BoF I really wouldn't expect you to be SAWTBO but here we are with you posting pictures and running around like a prom queen with a broken heel in complete histrionics mode. (As bizarre as it sounds I just got mental image of you in your hat in a prom dress with a broken heel ranting an raving as you run around in a circle... I woke the kids up and I'm not exactly sure what to tell them I'm laughing out loud at 0745 for... anyway...)

First off O'Reilly used the word in a context that was completely appropriate. Secondly he's clearly defending Michelle Obama not in any way threatening her, or inciting any sort of violence to anyone. The fact that words change over time or become diluted from over/misuse isn't O'Reilly's fault, problem or concern. So while you can post all the Lynch-Porn you want what O'Reilly said was the turn of a phrase that would have gone unnoticed if Michelle and Barack were white.

End of story. I'm right, you know it... shush.

The problem with this argument is that the subject does and should matter. It's like using the term holocaust in the same sort of manner. Holocaust in and of itself has a 'generic' meaning, but it has since taken on a specific meaning (which should be understood).

Look, I don't really care what Bill O'Reilly says - he's an idiot, but it doesn't matter to me. As several others have said, I don't think he meant any ill will, he just is just too dim to realize that talking about sending out a "lynch mob" against an African American is just in poor taste. And yes, he WAS talking about sending out a lynch mob...once he uttered the word 'unless' it was no longer a defense of Michelle Obama (and as much as I detest the man, I really think he was likely attempting to defend her). That he was insensitive and foolish for doing so - that's his job and it's nowhere near the same offense as "nappy headed hos". You've just got to use your head and O'Reilly simply did not. I don't think there should be any sort of reprimand, however. If he really meant no ill will by his comments a simply apology for being an insensitive moron would suffice.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802210014?f=i_latest

Bill O'Reilly stated: "I'm sorry if my statement offended anybody. That, of course, was not the intention. Context is everything."

Well, I don't consider saying "sorry, BUT" an apology, but sure. Had he said "I meant no offense but now I see how offense could have been taken given the significance of the word 'lynch' and for that I apologize", I would have 'bought' the apology. Throwing "context is everything" in there sort of negates the apology.

AuthorMusician's post highlights the best approach. Do your best to not offend and owe up to it if you do. All it takes for you is an effort to pay attention and a willingness to change. When you don't and you continue to use the same offensive remarks, then that tells others a lot about you.

Baphomet's_Advocate:



A justification buried in an apology isn't really an apology. Any context of the remark in talking about an African-American is inappopriate and shows a fundamental lack of regard for the other person.

Well, as also mentioned, some people just sit around waiting to be offended. So there's no way to really walk the line on this subject, as it were, because there are so many dependent variables. It would be best for everyone just to agree to some kind of No-No Word Sheet. Something definitive, with no guess-work.

You are wrong for two reasons. First, as I mentioned many post ago and kmsouthern just reminded us, the word "unless" indicates that O'Reilly wasn't really defending Michelle Obama. The unless meantg, if you watch the clip, that she was an "angry woman." Hell, as I said earlier, so what. Anger is good and necessary at time.

Second, I'm trying, and as a white man I say trying, to look at this as I think an African American might. that is why I quoted the well respected Black journalist Eugene Robinson in my first post. I would imagine the pictures I posted are what's in his mind's eye. Fox should rid itself of O'Reilly. As we say in Texas, "he's about as useless as tits on boar hog." If the obtuse O'Reilly were gone perhaps his audience could find a more reliable source of information.

It's going to be a long 4 years if Obama is elected. Even though America has collectively embraced a person who is black and has a Muslim name, it will never be good enough. Someone will always find a way to capitalize on a mistake - just like this one - and find ways to make people racist.

I can honestly say that I can't find myself voting for Obama. Not because he is black. It will be because the racial divide will only increase. Personally, I've had it up to here with having to walk on eggshells around blacks in this country. No matter what you do, it's never good enough and and any progress is eliminated by not blatant acts of racism, but perceived acts of racism. Any disagreements will be labeled as racist and my bet is, this post here will be considered racist because I'm completely sick of this crap.

If I have a choice between a douchebag republican, a lying snake, and someone who is bright, articulate, and a track record of solid judgment, I have to go with someone other than Obama because I can deal with the republican versus democrat divide better than I can the race divide. At least in politics, the differences are real policies. Between the races, the differences are whatever you want them to be or think they can be.

DR- I must respectfully say I disagree with an increase of "walking on eggshells"- I don't walk on eggshells now. If I am on the air or on stage- I am careful of what I say, no matter what the topic, because a word-smith is EXTREMELY cautious of meaning and someone to misconstrue my meaning.

I think my main outrage with O'Rielly is the acceptance of his incompetance in his field- just like I originally posted with Imus. I believe there is an ego here, like rockstars you and I have both either known or read about, that make them think that they can do or say anything, and it makes them sloppy in thier job.

I opened several times for Def Comedy jam, as a middle aged white guy from the suburbs of Alaska- I mean, damn, how un-black culture am I? I didn't copy the "headliners" acts on race, I talked about it in my own terms, from my viewpoint, and no one was even remotely offended.

My opening joke always went like this "hey, what do you call a black man in the cockpit of a jumbo jet"

I wait a second for some kind of "OMG" look from some of the audience, then hit them with the punchline "the pilot ya big racist- jeeze guys, what did you think I was going to say"

Like I said with BA's oh-so-clueless comments on lynching- I seriously don't think anyone is offended by him, just amused and not in a cool way.

It is just the kind of reaction when a child does something so socially clueless. You just can't be offended, just amused at thier expense.

You can tell by Turnea's comment on BA's comments. he wasn't waiting to be offended, he wasn't offended, obviously- it is just so clueless you can't help but laugh a bit at BA's expense.

I do think Obama will actually LESSON the divide, except the extremists on either side- but those of us in the middle, I really don't believe it will harm the debate at all- it, if anything, can make white America feel pretty good about electing a black man, not because he is black, which I seriously don't think makes a difference in caucasion America's love affair with the guy- it is the fact that he represents a fundamental change in American society, a true movement towards color-blindness.

If some black guy with a real chip on his shoulder, says something about the glass ceiling- it kinda negates that argument a bit when a black man is literally the most powerful man on earth?

I mean, when someone calls you "racist"- your retort is "oh, F you- I voted for Obama" )(joking there a bit, but only a bit, hyperbole to make a point and all that)

Seriously DR- I do think his election will be the best thing that has ever happened to the racial issues in America.

It should be - but it won't.

Tell me the last time a black public figure saying something blatantly racist suffered the same consequences as a white man who said something that in context, was not to be meant racist, but perceived as racist just like our 'ol pal Billy boy here.

In my opinion, Bill O'Reilly is an idiot. He's a blowhard. And he's a hypocrite. If he died in a fiery crash, I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep because the world will have just become a better place (note to you NSA guys: This is not saying this is what he deserves or something anyone should hope for).

But what he said was not a racist comment. However, he said something that could be perceived as a racist comment. And that's all opportunists need.

In my opinion, my position is accurate - white people must walk on eggshells when dealing with blacks because their wording must be chosen perfectly. Why is it nobody has taken on Obama the same way any other candidate gets scrutinized? Has Obama's life been so perfect that the same type of attacks most political candidates suffer through don't apply to him?

As much as I like Obama, are there things we should know bout him - but don't - because nobody wants to suffer the consequences?

There was a time when I thought your statement would be true. But now I believe the opposite. My proof that it will hurt race relations is this topic. Where's the proof that race relations are being improved with Obama? I don't see how it is possible to view America as racist when we are ready to elect a black man with a Muslim name. That should dispel any myths about institutional racism. Instead, we're reduced to defending a some moron that doesn't deserve this much relevance. The harder it is to find racism, the harder some people will look. The bar will continually get lowered so racism will never go away.

Much as we all laugh at your inability to spell, have a coherent thought or even properly read a thread and of course your gross mis/overuse of the emoticon.

As member of the Great White Cabal I still say lynching isn't a racist term. It may have a historical note attached to it about racists and racism but it's not a racist word. It ain't a word that rhymes with chigger - if you will. No one seems to care about this manufactured rage. Perhaps next week will bring new light onto it but it's tough to say. Shall we suspend Michelle Obama for openly stating she's never been proud of America until her husband was in the front running of the Democratic Nomination? I mean that is what she said isn't it? Perhaps there's a syllable that McCain said somewhere that is racist - has he said nagger lately? Fine him.

Stop standing around waiting to be offended. And seriously the pilot joke is ancient find some new material.

Where did my formatting options go?


It's been a long 7 years, DR. You can look forward to more of the same. Obama is getting compared to Hitler by our very own KHT. Obama's been rumored to be a socialist, Communist*, black revolutionary when he's black enough to qualify, and Muslim according to Daniel "we shouldn't care what Islam says about apostates unless the Democratic presidential candidate is one" Pipes.

Your statement is more of the same "oh God let's not go there again" fatigue. Your (plural) fatigue over race relations is fatiguing me out. If you're lucky Obama will kick Fox News and Rush Limbaugh out of the country and the eggshells will simply disappear.

It's interesting how our subconscious acceptance for groups claiming victimhood line up along cultural lines. Kids are hip man, but O'Reilly isn't auditioning for a child talent show. Lynching has evolved about as much as nigger has with older blacks sneering at the glamorization of thuggish hip hop lyrics that includes condemning Black Entertainment Television in the process. Univision may broadcast cliché brain-dead novelas, but viewers won't put up with shows depicting Hispanic/Latin culture as a whole as brutish, reveling in disobedience, etc. Blacks have a right to their own cultural ownership and working out acceptable behavior from within and without. If they step on non-black toes in the process, too bad. If you think complaining about the word is excessive for 2008 think about how America has done more than used diplomacy to impose democratic utopia around the world.

This question of ownership isn't restricted to race issues, imo. You've been railing against your own party for years. I can't say what conservatism should be or shouldn't be. That's not my bag, baby. That's for Republicans to decide as long as they call themselves conservatives.

Should FOX News suspend O'Reilly for his comments? Why or why not given the fact that Imus was suspended for his comments?
I recommend the same approach with Don Imus. If people clamor for it and the market "speaks" he should go. If there is significant pressure to take O'Reilly off the air and Fox News Channel doesn't listen well, I'll be glad to witness another ratings nosedive. It's a win-win.

*disparities between communism and fascism don't matter cuz conservatism is the most benign, righteous ideology on Earth and Jonah Goldberg agrees, and as an anti-Christ, anti-life voter myself I say that with a straight face.

Fox News is the problem? Wow. That's um... narrow. Eggshells, as described by DaytonRocker are caused by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh... I see. Are you sure this isn't one of those DailyKOS, MoveOn.org wet dream/fantasies some on the left are wont to have? You know like Merry Fitzmas, or impeachment. Is this the Uncle Obama will make Fox News go away and then MSNBC and CNN will have ratings again fantasy?

So anyway onto the next two sentences... Now sit down, this might be too much for you... I agree. I totally agree with you. I even agreed with the Wrong Language Channel sentiment but since I only ever stop there for game shows where contestants are injured and hot women in thigh high bots and mint skirts I thought it best to leave it alone... You're absolutely right. Blacks have a right to work out acceptable behavior from with in and with out... oh and so do whites.

However, where is the outrage from say... Michelle Obama? Barack Obama? An aid from the Obama camp? Sharpton seems pretty relaxed about the statement. Uh... how about anyone from the black community who wasn't already ticked off at O'Reilly? Wait... how about anyone at all who doesn't have a boring football free Sunday afternoon to waste discussing this non issue?

Where's the outrage?

You're definitely in Great White Cabal mode if you missed the sarcasm.


Are you asking in regards to BET? If so, it would be nice if the above said <i>anything</i> at all, and perhaps I'm wrong here, but Hispanics don't like to wait for politicians and Civil Rights loyalty to speak up on their behalf. This is a political problem for the black community. O'Reilly presents an easy target because everyone already knows he's a blowhard.

Well, you've saved me a lot of typing by making my point.

I have praised Obama and couldn't care less if he's black or a Muslim. And I'm a "real" conservative republican that has consistent principles.

But we're arguing over how a lame comment from a blowhard is racist. And as expected, I got the "Your (plural) fatigue over race relations is fatiguing me out" type comments.

As noted in this exchange, this will get worse - not better.

It's lame for you because you don't think one group should define what lynching means. I don't think you could post from a black man's point of view no matter who you praise. You can keep "it" from getting worse by avoiding lame discussions and letting others decide the outcome. After all we're probably arguing over "nothing," right? What harm could ignoring it do.

Everybody knows what lynching means. And no way was Bill O talking in a literal sense. People use the term "lynching" figuratively all the time without meaning any reference to hanging black people. This is a case of somebody never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

I guess I don't know who these people are, DR. I know lynching refers to trussing up and/or killing black people in racially motivated murder.

When people use hot button words figuratively they amend the literal meaning of the word with phrases such as political lynching or grammar Nazi. The only meaning for "lynching party" I'm aware of involves groups of white people hanging around dead black men.

And you don't think that a loss to McCain will make it worse? I mean seriuosly- it will validate the "bradley effect"- white people will say they like the black man that represents everything they want- but won't vote for him 'cause he is black.

Now, I don't believe this to be true DR, I am just showing the other side of the coin here.

I do think that Obama is going to walk away with the election, if he keeps it up, and doesn't do something stupid.

We will have to agree to disagree on whether Obama will help or harm race relations, and perhaps, in about 2 years time, we will have a much better footing to debate this if Obama is elected.

America does have a problem with racism still, I think anyone can see that- so folks are over-sensitized on both sides, some get tired of being called a racist whenever they don't toe the "black caucus" line, some are tired of the racism denials over and over again, when they see it every day.

It is hard to argue that there is no change in the dialogue on racism in this country when the black man with the muslim name sits in the most powerful position on earth- don't ya think?

The O'Rielly thing is because he is sloppy and incompetant OR purposely race baiting. He got away with sexually predatory behavior for gawd's sake and they let him keep his job after that- now THAT is a travesty- much more than this- I do think that people are tired of him getting away with all his lies and predatory behaviors because he is the "rockstar" of the right on fox- I link it to the football star that hasn't even had thier wrist slapped for assaults, public drunkeness and all kinds of bad things because they play a child's game well as a legal adult.

I certainly wouldn't have kept my job, and I am sure the same is for you, if we were sexually predatory to a subordinate.

So, whether he is racist or not is irrelevent- he certainly IS sloppy and careless, at the least, and that alone should be a reason to fire him.

However, I am a bit, um, more careful myself for calling for firing after the Imus incident, when we saw that censorship begin to bleed over into satellite radio after Imus. That is when we did cross the line into the (normally reserved for the religious right) church lady "there ought to be a law" behavior we saw shortly afterword.

Quite frankly, in the right audience, DR, if you do it correctly, you can say anything to anybody, if you know your demograph, and do your job as an entertainer well.

I do think folks are hung up on this, due to the "unless" qualifying statement- if he said "let's not lynch her now over unsubstanciated claims"- he would be off the hook- instead he implied "but once we find out the comments are correct, let's lynch her"

I can see the nuance here- though I do feel that it is a mountain out of molehill like you pointed out- manufacturing outrage over stuff like this is a little over the top- but isn't America a little bit over the top- all the time these days?

but as for Obama, it WILL NOT make race relations worse- unless some redneck tries to assasinate him- which is a real fear among alot of folks- he can only help it- because, for once, a black leader, NOT elected because of his race, but IN SPITE of his race, has empowered and all minorities in the US- yes, a black kid CAN aspire to be president some day, and it can be a reality in this day and age, very much unlike when you and I were children- correct?

and BA- an old, tired joke is frequently used as an "icebreaker' because of it's familiarity. I am sure you have quite a bit more of a repetoire of racist jokes than I do- that is the only one I have that is a "stock joke"- and I don't care to learn any more- because it is simply an ice breaker. Like sayijng "oh, you know bob too?"

I don't expect you to recognize the difference, of course. Like I said, I am sure you have a book or two's worth of racist jokes laying around for use to be told only when there isn't "mixed company"

1.)Should FOX News suspend O'Reilly for his comments? Why or why not given the fact that Imus was suspended for his comments?

No, they should not. Two wrongs won't make a right.


2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?

If his viewers think so, sure.

3.)To what extent should racist references and terms be allowed in public discourse? If we say it's "o.k." then what do we potentially open the door to?

Freedom of speech. As long as someone isn't directly threatening another person, what is the harm there? Personally, I think O'Reilly is a big buffoon, so anything he might say to potentially put me or anyone else down, goes in one ear and out the other. The people who get offended by what some idiot has to say, are idiots themselves.

DP- no one is abridging O'Rielly's right to free speech- that can only come with goverment censorship- for instance, if GW had him fired through executive proclamation- that would be a "freedom of speech" issue.

Imus was fired because he started to cost his bosses money.

O'Rielly will be fired if he loses Faux money as well.

That is completley approrpriate, and the best way to deal with any of these issues- cost his sponsors money, and no more O'Rielly.

It is precisely the way capitalism is supposed to work.

Suspend Michelle Obama? By whom and for what? She doesn't work for a media outlet. You are really pushing the envelope of absurdity here.

You are also playing around with words like "chigger" and "nagger." Is it that what you really want to say is inappropriate?

Edited to add:


KHT also called Obama the "anti-Christ." What in hell is this bit of nonsense mythology is suppose to mean? The "saving grace"of that post is that he's learned to short shrift things a bit.


How do you get around the fact that he was talking about a black woman? Further, the people who use this term "figuratively" don't always have a microphone and a national audience predisposed to swallow their bullcrap.


Freedom of speech does not guarantee anyone a microphonr, podium or a national audience. O'Reilly will go down in flames when his sponsors desert him. I hope that's sooner than later.

I don't think that's going to stop him any. He's an author and has got a radio show more fringe talk radio groups would gladly pick up. Heck, if The Infallible One [Rush Limbaugh] is still on the radio after all of the things he's said, Big O's in no danger.

Well, this is the way that Nebraska worded the question: To what extent should racist references and terms be allowed in public discourse? If we say it's "o.k." then what do we potentially open the door to?

I'm not sure what Nebraska has in mind on this, but it sounds like big brother is supposed to make sure that nobody gets their feathers ruffled by the big bad misuse of the English language.

I agree with you, protest by switching the channel, and when enough people turn away, O'Reilly and other imbecilic opinion leaders will find themselves without an audience.

Ah-I see your point- perhaps Nebraska should chime in and explain what his wishes are here? Or the intent of his words? I did not get the "we need goverment intervention" gist in his questions, but I could see how one could.

This problem is bigger than it seems. It is an educational problem. The media, pop culture, advertising agencies, sportscasters and the like are all to blame. Our language has been destroyed. Cliches, slang terms, brand-name verbs (Google me) have become the standard. The media personalities are some of the worst perpetrators of this behavior. They string together a series of cliches to create a sentence. No longer do you have people constructing sentences using nouns, verbs, subjects and predicates. Instead, they just insert a cliche or hyperbolic metaphor. O'Reilly also uses rarely used words in the English language like truculent or bloviate. O'Reilly believes that knowing these words makes him appear intelligent because most people do not know these words. Using words that people do not know is not any different than speaking a foreign language. What benefit is there in knowing words people do not understand? He might as well start speaking Ann Heche's space language.

The bigger problem is that people that speak using cliches are not thinking. The cliches are thinking for them. That is why he ignorantly filled his sentence with a reference that is insulting to African-Americans; because he was not thinking. Had he been thinking about what he was saying, he could have used a word like criticize, condemn, or admonish. Hell! He could have used excoriate, but he was not thinking. The act of not thinking while speaking or writing is the unspoken problem in our country; probably because we could not articulate it. Children are walking around as ignorant as they have ever been. Our cliches have also become outdated and society does not care because they are not thinking. They definitely are not thinking when they are voting.

Should O'reilly be fired? I say yes, because I support free speech. How does that make sense? What greater irony than having free speech's biggest nemesis fired because of something he said?

Simple answer: History forms the context in which speech is received. A German exchange student once told me how, in her country, waving the flag or making pro-German comments can be interpreted as Naziism. Not hard to see why.

My point here is simple: O'Reilly's comment was far stupider than it was offensive, unless it's the type of calculated "gaffe" he makes periodically to attract controversy. In which case, it's offensive to the American process.

But that doesn't mean we can walk away from the issue. America will do a better job selecting a president if irrelevant concerns about race, gender, and age are omitted from the conversation. When O'Reilly uses a word that has racial connotations, it brings race into the debate in an unconstructive way. Whatever it takes for him to leave those racially-coded words at home, I'm all for it. At this point, however, at racial gaffe number 304, maybe a short suspension would do the trick.

Good point. If Bill O were talking about Bush, would you think that he meant Bush should literally be taken to a tree and hung?

Now, take the case of Kelly Tilghman, the Golf Channel anchor who said of Tiger Woods: "young players on the PGA Tour should lynch him in a back alley". In that context, a person has a right to be offended because even though she did not mean that in the literal sense, there was little double meaning in her statement.

Stephen King made a statement in New England about the ending of the movie "Mist":


Is he calling for people to actually be hung like they did in Salem?

Where was the outrage when new rapper NYOIL called for 50 Cent to be lynched? I hadn't even heard about until I started searching on this subject.

You don't need a reason to hate Bill O - we get it. But you're twisting statements to justify that hatred which in my opinion, only makes matter worse.

JAMIE, MIKE - Apparently we need a sarcasm tag for the board.

For chigger I didn't realize you could post nigger here due to the somewhat limited "colorful language" vocabulary. *OMG I said colorful in reference to the word nigger I am the worst kind of racist please hurry up and suspend me*... BoF that was sarcasm there between the *s.

As for nagger ... oh Christ just read what I wrote again it's plain as day.

***

So I have just finished IMing and talking to 5 black friends of mine (2 are gay and live together). None of them have even heard about this and none of them were remotely interested in what was said... The composite response was, "What's the big deal?" Now all 5 live in Manhattan and 2 are hardly Liberals (one of those is a NYPD Detective.) Certainly they know my low tolerance for SAWTBO so that may have swayed their responses as they tried to get back to their Sundays...

We already have a sarcasm tag. It's this.

I don't think anyone has tagged you a racist BA, but by defending a fool like O'Reilly you are defending either accidental or intentional racist language.

Do you realize that if a teacher in FWISD said to a black child or perhaps a class in general, what O'Reilly said concerning Michelle Obama, that they would be suspended at a minimum and perhaps fired? Since there are so many clowns around dying to drug test teachers, maybe we could do a drug screen on Bill-O. Depending on the results, he might join his spirtual cousin Rush Limbaugh in the "Certified Junkie Club."

I think attacking a person like Bill O for something that could maybe be construed as racist language cheapens real racism. As an example, you can't identify child molesters anymore because any crime that could possibly be construed as a sex crime - which includes peeing in public - floods the lists where the real offenders are.

What's next? We rid the world of racists so we can start burning witches again?

Calling for a two week suspension or having his sponsors bail on him does not approximate the Salem Witch Trials. Great use of hyperbole.

I have to say, that is probably the best point made to date there DR- are we, in fact, watering down the real meaning to the point that "peeing in public" is now a sex crime? I mean- in terms of racists?

I know several racists I grew up with, that are truly racist, through and through. But they always preface the "nigger jokes" (a quote) with "I am no racist, but this is funny".

Or "Some of my best friends are black"

Here is the catch 22 with those people DR, they are also the first to express outrage at the outrage- every single one of them were outraged about the treatment of Imus. Where does dialogue begin and racism end?

I'm not defending anyone. I'm excoriating those who are standing around waiting to be offended. I'm explaining that words only have the power WE give them. I'm saying definitively that lynching isn't a racist word. O'Reilly can go poop in his hat for all I care.

Speaking of Don Imus:

O'REILLY: No, I think it's over. I think, tonight, it's over, certainly over for me, as far as Don Imus is concerned. I think there's a karma thing in play here. I think, over the years, Don Imus has hurt a lot of people. And this is the end for him. It will be interesting to see if NBC now will stop the hate that they have been peddling in on their cable networks for two years.


It's "maybe" racist to DR and others. I guess if it's offensive enough O'Reilly will go off the air.

Why should King get flak for having enough sense not to say lynching party?

You keep going back to we're in for trouble because we're focusing on lynching. If Clinton somehow gets the nomination Chris Matthews will be sure to remind us how much he hates her, how annoying her voice is to Glen Beck and McCain referring some more to his rival as the bitch.

If pointing out sexism and racism in broadcast is akin to registering drunks on a sex offender's list it's no wonder you think this thread is much ado about nothing. We would need to wait until the DNC disavows Clinton on the basis of her plumbing for cause to complain and reaffirm support for our rights.

Hmmm, "waiting around to be offended" - sounds pretty much like thick fecal matter to me.

I am sure there are prima donnas that fit that description- but I don't think Eugene Robison is one of them BA- do you?

Hey BA- to bring it down to your level- did you see that "B" movie with Rob Schnieder, I think it was "Animal"- pretty good running racial gags in there- how a black guy just keeps getting promoted 'cause he is black, and how that is racist?

I bring up this because there is this running gag- in the end, the townspeople want to hang Rob Schnieder. But the black guy says " I am the animal"- and the whole crowd walks away saying " I ain't havin' no part of lynchin' no black man"-

it is a great reverse-gag, but it makes the point- when you say "lynch" and are talking in the same breath, or a black person is the subject of the conversation- it has a very, very powerful meaning.

I have listened to the whole bit now- yes, context IS everything- and Bill O'Rielly said the word "unless" - meaning, once we do find out- let's lynch her. It is a racially charged statement at this point.

Whether it is boneheaded, he is a hypocrite or whatever- he has a TV show, where his every statement is scrutinized, and even worse, those moralists on the right that decry things like "family values" give this turd a pass on his sexual predation- so it is not that they are "waiting to be offended"- they are already offended by a sexual predator that gets a pass from the 'family values" types that watch his show- and to add insult to injury by his racially charged statements- intentional or not, you have people defending his behavior. Overwhelmingly white people.

There are lots of folks out there that are offended by this that aren't "waiting to be offended"- it came looking for them.

Your friends? Well, hey, they don't watch the show and probably arent' "policy wonks" either.

A fair amount of my friends also believed that Obama is a domestic muslim insurgent as well. Doesn't make them right- they just use poor sources to get thier worldview.

and Ya, it is still quite amusing- not offensive, that you think lynching is a racially charged word. ESPECIALLY when directed in conversation about a black person.

I would agree with you, that the meaning of the word changes a bunch when talking about white people- but when you mention it in the same breath when talking about a black person- ya, it is totally racially charged, no matter what you 'THINK' you are saying.

is easily one of the least funny people who we've been told is funny

If you think there aren't people standing around waiting to be offended you might want to pay more attention.

I did point out it was a "b" movie- right?

Still, most people offended by Bill O'Rielly's show, don't need to stand around to be offended.

So we agree this is much ado about nothing... Geez I hope that wasn't a racist phrase.

Then don't "walk around eggshells." Say what you feel and stop censoring yourself. You certainly don't seem to be having any problem expressing yourself here.

If you need proof, I can provide several examples of Bill O'Reilly's racial insensitivity. It didn't start with Michelle Obama. There is an established pattern of these kind of loutish remarks. Whether or not that will convince you bad behavior regarding race on O'Reilly's part is a fact and that is what has brought this backlash down upon his head, is up to you. I can assure you nobody decided now would be a good time to screw over O'Reilly. Like Limbaugh and Coulter, he's a repeat offender.

Race fatigue is not confined exclusively to White conservatives. White liberals and more than a few Blacks of both political persuasions are pretty tired of race as well. After Obama's victory in the South Carolina primary, there was a chant taken up during the victory rally of "RACE DOESN'T MATTER." Obama seemed to be smiling as the crowd chanted, but I didn't see him join in.

Maybe he knows that it takes more than one primary and one election and one man to make race no longer matter.



Stop right there. You nailed it with the first three words of that sentence. "IN MY OPINION..." Every remark is subject to interpretation. Yours is O'Reilly didn't make a racist comment. Mine is, he did. Who is right and who is wrong?

The answer is You Are. And so Am I. Because we believe we are. There may be some absolute rights and wrongs in this world, but unamity on what comes out of Bill O'Reilly's mouth ain't one of them. If you're expecting universal agreement with your viewpoint you're doomed to be disappointed because I don't and I'm fine with that. You, on the other hand, seem to be having a problem with that.



Be patient. If he gets the nomination, I assure you the Republicans will not be the least bit reluctant in trying to break Obama down like a walnut. If there's a picture of him with his tongue down a White woman's throat or flipping the bird as the flag goes by, somebody will find it. Or Photoshop it. Whichever comes first.



You are doomed to bitter disappointment DR if you had any expectations that a President Obama would spell the end of racial division. No one can deny that Obama's candidacy has exceeded expectations, but it is pure fantasy to suggest it means America has finally put it's racist past behind it. It would take The Second Coming to wipe away the prejudice and bigotry of human beings from their hearts and not even the most insane Obamamaniac believes that is within his power.

Actually, unlike some others who have taken this discussion as a opportunity for lowbrow and sophomoric "humor," you seem to be honestly conflicted and angered by this matter. I don't know what to say or propose to bring about a mutually satisfactory resolution, but I do know that being candid about it is a beginning.

--------------------






I'm not a Moderator and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night either, but you do not appear to be taking this debate seriously, BaphometsAdvocate.

When you use terms like "Lynch Porn" it tends to make me think you think this is all one big sick joke. Or are you really suggesting someone would spank the monkey to a photo of a human being dangling from a tree while their eyes bulge out or being burnt alive to a crisp like so much cheap bacon?

You've been on this board long enough to know "because I say so" and "you know I'm right" doesn't mean a thing. If you don't want to back up your assertions with something more credible and genuine than snide one-liners looking for a joke, then why don't you go play with your kids instead of giggling over how clever you think you are and waking them up on a Sunday morning.

You are dead right about one thing. Lynching is pornographic. It's nasty, brutish and immoral. But it's not funny. Not even the least bit funny. If you want to explore "The Lighter Side of Lynching," BA why don't you take it over to Stormfront.org or somewhere where they'll really appreciate that kind of thing?

It's not your first time at the rodeo. Why are you determined to play the clown?

I used Lynch-Porn because that's exactly what it is... BoF posted completely gratuitous links to pictures meant to arouse (anger, horror, revulsion.) They had absolutely nothing to do with the thread since everyone pretty much agrees that's NOT what BO was talking about. Next time I see someone posting the cliche' Killing Two Birds With One Stone or More Than One Way To Skin A Cat shall I wring my hands and post links to pictures of the act?

PS - You post your way and I'll post mine. If you don't like the way I post feel free to clean it up and repost it and speak to your NT-ized version of my post. Believe me we could all do with some editing now and then.

No, you used "Lynch-Porn" because you thought it sounded cute and clever and funny and it's not. It's just weak. There was nothing gratuitous to the links BoF included. Some people think lynching happened so long ago in the past that it's okay to try and use it as a dumb metaphor or even more pathetic, as a lame attempt at humor.

The proper response to lynching IS anger, horror and revulsion. You AND your homey, Bill O'Reilly, know that. It just takes a while for your brains to wrap around that concept.

If you want to post a link to birds being killed with a stone or a cat being skinned, feel free. It still wouldn't be half as gruesome as a Black man being burned alive, hung by the neck until dead or decapitated after being chained to the back of a pickup truck and dragged down a road by a bunch of Texas rednecks.



A bit touchy there BA? Not seeing the humor in my post? I know the feeling. I don't find any ha-has in lynching.

So if someone makes an inappropriate comment, then they should be given quarter and not hear a dissenting opinion? When did I miss the memo on that? Furthermore, the "waiting to be offended" line is essentially "blaming the victim" strategy at its greatest. It's not a matter of if you disagree with someone, it's a matter of how. O'Reilly definitely misspoke and could have used a better choice of words. Are we to really believe that he just uttered the word "lynching" and he didn't catch it in his mind, what he was saying inregards to the loaded terminology and Michelle Obama? Would he really be that dense? Oh wait, well........I concede the point.

No no... not at all. I just want to make sure you understand that your posts and what you think about my posts have absolutely no relevance to me. So go ahead edit them, ignore them, mock them I don't care.

Uttering a cliche' and actually killing someone aren't the same not matter how much you wring your hands.



Who's the victim again? Is it supposed to be Michelle Obama? I haven't heard anything from her, her husband, an aide... Hell Nebraska I haven't heard anybody but people looking to nail BO talking about this.

But who are you to call him a fool? Isn't that a matter of opinion. Defending O'Reilly's right to choose his own words is different than defending the man himself.



I don't see the relevance in that statement. There are many occupations where you have to walk a fine line. Teaching children in school is way different than having a talk show on tv. That's a red herring, BoF.



When did I miss the memo on who decides what is inappropriate? Shouldn't the viewer decide. Or is it only the "offended" people who should decide if the words another utters were meant to be malicious.



Who was victimized by O'Reilly's choice of words? And what are the damages?



You can only speculate, unless you happen to know what was going on in his mind at that moment. If you don't like what he has to say you have every right to criticize him, but to call for the use of a muzzle is very dangerous. That muzzle may one day be used to quiet you.

O'Reilly's history from:

1. Lying about winning two Peabody awards while with Inside Edition.
2. Bullying guests, telling them toi shut up an cutting their mikes
3. The pay off on sexual harassment accusations
4. Making outrageus and inflammatory statements like this one ...

makes him not only a fool, but a liar and a bully.

Yes, that is an opinion based on facts. I havd had opinions for 65 years doomed. You are not about to change that.



In nebraska29's thread. many of the same people defending O'Reilly wanted to drug test teachers because they were no different and certainly not better. If this is true, then shouldn't a pseudo-journalist or shock jock, or whtever anyone wants to call O'Reilly be subject to the same standard as teachers when speaking?

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...=16232&st=0

"Red herrings" are in the mind of the beholder.

As long as you concede it is, indeed, a matter of opinion.



I would say there is a big difference between what a teacher (in essence, working for government) and, as you put it, a shock jock getting paid by a television network to make money by bringing in as many viewers as possible. O'Reilly's job isn't that of a teacher. If a viewer decides to take his word as the Gospel, that's on them, the same way it would be if someone were listening to Al Franken.

The best way to not get offended by someone like O'Reilly is to turn the channel.

It's opinion based on his history.




Your preface, "I would say," indicates that this is your opinion.

Welcome to the club.

Here is the judge I was thinking about. It's wikipedia, so take with a grain of salt as always, but I am sure that I had read about this somewhere before.




I agree. But the fact that so many here are "standing around waiting to be offended" makes this type of thing overblown. The fact that anyone even clicks on mediamatters means by definition they are looking to see what to be outraged about. Why el