Talk:Dittohead

"RUSH: All right. Here’s the explanation. Back when this show started August 1st, 1988, it took the nation by storm because there was nothing like it in the national media. The national media was all liberal. Here was this conservative program that reflected the views of millions of people. As people would call in, the first couple minutes of their call, literally, they’d spend thanking me and talking about how great it was to have something like this on the radio, finally, it was so great, and I, of course, loved hearing it. After a while, after about six months, it finally just grew old. It was delaying getting to the discussion of the issues. A woman called from I think it was like New Hampshire, and after just one of those calls, said, ‘Ditto to what they guy just said.’ So ditto means, ‘I love the program. Don’t ever go away.’ It doesn’t mean, ‘I agree with you.’ It doesn’t mean, ‘You’re always right.’ It means, ‘I love the program.’ Mega dittos means, ‘I really love — I, mean I adore — this program. It’s the only program!’ That’s what mega dittos means." https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/05/19/the_limbaugh_lexicon_dittos/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.46.155.68 (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the substance of this article. Saying "ditto" is a shorthand for "What you said, I agree with." And "mega-dittos" cannot be interpreted to mean anything other than "I agree with you completely." Anyone using the term "mega-dittos" to mean anything else is making a fool of himself. I agree (avoiding any obvious "ditto" jokes here). The language is a bit stronger than what I might have said, but the article appears to be very much whitewashed, like an apolgist's response to liberal criticism that such groups lack independent thought. Just check our local article on the word ditto. It's a disambiguation page, but the meaning ascribed to "dittohead" in this article is clearly misleading, if its original user indeed meant what the article says, or again, the work of an apologist if not. I'm sure there are some less ashamed fans of Rush out there. Can we hear from you? --BDD The article a factually accurate representation of the term "ditto" within the context of the Rush Limbaugh program. While you are correct that "'mega-dittos' cannot be interpreted to mean anything other than 'I agree with you completely.'" the term is not being directed at the host, but at fellow callers. This has been explained dozens and dozens of times on the show itself by callers who have shared your misunderstanding of the term. I'm not going to claim that callers have never claimed that their "mega-ditto"s is directed at other callers, but I've never heard one claim this. Since you agree that maga-dittos means "I agree completely" don't you find it odd to say to someone I agree with completely will actually meaning that you agree completely with someone else who isn't even present? I can almost see how a caller might use the phrase to mean I agree completely with the previous caller, but it's often uttered by the first caller of the day. But really does it matter who the callers are agreeing completly with? The fact remainas that it mean "I agree completely" and the article should reflect this.--198.93.113.49 17:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) The question is, however, what exactly is one agreeing to when one says "megaditto"? And the answer to that question has been provided MANY times on the Limbaugh show and it has always been explained that it is entirely independent of whether or not one agrees with Mr. Limbaugh's views. This has been explained on many occasions. The term was originally coined when in 1988 a caller went on at length about how much he liked the show, and the next caller said something to the effect of "ditto what that guy said." It has since become shorthand to describe how much one enjoys the show, not how much one agrees with Limbaugh. It in no way is an expression of ideological solidarity with Mr. Limbaugh and the attempts to edit this definition to describe it as such as simply factually wrong. 68.14.90.253 21:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) As I already said, anyone using mega-dittos to mean anything other than "I agree with you completely" is making a fool of himself. You even said, "you are correct that 'mega-dittos' cannot be interpreted to mean anything other than 'I agree with you completely'." But now you claim it simply means "I enjoy the show".--198.93.113.49 13:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) As I already said, anyone using mega-dittos to mean anything other than "I agree with you completely" is making a fool of himself.

Fine, but who is "you" in that statement? Answer: not Limbaugh.

But now you claim it simply means "I enjoy the show"

Yes, now it is a form of shorthand that means that. Originally it meant "I agree with the person who spoke at length about liking the show." It's never meant that one agrees with Limbaugh's views.

FYI, Limbaugh explained this YET AGAIN at 2:36 EST 6/9/2005 on his show. Limbaugh can explain that black is white and day is night for all I care. I'm sure the "dittoheads" will all say "mega-dittos". But here in the real word you don't day to someone "I agree with you completely" and then turn around and claim that the "you" in that sentence refers to a bunch of strangers who aren't even present and who haven't even been mentioned, and that a "agree completely" is a shorthand for "I enjoy your show". And you wonder why dittoheads get accused of group think!--198.93.113.49 14:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Well, that statement really gets to the heart of your problem. You aren't interested in facts; instead you'd rather try to rewrite the definition of a term you don't understand in order to attack those who don't share your ideological views. Wikipedia is poorly served by such behavior.


 * I'm not the one trying to rewrite the defintion of the term. I was listening to Rush today and a caller called in to ask Rush's opinion of Tom Sneden. The first thing the caller said was "Dittos to you" (emphasis added). Rush's response was "Thank you." Anyone who thinks that "Dittos to you" mean "Dittos to the other callers" and that Rush was thanking the man on behalf of all the other callers is guilty of trying to rewrite the defintions.--198.93.113.49 16:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You still don't get it. Ditto means "the same as stated before." The message that was "stated before" was a statement made by a CALLER about how much he LIKED THE SHOW. When one says "ditto" or "megaditto" therefore, one is saying - in shorthand form - that they LIKE THE SHOW, not that they are stating that they believe exactly statements Limbaugh has made before, e.g. that that they agree with him. Therefore, when a caller says "dittos to you" he's saying "I love the show (as the original caller stated immediately preceding the coining of the term, years ago)." They aren't saying "Dittos" TO THE OTHER CALLERS, they are saying "I am saying the same thing as the other caller[s]" - specifically, "I like the show."


 * That's just non-sensical. Callers often say "dittos" even when the last caller called in to complain about the show. Are they dittoing the complaints? Or are you claiming that they are dittoing some guy who called years ago? I'm sorry but ditto does not mean I agree with what some guy just said over a decade ago--198.93.113.49 19:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC.)

I'm sorry but ditto does not mean I agree with what some guy just said over a decade ago

Yes, that's exactly what it means. Please consult the many, many times this has actually been explained on Limbaugh's show and elsewhere. Until then you simply don't know what you're discussing, and your continued debating the point is a waste of everyone's time.


 * No that is not what it means. The word ditto had a meaning before it was ever used on the Rush Limbaugh show. And Rush's callers using it differently will never change the word's meaning. It may be a code word for "I like the show" to Rushes callers. But that bring sme back to my orinigal point. People using ditto to mean something other than what it actually means are making fools of themselves.--198.93.113.49 14:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No that is not what it means. The word ditto had a meaning before it was ever used on the Rush Limbaugh show.

So what? We're discussing the term dittohead in the context of the Rush Limbaugh Show.

It may be a code word for "I like the show" to Rushes callers.

I'm glad you're finally acknowledging reality.

People using ditto to mean something other than what it actually means are making fools of themselves.

Well, that's a remarkably arrogant attitude you insist on flinging around. Are you against all forms of slang? Do you run screaming from the room when Michael Jackson's song Bad is played? I guess you think Phat Farm clothing should only be worn by overweight people. Apparently every time someone says something is cool or hot you must think they're talking about the temperature. Interesting.

Slang may be non-standard but it is still widely used. A person using bad to mean good is not adopting a special meaning that only he and the rest of his clique understand. If Rush's minions want to use ditto to mean something completely at odds with the actual meaning it's no skin of my teeth, but the word ditto will go right on meaning what it means in the real world. And any Dittohead who expects people to interpret their "ditto" as not meaning ditto but meaning "I agree with that caller who called years ago to say that he likes your show" is stupid.--198.93.113.49 13:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Slang may be non-standard but it is still widely used. A person using bad to mean good is not adopting a special meaning that only he and the rest of his clique understand."

Nonsense. Most slang only has meaning within its own cultural subgroup. This is no different.

If Rush's minions want to use ditto to mean something completely at odds with the actual meaning it's no skin of my teeth,

First of all, Limbaugh has listeners, not "minions." Secondly, obviously it is "skin of sic [your] teeth" since you continue to attempt to insert factually incorrect information into a non-controversial wikipedia definition.

but the word ditto will go right on meaning what it means in the real world.

We aren't debating what ditto means outside of the context of the Rush Limbaugh Show. How many times do you need that point repeated?

And any Dittohead who expects people to interpret their "ditto" as not meaning ditto but meaning "I agree with that caller who called years ago to say that he likes your show" is stupid.

Childish insults that fly in the face of factual information won't win you any arguments.


 * Being a hypocrite and hurling insults at me but crying when they come your way won't win you any arguments either. As for not debating what the word "ditto" means. What the word means is relevant to the discussion. You obviously aren't paying attention to anything I'm saying. Go back to the top and try reading my post again. Repeat as many times as necessary.--198.93.113.49 14:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As you have ceased attempting to discuss the article in question, this discussion is over.

Limbaugh explained the term as "someone who likes the show and hopes it never goes away" yet again - today at 2:52 Eastern. He did so in correcting someone who thought it meant that she agreed with Limbaugh. 12.148.243.34 18:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Limbaugh and whichever dittohead feels like it can explain all they want: A dittohead is a dittohead. The show IS Rush Limbaugh, if you like the show, you are liking Limbaugh nand everything he stands for. A dittohead goes along with OTHER dittoheads who go laong with Limbaugh. What's there to discuss?

Are you dittoheads EMBARRASSED to be in lockstep with each other? Or have we Lib'ruls intruded in your little fantasy world thatyou are somehow courageously independent Conservative thinkers when actually you leave your brain and scruples at the door when the golden EIB microphone powers on and calls you to listen?

Really. You people are PATHETIC.


 * Childish insults that fly in the face of factual information won't win you any arguments.

- This talk page has been a fascinating read. The attempts by Rush Limbaugh's detractors to redefine the term "dittohead" have been interesting, to say the least. Can anyone cite an instance where this term has been used outside of the context of the Rush Limbaugh show? If not, then the definition seems spot-on. I wonder though if this might be a better 'fit' on Wiktionary than Wikipedia. Gregmg 16:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism starts here -> &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.133.14.82 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Limbaugh detractors invented the term "dittohead" as a way to claim his listeners unthinkingly agree with him. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.47.234.131 (talk &bull; contribs).

<- Here endeth the factually incorrect vandalism. Have a nice day. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.133.14.82 (talk &bull; contribs).

Vandalism of this talk page
This is the the talk page for the Dittohead article. This is also an open forum. It is exceptionally bad form to remove comments left by other users on this page. Generally, anything other than profanity or vandalism should remain on a talk page. Whether or not someone's comments contribute anything useful to the discussion is irrelevant. DO NOT REMOVE COMMENTS FROM THIS OR ANY OTHER TALK PAGE, unless of course they represent vandalism, are laced with profanity, or violate Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Gregmg 02:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirect target
I think it would be better to redirect to the D section of the Jargon article. Thoughts?—Red Baron 22:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Start of another contribution - please separate from the above if possible.

What has happened to the dittohead article? There used to be an article explaining, albeit incorrectly, what the writer thought the term meant and how it was derived from the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show. Does this article still exist? Current search on yahoo for dittohead only links to this talk page and the general Rush Limbaugh page.

I will attempt to paraphrase what the previous article said, which was written by somebody of liberal bias, or lacking intellectual honesty. There was a reported quote from Rush Limbaugh explaining his recollection of the origin. Whether Rush recalled it incorrectly or the writer translated it incorrectly, the explanation was opposite the actual event. It claimed something like a caller said how much she agreed with him, and she was a loyal follower, and heaped praise upon Rush. That is the part that was incorrect. I have forgotten what was the name of that lady, or where she was calling from, but she was quite charming and eloquent. The correct part was that the next caller started his conversation with Rush with "what she said, me too" or words to that effect. Then the next caller (third) may have said "Me three" or words to that effect. Either that third caller or the fourth caller started the conversation with Rush by saying "Ditto what that lady said" or words to that effect. If there was another caller that day, they also started the call with "Many dittos" or words to that effect. This was the end of the broadcast day for the Rush Limbaugh Show on this day. That was either a Thursday or a Friday. On the next day's broadcast the very first caller started the conversation with "Dittos" and each subsequent caller issued a version of "Dittos" including early on "megadittos." These expressions were all indicating agreement with the comments and sentiments of that first lady who explained why she enjoyed listening to the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show.

Liberals who try to explain what she said will mistakenly default to what they know - a proclamation that Rush is their leader, we will follow whatever he says, and we await his pronouncements to learn what we should think. This is because liberals who cannot think for themselves must rely upon somebody to tell them what to think - their teacher, their professor, Hollywood, of the Mainstream Liberal Media, which all seem to have an organized or orchestrated framework of talking points to keep the unthinking liberals in line. This is the opposite of what the lady said, and because it is the foundation for what the "Dittos" refer to, it is key.

What the lady said, or explained, I will attempt to recapture here. I have no access to archives from that fall day in 1988, so citation would be hard to find. She explained that across America, there were teaming millions of independently thinking people screaming at their TVs or radios whenever they heard the liberal drivel spew forth, each of these individuals who could think for themselves could see right through the gibberish that the liberals passed for "news" stories and lies. All of these people, individually thinking the same thing as the others without knowing about the others or communicating with the others, were all essentially in agreement with each other. Yet in their lives they interacted with liberals who mindlessly seemed to just follow whatever liberal lies were proffered, and they did not adequately explain to their acquaintance liberals how wrong they were. And the same thing that each of them independently were thinking was what Rush Limbaugh said on his show. Rush was more eloquent than they were. Rush was not telling them what to think, but was saying the same things they had each been thinking themselves, with the same conclusions they had all come to independently before. Rush was is essence the default spokesman for them, not because he claimed to be or they elected him to be, but because he was saying the exact same things they were already saying in their minds. Plus, his show allowed these people to also hear the vast multitudes who also agreed with them and their thoughts, as opposed to the liberal sheeple they were surrounded with and forced to interact with in their daily lives.

I was riding passenger in our work truck at the time of that call. If I had been driving I would have needed to pull over, for i could not see clearly by the time she have finished saying her piece.

The key difference is that the unthinking liberals require a leader to teach them what they must think in order to maintain their liberal delusions. But the conservatives who constantly think for themselves do not need any Rush or other leader to tell them what to think, yet they find that all those teeming millions of independent thinkers find that Rush is saying the same thing they have been thinking. This lack of leadership structure is what the liberals cannot comprehend, because it is foreign to them - and they may understand that when they begin to think for themselves, they will cease to be liberals anymore. This is why liberals must always cast conservatives into the template of followers, because they cannot yet understand the intellectually honest facts.Ronws (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronws (talk • contribs) 00:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)