This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

(Or... what to say when you need an escape hatch)

"Just Kidding!"

You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

Argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument from absurdity
In the early days of Rush Limbaugh’s radio career, he started claiming to use absurd statements and gimmicks in an effort to illustrate what he deems absurd. During a 1992 interview with Phil Donahue, Limbaugh defends his absurd statements: http://www.youtube.com/...
Following the backlash of his inaccurate and vicious statements against Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke, Limbaugh offered this explanation:
“For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, and five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.”
What does “For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity,” exactly mean?
This is an idiomatic phrase that can mean to overlay folly with folly, or overlay shame with shame. Its Limbaugh’s attempt to prove someone is being absurd by committing another absurdity. Is the phrase “illustrate the absurd with absurdity” a set phrase, or just Limbaugh special rhetoric?
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument from absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.
The "absurd" conclusion of a reductio ad absurdum argument can take a range of forms:
Rocks have weight, otherwise we would see them floating in the air.
Society must have laws, otherwise there would be chaos.
There is no smallest positive rational number, because if there were, it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.
The first example above argues that the denial of the assertion would have a ridiculous result, against the evidence of our senses. The second argues that the denial would have an untenable result: unacceptable, unworkable or unpleasant for society. The third is a mathematical proof by contradiction, arguing that the denial of the assertion would result in a contradiction (there is a smallest rational number and yet there is a rational number smaller than it).
This doesn’t seem to fit the statements made by Limbaugh. For example when he claimed that Sandra Fluke: “is asking the government to subsidize her sex life.” That was a falsehood. Then he went deeper into the mire, "What does that make her?" he asks. "It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.” This isn’t reductio ad absurdum. It is out and out slander. He slandered her reputation by making false accusations against her.
Limbaugh’s latest victim was Netflix, whom he claimed was raising rates to subsidize poor subscribers. He quickly withdrew his claim after a break, saying he was just trying to make a point. Subscribers cancelled their accounts and by the end of the day Netflix stocks were down.
It is my opinion Limbaugh’s style is not absurdity to illustrate the absurd. I believe what he does more often falls into the Straw Man Argument.
Straw Man argument
An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example:
Politician A: "We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch and further worsen the obesity epidemic by doing so."
Politician B: "What, do you want our children to starve?"

Limbaugh lures his audience in by making an over the top statement, reassembling the truth and persuades them to support his thesis.  When the truth is found out he bails, claiming he uses absurdity to illustrate the absurd. When that doesn’t work he reminds us he is an entertainer not a newscaster. It’s like the school yard tease who after calling other kids horrid names and playing nasty tricks on them says, “I’m just kidding.”

Frankly, Limbaugh we don’t find you entertaining. Your jokes are not funny.

Join:  The Flush Rush Facebook community
 Visit:  The StopRush sponsor database
 Tweet:  #stoprush Twitter campaign

Extended (Optional)

Your Email has been sent.