But you’re remembering him right now.
This misunderstands the motivations of real-life evil people.
Once you accept there is no afterlife, that your legacy means nothing, and that you’re a piece of shit who has no desire to contribute to society or help others - only your personal success and self-pleasure while living matter.
Tarquin says it best, though much more humorously, here: https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html
By Rush’s personal measure, he absolutely won. So did Kissinger. So did Reagan. Trump and Jones and Rogan are on track.
You don’t beat such people with legacy.
You can either make somthing for younger generations. Or burn what’s been built for your own pleasure.
Boomers made thier choice
Boomer defines a very large group of diverse people that were born in the US between certain years. Stop using it as a anthropomorphic term.
Just to clarify your answer a little bit: this has nothing to do with atheism, nor that atheists think like this. Many of these asshats actually are religious and somehow with mental gymnastics tell themselves they’re righteous and good and that they’ll get into some imaginary heaven because of their hateful behavior.
This has more to do with mental illness like narcissism, and psychopathy than them being atheist
I’m an atheist, however my personal interpretation of the afterlife is how people remember you. That way you’re judged by your peers (all of humanity).
So arguably being famous is a very good deal, as many more people will remember you. However if you’re a shitty bastard, like Limbaugh, you’ll be remembered as a greedy count for quite some time before forgetfulness sets in.
Deservedly so imho
Even if you cared about legacy, realistically, how many people are remembered for more than a few generations, if they are remembered at all?
Even the majority of the leaders of nations are only remembered by historians, people with a high interest in history and briefly by some students studying for their next test, and these will be mainly the leaders of their own country. Unless they did something exceptional good or bad.
And then there are a few exceptional high achieving writers, inventors, scientists and academics. Even within their field most become irrelevant and forgotten after a few decades.
Some ordinary people who did extraordinary things might also be remembered.
But if you compare that to the enormous amount of people who have lived and died, basically no one will be remembered after their death. I’m not making excuses for the bad behaviors of horrible people, I’m just saying that losing all relevance and not being remembered after death isn’t special.
One frustrating thing about Limbaugh (and Jones and Hannity, et al) is that they made Being Angry a Right Wing Thing.
Extremely frustrating when you see a genocide in Gaza or global temperatures spiking or some cop shoot up a subway over a $3 fare, express anger, and have someone respond “You just sound like Rush Limbaugh”.
There are real reasons to feel righteous anger and to use that as motivation to act. But guys like Rush just fill the airways with this white nationalist noise. They make the idea of being angry this exclusive Right Wing attitude to have.
We need to get better at doing things about it instead of farting rage into the Internet.
The problem is that you can be angry all day and it won’t accomplish anything without coordinated, planned, collective action. And collective action is made more difficult with angry people.
Anger motivates you to act Right Now, which is why it’s good for reactionaries. They want you either impotently angry so you can’t think clearly to make those long term, organized plans; or they want you mad enough to go do a little stochastic terrorism.
Progressives have a lot of trouble hitting the slow-burn simmer of anger in a way that’s motivational and doesn’t slip into despair when you get tired from all that rage that you can’t turn into immediate results.
The problem is that you can be angry all day and it won’t accomplish anything without coordinated, planned, collective action. And collective action is made more difficult with angry people.
I disagree. People who aren’t agitated make for poor partners. They’re unreliable, uncommitted, and easily wooed by empty platitudes from the folks committing the offenses.
Anger motivates you to act Right Now, which is why it’s good for reactionaries.
Generic always-on anger burns you out and turns you into a cynic. It’s the cynicism that reactionaries feed on. But when you have a baseline moral position and you can recognize what does and does not rise to the level of offense, you can leverage outrage productively rather than feel sour and hateful all the time.
Progressives have a lot of trouble hitting the slow-burn simmer of anger in a way that’s motivational and doesn’t slip into despair when you get tired from all that rage that you can’t turn into immediate results.
Progressives (in the US) have a hard time mobilizing large groups toward productive action because they lack the resources and the institutional structure to mobilize individual activists into a collective workforce. When progressives get access to these kinds of resources, they generate enormous social value in a relatively short amount of time. The despair we routinely see in progressive communities stems from groups that are fractured - often deliberately so - and undermined by state and corporate institutions.
That is frustrating. I would counter those people that being passionate is not the same thing as extremist media personalities that literally profit off outrage. It’s okay to hear and react to things, but we shouldn’t all be open fucking sores that flip out over literally every single thing we encounter like an autistic toddler: all emotion, no perspective, can’t be reasoned with, etc. That’s the Republican Outage Machine…
we shouldn’t all be open fucking sores that flip out over literally every single thing we encounter like an autistic toddler: all emotion, no perspective
What happens when I live in a country where more perspective just means witnessing more atrocities?
Do you have an example where “more perspective just means witnessing more atrocities”? I think you’re thinking of “awareness”.
There’s definitely an argument for limiting "doom and gloom news for ones own mental health…
Dana Gould: Hey guys, I was just not remembering Rush and not remembering how influential he was and not remembering how much I hated him.
Everyone: Yeah, I don’t even remember that he made millions of dollars and I’m not even remembering the exact cemetery that he was buried in. Yay, I’m glad we’re all not remembering this.
No idea who that is, no idea why people give attention to ragebaiters
