Monday, March 30, 2009

The Sophistication of Rush Limbaugh

I won't have much time for blogging today. My wife has broken her arm, and we will be interacting with the health system. In the meantime, here's a little tidbit from Republican leader Rush Limbaugh for you to contemplate.
I heard some top of the hour news and it made me feel uncomfortable. It's about the flooding in Fargo, North Dakota brought on by the melting snowpack and the icepack. (reading from news item) "As the Red River threatens to overflow, they're filling in the dikes." Isn't there a more appropriate word? Do we have to say, I mean, we don't have any dikes here. The 'dykes' are over there...They're filling in the dikes. Couldn't we change that to 'they're filling in the contingencies' or something?...We really need to change that word. Limbaugh Uses Fargo Floods to Express Anti-Gay Disgust

If you feel the need to hear this for yourself, click HERE.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the word "dike" is being taken by the gay community (spelling it "dyke"), and that's what most people think of when they hear the word, then Rush is right -- another word needs to be used when speaking of non gay issues. I don't think that anyone under the age of 30 even KNOWS that there's another definition for "dike" and the word now sounds strange when it's defined in its original way.

Maybe it's because the word "dike" is so infrequently used in context of its original meaning. I mean, how often do we talk about " a long wall or bank built to contain water or enclose or separate land, or the ditch from which the material was dug...."

The gay community has taken an uncommon word and made it more common, defining it in their way. You should be thanking Rush for trying to ensure that you get full use of the word.

March 30, 2009 10:12 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Jim, where did you find this anonymous blogger guy?
Anyone who lives near a river prone to flooding or who has heard of Holland knows what a dike is. Everyone knows the other use is insulting. Rush was just taking the news as an opportunity to say things in a rude and crude way.

Is this anonymous who agrees with Rush the same anonymous who agrees with Westboro Baptist?

'nough said.


March 30, 2009 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Is this anonymous who agrees with Rush the same anonymous who agrees with Westboro Baptist?"

I don't remember any anon here agreeing with Westboro Baptist.

I do remember one saying that their current protest is not as obnoxious or objectionable as some of their past activities.

Robert, I think you've succummbed to the temptation to lie.

March 30, 2009 12:04 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

AnonBigot said, "If the word "dike" is being taken by the gay community (spelling it "dyke"), and that's what most people think of when they hear the word, then Rush is right"

You´re wrong yet again, AB.

Bigots like yourself first used the word to put down the already oppressed(you know, kinda like your pals at the Wesboro Baptist Church).

Here´s some short etymology:

"The origin of the term is obscure, and many theories have been proposed.[2][3] The OED dates the first recorded use of dike, dyke in 1942, in Berrey and Van den Bark's American Thesaurus of Slang.[4] But the term bulldyker, from which dyke may be a shortened form, was first printed in 1920s novels connected with the Harlem Renaissance.[2] For example, in the 1928 novel Home to Harlem, Claude McKay wrote: "[Lesbians are] what we calls bulldyker in Harlem. ... I don't understan' ... a bulldyking woman." (The term is unattested in the OED.) From the context of the novel, the word was considered crude and pejorative at the time. There are several theories concerning the origin of bulldyker. One is that it arose as an abbreviation of morphadike, a dialect variant of hermaphrodite, a common term for homosexuals in the early twentieth century. This in turn may be related to the possible late-nineteenth century use of dyke (meaning ditch) as slang for the vulva.[5] Bull is also a common expression for "masculine" or "aggressive" (as in "bullish"), so bulldyke implied "masculine woman." According to another theory, bulldyker was a term used for bulls whose purpose it was to impregnate cows. Just as the word "stud" was first used for such a purpose and was later used for sexually promiscuous men or for others in reference to a man who was successful with women, the terms "bulldyker" and "bulldagger" were also taken from their original context and used for the same purpose. A man who was a great lover or successful with women was called a "bulldyker." "Bulldyking woman" and "bulldyker" became terms for women who looked like a "bulldyker," a male stud, and were assumed to perform the role, as well.[6]

In Another Mother Tongue, Judy Grahn proposed that the word bulldyke might have arisen from the name of the Celtic queen Boadicea, but this theory is implausible.[3][1]"

March 30, 2009 12:39 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Jim, where did you find this anonymous blogger guy?

Robert, the TeachTheFacts Recruitment Task Force conducts extensive interviews with applicants and requires interviewees to fail a long series of tests before they are allowed to comment anonymously here.

Is it the same person? I don't know, I suppose it is.


March 30, 2009 12:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The usual anon didn't make the first comment above, Robert.

On the other hand, you have a number of anons now so there's probably no "usual" anymore.

March 30, 2009 1:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Get with the times. I don't think of "dyke" as a derogatory term anymore and neither should you.

As Wikipedia states: "Dyke is a slang term referring to a lesbian or lesbianism regardless of the person's actual sexual identity. Originally it was a derogatory label for a masculine or butch woman, and this usage still exists. However, it has also been reappropriated as a positive term implying assertiveness and toughness, or simply as a NEUTRAL SYNONYM for LESBIAN.[1]"

And if it's a derogratory term, then why is a Minneapolis program's pro gay curriculum teaching the term to third graders?

March 30, 2009 2:06 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

And if it's a derogratory term, then why is a Minneapolis program's pro gay curriculum teaching the term to third graders?

I have always heard that standards of decency are determined by a Minneapolis pro gay third grade curriculum, but nobody ever tells me which curriculum it is that decides what words are acceptable and what ones are not. Anon, it sounds like you know -- would you tell us something about this third-grade class that teaches kids the word "dyke?"

It's not that I suspect you are exaggerating, or lying ...


March 30, 2009 2:22 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...


When you joined the CAC David forgot to pass on to you both the secret handshake and the internet log-on info for the Minneapolis third grade curriculum. The Minneapolis group was created to oppose the Kansas and Texas groups trying to make creationism into a science, with the Texas group failing yesterday on an 8-7 vote.

March 30, 2009 2:45 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Ah, so every time some nutty group tries to impose their religious values on the rest of us, another group teaches a new controversial word or concept to little children. Wow, that makes all kinds of sense in the cosmic scheme.

David, if you're reading this, could you please forward me that handshake and log-on information? Thanks.


March 30, 2009 3:00 PM  
Blogger David S. Fishback said...

Anon writes:

"And if it's a derogratory term, then why is a Minneapolis program's pro gay curriculum teaching the term to third graders?"

Here's what I've found on Minneapolis:

Do you have a citation for the curriculum you purport to quote?

March 30, 2009 3:07 PM  
Anonymous grantdale said...

Sigh. In order to stop this silliness, we took a survey last night at the Glasshouse Hotel.

Out of 34,867 lesbians who answered our survey...

1) 99.37% agreed that "dyke" is an offensive term if used by anti-gay people in a demeaning way. The remainder were too drunk and unable to answer.

2) 99.18% agreed that "dyke" is an affectionate term if used by their wife, girlfriend, close friends, or potential new recruits. The remainder were too drunk and unable to answer. The difference to above had left for a toilet break and were unavailable for questioning (even though I slid under the cubical door on my back... they were not at all welcoming).

I had some follow-up questions but at that point someone accused me of stealing their beer and hit me with a pool-cue. And then threw me in a U-Haul and moved me to Brunswick.

It was obviously someone with all "The Sophistication of Rush Limbaugh", and from the bruises on my face, and all the unprescribed pills laying around on the floor in their apartment... it must have been his sister.

Our him. In drag. /shudder. 18 hours later and I can still smell the inadequately laundered clothing strewn around the room.

Perhaps should have called themselves I might have had some respect for them, that way.

Neah. I wouldn't have, regardless. I really don't need an obese drug-criminal* to lecture me about "self control". Nor from people who think people like him have got something worthwhile to add.

(*With all due respect to obese people. And drug addicts. I don't mean to imply you are doomed to be Rush Limbaugh.)

ps: did you people know that if you go to Holland and see water gushing from nowhere... you are meant to go and poke a finger in the dearest dyke? Huh, yeah -- neither did we, and we have the arrest warrant to prove it. The way those people talk in a "High Water Emergency" is rather alarming.

Apparently even the Queen walks around and "checks her dykes" at such times. Like, what, she's knowingly got some on staff???

March 31, 2009 11:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I really don't need an obese drug-criminal* to lecture me about "self control"."

I hope granttale is kidding about this.

March 31, 2009 12:00 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Didn't Dr. Seuss (a queer graduate of Dartmouth, I may boast) write a story about a woman who had 50 sons and named them all "anonymous?" It saved on clothing labels, but was ultimately very confusing.

Our "usual" anon clearly enjoys all the comments made about him being anonymous, because otherwise he would by now have chosen an alias. I think it either makes him feel righteous or persecuted, which makes him feel righteous, like the poor christians who aren't allowed to hear "Christmas" at the Target while buying their Christmas tree lights and pretend that they won't be allowed to condemn queer people to hell at every single possible existant opportunty.

March 31, 2009 12:28 PM  
Anonymous grantdale said...

No, AnonHawgFarmer,

Neither we -- nor anyone else -- needs an obese drug-criminal to lecture themself about self-control.

We've got people who are shaped like the back end of a bus on a dark night. We've got dear people who once had to get off drugs.

None of them lecture us about "self-control". They'd have no cause to in any case.

* Those who can, do.
* Those who cannot, teach.
*Those who cannot learn and cannot teach, appear on Rush Limbaugh.
* Those beyond even that, listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Has it been a good year for hawgs this year Anon? We can smell you, even over the internet.

March 31, 2009 12:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That survey about whether "dyke" is a positive or negative term was a good try, but does it answer the question about whether the word is acceptable? In my mind, it says that "dyke" is a positive term.

You can pick any word out of the air -- "sweetheart" for instance. If a loved one called a woman "sweetheart," then 99% of women would probably say it's a good thing. If a stranger leers at them and calls them "sweetheart," then 99% would probably say it's a bad thing.

But, overall, if most people in a group don't mind, under normal circumstances, being called a certain word, then I'd say it's a positive term.

Any term can be used in a negative way, but it doesn't mean that the term itself is negative.

Interesting question -- before this discussion, I thought that "dyke" was considered to be positive.

March 31, 2009 2:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rush is on track and that is what burns you. Dike, dyke, whatever.
What does it matter? Are you that oversensitive? If you have the nerve to dress or act like the opposite sex, then why can't you take being called dike, dyke, queer, gay, butch, whatever.
It's a perfect description.
If you don't like it, then stop looking and acting like one.
End of story.

March 31, 2009 3:04 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Anon, it's clear that you're real smart and everything, but he wasn't talking about women who dress like men, he was talking about a dike, which is an earthen structure to hold back water.

March 31, 2009 3:12 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

You were mistaken dear. The D-word is generally insulting, and can be a deadly insult. How do you think Rush meant it?

It's interesting to read an argument that anti-lgbt insults are in fact valid expressions. I hate to say it, but it makes me think, of course, of how WBC explain that their use of the f-word is perfectly legitimate (in fact Godly), and the vast bulk of the anti-lgbt industry (FOF, NARTH, PFOX, CRC/G/W, FRC, CWFA, ONN, etc.) with there perpetual argument that 'gay' is a word without meaning and they are entirely justified in using the word 'homosexual' preferentially when describing lgbt people.

Jim, how many applicants did you have to interview to find this guy?


BTW, in a previous post, an anonymous blogger argued that WBC's objections to a school in MoCo being named after Walt Whitman were legitimate. Go check it out. I didn't lie, you simply failed to read thoroughly, dear.

March 31, 2009 4:38 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Jim, how many applicants did you have to interview to find this guy?

Robert, our Anonymous Selection Process (the notorious TTFASP) is rigorous. This particular candidate failed a great number of very easy tests to win this position.


March 31, 2009 4:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert uses "dear" as if writing to a female anon. Or, a gay anon.
One wouldn't normally find a man calling a male "dear". Unless it was a buck.

March 31, 2009 11:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here's what the anon that Robert-darling lied about said:

"btw, we haven't metioned this but although I generally find this group that's coming to be engaged in some despicable stuff, they may have a legitimate issue this time

if Whitman was gay, and I've never heard that he was before, perhaps some parents don't want their tax-funded schools to be named after homosexuals

it's not ridiculous to say the students will assume that, if we name a school after someone, we're elevating them to role model status

so, if some parents consider homosexuality immoral, why shouldn't they object to elevating a homosexual to role model status?"

Here's when Robert-darling lied:

"Is this anonymous who agrees with Rush the same anonymous who agrees with Westboro Baptist?"

the anon didn't say they agreed with WBC

they just said the issue was a legitimate subject of protest

perhaps Robert-darling should collect his shadow and return to Never-never land where people can do all kinds of disgusting things without getting sick

it's a magical land

April 01, 2009 8:11 AM  
Anonymous Robert Dearest said...

WBC thinks protesting a school named after a gay author is legitimate; anonymous thinks protesting a school named a gay author is legitimate.

This is what we call agreement.


It offends anon that I would call him "dear"; does it, perhaps, challenge his masculinity?

April 01, 2009 12:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that was another anon that complained about your calling male contributors "dear"

I did run with it a little with the Peter Pan analogy but more for fun than anything

making you look stupid is such good sport

as far agreement with WBC, yes I agree they should be allowed to protest that's not to say I agree with their position

even if it turned out Whitman were gay, I'd probably say leave the school name as is

I like music by Elton John and Melissa Etheridge but if someone wants to boycott them, while I wouldn't join the boycott I still don't think it's illegitimate to do so

the whole point is, while some of this group's activities have been in poor taste, this protest is harmless

now, if they want to start a protest to ban gays from teaching in the schools, that might be something worth talking about

I won't tell you which side I would support on that

we'll leave for a surprise

April 01, 2009 12:57 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anonymous thinks he makes me look stupid. How ironic.

It is good fun, though, isn't it, dear?


April 01, 2009 5:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

squeeze your eyes shut and think really hard, Robert-darling

before you know it, you'll be sitting on the hands of Big Ben

you won if you had fun

April 01, 2009 6:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert! Shouldn't you be grading papers or planning for tomorrow's class instead of wasting your time on this blog?

April 01, 2009 9:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" - sweetie - what's that you say about "wasting your time on this blog"? That's really funny coming from you!!

April 01, 2009 11:34 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

My lesson plans are done, sweetheart, but your right, I have piles and piles of grading to do.

Are you offering to help? Are you familiar with Latin grammar? How do you feel about the Perfect Passive?

I think, if I won the lottery, I'd still teach, but I definitely would hire a grad student to do my grading for me.

April 02, 2009 4:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You of all people should know that dikes or dYkes is what The Old Man called the DIAGONAL WIRE CUTTERS that he kept on the table next to his chair.
Seriously, how could you ever forget that?

April 02, 2009 8:50 PM  
Anonymous YoBro said...

Yo lil bro, we did cut a few cords with those dikes, didn't we! Lucky Rush doesn't work with electronics.

April 02, 2009 8:53 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home