one of their bosses, and the rest of us are constantly involuntarily exposed to his poison, or the ramifications of it, whenever the representatives of his party vote – as they have been doing recently to relieve all of us "sluts" of our reproductive rights.
And as for the "right way to counter his speech, in my view, is with speech, not threats to his livelihood. " Well by that logic, the boycott of bus drivers in Alabama wouldn't have happened. How else can people make it clear that they've had enough and they're fed up? Money talks. Because obviously all the counter speech in the world, and there's been plenty, against Limbaugh and the degeneracy of the far right that he spews and reinforces hasn't worked. Boycott has a history in America of making the point. It is speech by another name.
By the way, I wouldn't worry about his livelihood; AshleyMadison.com (yes, that Ashley Madison) has offered to buy up ALL of his ad inventory.
Another:
I'll tell you at least one person involuntarily exposed to Rush Limbaugh: Sandra Fluke. I'll tell you a few more: her family and friends. Fluke went from testifying on behalf of herself and other like-minded people to being smeared in the most revolting and obnoxious manner available by Limbaugh. In addition, her family was forced to be brought into this by having her become the newest target of the right wing media. She testified about a friend using birth control to avoid losing an ovary. Because of this, she's been ridiculed as a slut and a prostitute.
I take the point on Fluke. I remain hostile to campaigns to counter hate speech with anything other than speech.
The Dish 