Echolalia, Rush Limbaugh, and the MTC

[_honorentheos]

There is a question at the bottom of this long rambling story. Just an FYI.

The first time I ever heard of Rush Limbaugh was in the MTC in the early/mid 90's. I was raised in a traditionally Republican LDS household. But being in Utah my parents listened almost exclusively to KSL radio (1160 AM) which as far as I know was not broadcasting national syndicated talk radio during their day-time programing.

The experience came when one of my MTC District mates got in an argument with another who was pursuing pre-med and had his 1st year of college under his belt before the MTC. The subject: whether or not Magic Johnson had to be gay or have had gay sex because he had contracted AIDS.

I got brought into the argument by the first missionary because we had discussed politics generally and like many young Mormons I was a self-defined Republican. Mine wasn't a well-thought out political stance, but more of an inherited one.

The first missionary assumed he had enlisted an ally and asked me to tell them what I thought on how AIDS was transmitted (before knowing the subject of the argument). I didn't know much about AIDS at the time, but I had read somewhere that the virus could be transmitted through minor tears in the penis so female-to-male transmission of the disease was possible.

He was shocked and asked how I could believe this "crap" knowing that Rush Limbaugh had said it wasn't possible? My response was something along the lines of not knowing who Rush Limbaugh might be, but if that was his belief then he was wrong.

The first missionary was absolutely convinced that MJ had to have had anal sex with a man who had AIDS, because the expert Rush Limbaugh had said it was so. And, if you thought about it there was some a priori logic to the argument that made it appealing. It seemed self-evident that it took a certain indelicate event to occur for the virus to be transmitted sexually from one person to another. The pre-med student missionary tried again and again to explain how the AIDS virus could be transmitted through normal vaginal intercourse but to no avail. The expert had spoken, the “just so” logic of the Limbaugh argument had taken hold, and he simply would not consider another opinion that contradicted it.

I've since thought about this experience and how it's become magnified x1000 in the last two decades. The relationship between conservative talk-radio and LDS religious morality has only intensified. And the appeal to authority, even when the so-called Authority is suspect, has taken the place of knowledgeable discourse at almost every level in not only the LDS community but our national discourse generally.

But the most important take away from this experience for me was this: I've thought long about how just a little learning independent of political and religious bias was so critical to my formative views. It bent the twig that became the tree, so to speak. It would be dishonest to say that my view of conservative talk radio was not colored by this encounter. I also suspect something from this experience changed how I approached religion since it bothered me how unquestioning my District friend was about someone's opinion who seemed to hold zero credentials when it came to the subject at hand. God knows I wasn’t that different, but once in a while this experience served as the reflective surface within which I’d occasionally catch my own image in another situation and pause to ask: “Am I acting like Elder so-and-so?”

The question at the end of the long, rambling story is this: How does one go about planting the seed for self-awareness in a cultural context where questioning one’s own position is seen as weakness?

“Just so” logic is used by everyone somewhere in their worldview. And we all are quick to see the splinter in our neighbor’s eye with no regard to what type of beam may be in our own. I wonder, at times, where my own blind spots might still be - Where am I still like this Elder?

[_DrW]

Interesting story. Recently went through a similar experience with my younger brother, who works for the LDS Church, and absolutely refused to believe that Joseph Smit had entered into multiple polygamous marriages.

The following passage really rang true:

I've since thought about this experience and how it's become magnified x1000 in the last two decades. The relationship between conservative talk-radio and LDS religious morality has only intensified. And the appeal to authority, even when the so-called Authority is suspect, has taken the place of knowledgeable discourse at almost every level in not only the LDS community but our national discourse generally.

This is a huge problem in our country now and what is really worrisome is that there doesn't seem to be any way to talk these people down from the ledge. Certain Republicans wanted to secede from the union when a Democrat wins a presidential election by 5 million votes. Yet you didn't see Democrats threatening to secede when a Republican actually lost the popular vote and became president anyway.

[_bcspace]

“Just so” logic is used by everyone somewhere in their worldview. And we all are quick to see the splinter in our neighbor’s eye with no regard to what type of beam may be in our own. I wonder, at times, where my own blind spots might still be - Where am I still like this Elder?

I knew in the mid 1980's how AIDS was transmitted and that heterosexuals could get it. I was part of the Church's liaison to gays returning to the Church in Los Angeles on my mission and had knowledge (not carnal fortunately) of gay communities in Dallas.

Perhaps the real question is do you accept the homosexual political and lifestyle agenda as valid? If so, then perhaps you are still like that Elder.

Yet you didn't see Democrats threatening to secede when a Republican actually lost the popular vote and became president anyway.

A simple Google search will show otherwise. Proof left to the student.

[_honorentheos]

Perhaps the real question is do you accept the homosexual political and lifestyle agenda as valid? If so, then perhaps you are still like that Elder.

bcspace,

I included the word "echolalia" in the OP title because I think it is at the heart of the issue. It's easy to let insider jargon, vague concepts, and place-holder language occupy the space where informed communication should occur.

So, I'm curious what you mean by the "homosexual political and lifestyle agenda"? It may be that I am merely a child following a pied-pipers tune. But using jargon and the like isn't informing a discussion, it's merely playing a competing flute.

[_bcspace]

So, I'm curious what you mean by the "homosexual political and lifestyle agenda"? It may be that I am merely a child following a pied-pipers tune. But using jargon and the like isn't informing a discussion, it's merely playing a competing flute.

Perhaps you should tell us if you oppose or accept homosexual demands that their marriages be recognized by the state, either as marriages or civil unions, among other things. Then I think I will be able to tell if you might be prone to echolalia when it comes to homosexual political wing.

[_honorentheos]

That's interesting. So you can tell how informed and logical my view on a subject is by simply knowing my position? (ETA: meaning in a binary way: either I am for or against a position.)

Isn't that just bias?

[_honorentheos]

Hey bc,

Before I sign off for the night, and you post at late hours so you might see this, I wanted to say thanks for providing an interesting and more current example of what I was describing in the OP. It was very considerate of you, and appreciated.

[_Droopy]

There is a question at the bottom of this long rambling story. Just an FYI.

The first time I ever heard of Rush Limbaugh was in the MTC in the early/mid 90's. I was raised in a traditionally Republican LDS household. But being in Utah my parents listened almost exclusively to KSL radio (1160 AM) which as far as I know was not broadcasting national syndicated talk radio during their day-time programing.

The experience came when one of my MTC District mates got in an argument with another who was pursuing pre-med and had his 1st year of college under his belt before the MTC. The subject: whether or not Magic Johnson had to be gay or have had gay sex because he had contracted AIDS.

I got brought into the argument by the first missionary because we had discussed politics generally and like many young Mormons I was a self-defined Republican. Mine wasn't a well-thought out political stance, but more of an inherited one.

The first missionary assumed he had enlisted an ally and asked me to tell them what I thought on how AIDS was transmitted (before knowing the subject of the argument). I didn't know much about AIDS at the time, but I had read somewhere that the virus could be transmitted through minor tears in the penis so female-to-male transmission of the disease was possible.

I really didn't know penises could cry. If "minor" tears could transmit AIDS, imagine what real crocodile penis tears could do.

He was shocked and asked how I could believe this "crap" knowing that Rush Limbaugh had said it wasn't possible?

I listened to Rush quite a bit during this era, and I don't recall him ever making this statement. However, Johnson got AIDS because he was monumentally promiscuous, and somewhere along the line, he had sex with a woman who was bisexual and had been with a man, or men, who were also bisexual. The rout of transmission here is not at all difficult to comprehend.

The first missionary was absolutely convinced that MJ had to have had anal sex with a man who had AIDS, because the expert Rush Limbaugh had said it was so. And, if you thought about it there was some a priori logic to the argument that made it appealing. It seemed self-evident that it took a certain indelicate event to occur for the virus to be transmitted sexually from one person to another. The pre-med student missionary tried again and again to explain how the AIDS virus could be transmitted through normal vaginal intercourse but to no avail. The expert had spoken, the “just so” logic of the Limbaugh argument had taken hold, and he simply would not consider another opinion that contradicted it.

Michael Fumento (among others) debunked the myth of a spreading heterosexual AIDS epidemic in the early 90s, and fortunately, that particular instance of gay lobby agitprop never recovered its full former propaganda capabilities.

I've since thought about this experience and how it's become magnified x1000 in the last two decades. The relationship between conservative talk-radio and LDS religious morality has only intensified.

Has it?

And the appeal to authority, even when the so-called Authority is suspect, has taken the place of knowledgeable discourse at almost every level in not only the LDS community but our national discourse generally.

Really? How interesting.

The question at the end of the long, rambling story is this: How does one go about planting the seed for self-awareness in a cultural context where questioning one’s own position is seen as weakness?

The bubble is all-encompassing but if you stop while its still translucent, you may still have a chance...

“Just so” logic is used by everyone somewhere in their worldview. And we all are quick to see the splinter in our neighbor’s eye with no regard to what type of beam may be in our own. I wonder, at times, where my own blind spots might still be - Where am I still like this Elder?

Rush has made some gaffs over time, and still does (he still continues to claim that it was WWII that brought America out of the Great Depression, but is, at the same time, wholly anti-Keynesian), but I've heard him make a number of good arguments as well, and some brilliant observations, now and then.

Your Elder friend may have been blowing more hot air than accurately representing what Limbaugh said, although there was a great deal of misinformation out and about regarding AIDS at that time, the most destructive and tendentious of it spread by the homosexual lobby and the mainstream media.

[_honorentheos]

The first missionary assumed he had enlisted an ally and asked me to tell them what I thought on how AIDS was transmitted (before knowing the subject of the argument). I didn't know much about AIDS at the time, but I had read somewhere that the virus could be transmitted through minor tears in the penis so female-to-male transmission of the disease was possible.

I really didn't know penises could cry. If "minor" tears could transmit AIDS, imagine what real crocodile penis tears could do.

Not substantial, but I guess that's what passes for humor among certain crowds. Unless you are seriously unfamiliar with the gerund-forms of tear...which I'm not taking completely off the table here.

That said, am I reading you right and you do not believe AIDS is transmittable via female-to-male vaginal intercourse?

And why, pray tell, did the woman have to be bi-sexual in your theory on how Magic Johnson contracted AIDS? That's a new twist.

[_Droopy]

That said, am I reading you right and you do not believe AIDS is transmittable via female-to-male vaginal intercourse?

Yes, it can, and this has long been known, although although this would almost certainly require, given the overwhelming concentration of the disease among male homosexuals, contact with a male who had engaged in sexual activity with another male having the virus.

And why, pray tell, did the woman have to be bi-sexual in your theory on how Magic Johnson contracted AIDS? That's a new twist.

Didn't have to be. The man the woman had sex with could have been bisexual. Either/or.