Rush Limbaugh's epistomology

[nancylebov]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/how-rush-limbaugh-decides-what-is-true/283078/

A comparison of how Limbaugh decided to defend Clarence Thomas in spite of not knowing anything about him (Thomas is a "true conservative") but is disappointed that Republicans are including a caveat about whether Christie lied.

Here's the money quote from Limbaugh: " Now, if there were a fervent ideological foundation, if there was a substantive reason of believing in Governor Christie, then whether he lied wouldn't matter. They'd be out there defending him left and right just to make sure the Democrats don't get away with this."

Limbaugh's mere existence depresses me a lot less than the fact that he's popular.

Comments

[thnidu]

Blechhh!!!

Not that I expect ever to dislike RL any more than I already do.

(The Doctor notes: "epistEmology".)

[madfilkentist]

I looked through the quotes a few times to see if there was a more favorable reading — perhaps that Limbaugh was saying Thomas is a person of known good character but Christie isn't. But it's clear he's talking about a "belief system" as the litmus test. It's tribalism made explicit: If you belong to our group, you're innocent regardless of the evidence.