The Rush Limbaugh debate along with other samples of governmental incivility point out the necessity for the form of instruction available in many first-year writing courses, writes John Duffy.
Of all of the terms that would be put on Rush Limbaugh’s comments that are recent Georgetown University legislation pupil Sandra Fluke — “vile,” “misogynistic” and “repulsive” spring to mind — one word who has room when you look at the conversation is “shock.” Limbaugh has produced phenomenally profitable job of these commentary, mocking ladies, minorities, and others with gleeful impunity. In doing this, he’s got motivated a little but disproportionately noisy military of imitators on talk radio, cable, and, increasingly, into the halls of Congress, whoever rhetorical strategies of misinformation, demonization, incendiary metaphors, and poisonous historic analogies have inked much to debase general public discourse.
Toxic rhetoric is now an undeniable fact of everyday activity, a type of activity, and a product that is corporate. Continue reading