QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Feb 22 2008, 07:22 AM)
You know, I have a lot of sympathy for Michelle Obama, for Bill Clinton, for all of these people. Bill Clinton, I have sympathy for him, because they're thrown into a hopper where everybody is waiting for them to make a mistake, so that they can just go and bludgeon them. And, you know, Bill Clinton and I don't agree on a lot of things, and I think I've made that clear over the years, but he's trying to stick up for his wife, and every time the guy turns around, there's another demagogue or another ideologue in his face trying to humiliate him because they're rooting for Obama.
That's wrong. And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down.
Questions for debate:1.)Should FOX News suspend O'Reilly for his comments? Why or why not given the fact that Imus was suspended for his comments?2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?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?
QUOTE(Amlord @ Feb 22 2008, 09:00 AM)
Lynching is vigilanteism and although there is a history (some say long buried) of lynching against blacks in the US, I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks that Bill O'Reilly is calling for a lynch mob to go after Michelle Obama. In fact, he has defended her and called for calm.
My heart may start bleeding here. Lynching has a legal meaning.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the phrase "mob or riotous assemblage," when used in this act, shall mean an assemblage composed of three or more persons acting in concert for the purpose of depriving any person of his life without authority of law as a punishment for or to prevent the commission of some actual or supposed public offense
Lynching may have a connotation here, but that doesn't mean that is the meaning everyone.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Feb 22 2008, 09:19 AM)
No. Nappy Headed Ho was a stretch... Lynching isn't a racist term.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Feb 22 2008, 07:22 AM)
2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?
Yes lynching is fine. Lynch mob is a term used often and its implied verb lynching is too.
Lynching isn't a racist term. We should open the door wide and stop giving words so much power. Alternately people could stop standing around waiting to be offended.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Feb 22 2008, 10:06 AM)
Sorry, black people, but you don't own the word "lynch."
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 22 2008, 10:55 AM)
It seems to me that some here in this thread are out to lynch O'Reilly. Again.
Was that racist, or was it used in a context similar to what O'Reilly intended? I guess that is left up for interpretation, but I will say that my intent was intended as a metaphoric form. I don't think anyone here really wants to "get a rope".
Not sure how many ways you can interpret a noose. I would be offended if someone hung a noose in my front yard, and I am as white as they come. The word lynch can be used metephorically. An actual noose is pretty cut and dry.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 22 2008, 11:18 AM)
If O'Reilly had held up a noose and looked at the camera and said "Mrs. Obama, we are coming after you." then yes, you are completely right. He used a word that metaphorically meant that the media shouldn't attack her for her statements. He is actually defending her. Yet there are those that still want to attack, or lynch, him any chance they get. It boggles the mind.
Again, if he meant that he condoned a mob to get a rope and string her up, I would be right there with you, but it is more probable that the word was used metaphorically. Only those that are out to lynch O'Reilly would think otherwise. (another metaphor!)
QUOTE(quick @ Feb 22 2008, 12:02 PM)
3) It is not a rascist term, not really. Anyone who has ever watched a Western knows there is a wholly different context for lynching. We should not let black extremists determine our public discourse.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Feb 22 2008, 01:38 PM)
I suppose that no one wants to argue that at least to a certain extent Mr. O'Reilly wasn't being malicious? Sure- it was a poor choice of words. He admitted it. Why is this a debate again?
I suppose because it has something to do with Black people (African Americans probably don't care... as anyone that I've met who is actually from Africa knows what real prejudice is... ever heard of Apartheid?).
QUOTE(kalabus @ Feb 22 2008, 01:44 PM)
It's a lazy comment, nothing more.
I confess that I'm a bit conflicted over Bill O'Reilly's "lynching" comment. I can't decide whether he's a raging bigot, totally clueless as to how stupidly insensitive his remarks were or just another out of touch, old White guy.
Ah, the hell with it. To play it safe we'll just go with all of the above. O'Reilly is a bigoted, clueless, stupidly insensitive, out of touch. old White guy.
Now let's deal with the vast assortment of O'Reilly apologists. O'Reilly is too much in touch with his lizard brain. What's your
Some of you aren't totally beyond redemption. All you need to do is develop a perspective and a conscience. Obviously you know little to nothing about what lynching was. It was torture and murder presented as family entertainment. Bring the wife and kids and pack a lunch. A good time guaranteed for all.
Bill O'Reilly misappropriated the term "lynching." Maybe he doesn't know his American history or he just doesn't care. By his remarks, I'd add quick
to that sorry group. The problem isn't "Black extremists" limiting public discourse and this ain't about "The Ox-Bow Incident."
This is about a pinhead popping off at the mouth about something he doesn't know crap about and the lame attempts to rationalize and excuse it. BaphometsAdvocate
belongs as well since he says, "lynching is fine" and "lynching isn't a racist term."
The rest of you just seem to be ill-informed--perhaps deliberately---but ill informed all the same. You never bothered to inform yourself about the horror of lynching or deluded yourself that it happened a long time ago and was perpetrated by crazy Klansmen or mobs of bloodthirsty bigots.
What you fail to understand is that it doesn't matter if O'Reilly used the term "lynching" intentionally or not. He cheapened the word for the sake of entertainment and that is callous at best, moronic at worst. It's not just the few bigots that do so much damage. It's also the supposedly "good people" who stand around with their hands in their pockets or clasped over their eyes and mouth and let the bigotry go unchecked. Or in cases like this one, actually defend the idiot making the bigoted remark.
When Jane Fonda used the "C" word on the Today Show, host Meredith Viera had to apologize. O'Reilly flailed both Fonda and NBC for her potty mouth.
When David Shuster used the word "pimping" to describe Chelsea Clinton's courting of superdelegates for her mother's campaign, MSNBC had Shuster issue an apology and suspended him. O' Reilly blasted MSNBC and Shuster (a former Fox News reporter).
When Kelly Tilghamon said to beat Tiger Woods other golfers should "lynch him in a back alley" she was suspended by The Golf Channel. She also apologized.
This incident was compounded when Golfweek magazine did a story about the incident illustrated by a noose on the cover. The editor who approved the cover was fired.
Bill O'Reilly apologized. What's holding Fox News up from suspending his
Why is the same conservatives and Republicans who always decry the lack of personal responsibility in others always find a way to excuse the lack of it when it's done by someone whom they agree with?