You read that as apologist?

I go through my day-to-day life blissfully unaware, by choice, of the precise details of how Limbaugh chose to insult someone this week. I know he's being offensive and disgusting. Why constantly subject myself to more of it?

When someone goes out of their way to draw my attention to what Limbaugh is doing, I expect that to be because something important happened. Particularly in a publication of news and analysis, I expect to receive some sort of significant news or at least cogent analysis.

Instead, I got a summary of his radio program. There's a reason why I don't listen to it. If I wanted to be exposed to Limbaugh's current sense of humor, there's an easier way.

But fine, do you want more meat? How about this: why the obsession with Limbaugh outside of his audience, when we all know what he's like (in general, if perhaps not in specific)?

I think there's a fairly obvious explanation: it's a tribal marker. Limbaugh provides a convenient object of disgust around which to rally. No matter our internal divisions about policy, we can all agree that Limbaugh is abusive and vile. Go us. However, observe how useless that tribal marker is for convincing anyone else, affecting policy, or analyzing the world. Also note the degree to which Limbaugh thrives on being exactly that sort of tribal marker.

I think this sort of article contributes to and strengthens the phenomenon around Limbaugh's show. But maybe I'm wrong. What's your analysis? I'm genuinely curious, and we may as well get some substance out of this article.

Sadly, I don't think Limbaugh's choice of abuse is bizarre. I think it's relatively typical, although he may well use that type of insult more than others. But the comments about "taking it in the ass" are hardly unique to Limbaugh.

And the fact that this is typical is tragic for the world we live in, because the jokes he's using are homophobic and bigoted but in such a mainstream way that people rarely even comment on it. That Limbaugh is a bigot is hardly news to women, who are another of his normal abuse targets. More interesting to me than Limbaugh's personal bigotries is that the article goes on about Limbaugh's "anal fixation" without even talking about the continued cultural bigotry around gay sexuality that makes this sort of joke possible and funny to some people. For example, the idea that the person being penetrated sexually is lesser and dominated by the person doing the penetration is a cultural bias that goes all the way back to ancient Greece and is deeply entangled with sexism as well.

"Jokes" that stigmatize gay men and sexuality are a standard part of our culture. You'd hear the same comments to this day in locker rooms, in casual insults in schools, and on Internet forums and blogs. Lost in the pointing and being offended is the degree to which these jokes are built on a pile of deeply ingrained misconceptions and bigotry about gay intercourse that are sadly often shared even by the people who are getting offended.

I only wish that this sort of joke were so rare as to be bizarre.