Full Version: O'Reilly's lynching comment about Michelle Obama
Leave it to Bill to put his foot in his mouth. 
In highlighting a supposed call for reason adn waiting for more evidence, Bill O'Reilly made an inappropriate reference to lynching and Michelle Obama. Of course, he couldn't say "call out" or "question," he had to use a racially sensitive term and then get defensive that the offensive term....offends people. I find it very interesting that whenever people try to pile on Obama, they come off looking worse. 
Hillary tried it with the plagiarism accusation and now Bill-O slipped big time.
Here is his comment directly:
Since then, he has issued a kind-of apology and pleaded with people that the context of his statement is what matters. In other words, he wasn't calling for her to be lynched, but rather, that he was waiting to see what would bear out in regards to her comments about being proud of America. Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post also had some interesting comments on the matter.
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?
In highlighting a supposed call for reason adn waiting for more evidence, Bill O'Reilly made an inappropriate reference to lynching and Michelle Obama. Of course, he couldn't say "call out" or "question," he had to use a racially sensitive term and then get defensive that the offensive term....offends people. I find it very interesting that whenever people try to pile on Obama, they come off looking worse. Hillary tried it with the plagiarism accusation and now Bill-O slipped big time. Here is his comment directly:
QUOTE
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.
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.
Since then, he has issued a kind-of apology and pleaded with people that the context of his statement is what matters. In other words, he wasn't calling for her to be lynched, but rather, that he was waiting to see what would bear out in regards to her comments about being proud of America. Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post also had some interesting comments on the matter.
QUOTE
There's nothing funny about lynching. There's certainly nothing at all funny or remotely appropriate about the use of a lynching reference to talk about Michelle Obama, and the word "unless," followed by "[w]e'll track it down," is way beyond the pale. It's -- I'm almost speechless, but I have more to say, of course.
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?
1.)Should FOX News suspend O'Reilly for his comments? Why or why not given the fact that Imus was suspended for his comments?
Cry me a river. Of course not. He was saying the exact opposite of what is being implied.
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.
O'Reilly is saying that we shouldn't form a mob and beat her up (figuratively) for her statement unless we find out that she meant something that is offensive to our sensibilities by it.
What's the difference between this and Imus? Maybe that Imus's intention was to insult those basketball players and O'Reilly's wasn't? Just a thought.
2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?
My heart may start bleeding here. Lynching has a legal meaning.
Lynching may have a connotation here, but that doesn't mean that is the meaning everyone. Wiki: lynching
Now that I've thought it over, we should ban the term lynching from ever being used. We should also ban "crow" "nappy" "kinky" "gay" "limp wristed" "red" "neck" "goat roper" and many, many others. In fact, we should revise the dictionary and have a set amount of approved words which are the only ones that people can use. We don't want to offend anyone, after all.
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?
This question sounds pretty authoritarian. Let people speak their mind, so that we can judge their intent. We can judge people by what they say--their ideas, not the phonetic sounds that come out of their mouths.
Cry me a river. Of course not. He was saying the exact opposite of what is being implied.
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.
O'Reilly is saying that we shouldn't form a mob and beat her up (figuratively) for her statement unless we find out that she meant something that is offensive to our sensibilities by it.
What's the difference between this and Imus? Maybe that Imus's intention was to insult those basketball players and O'Reilly's wasn't? Just a thought.
2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?
My heart may start bleeding here. Lynching has a legal meaning.
QUOTE
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. Wiki: lynching
Now that I've thought it over, we should ban the term lynching from ever being used. We should also ban "crow" "nappy" "kinky" "gay" "limp wristed" "red" "neck" "goat roper" and many, many others. In fact, we should revise the dictionary and have a set amount of approved words which are the only ones that people can use. We don't want to offend anyone, after all.
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?
This question sounds pretty authoritarian. Let people speak their mind, so that we can judge their intent. We can judge people by what they say--their ideas, not the phonetic sounds that come out of their mouths.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Feb 22 2008, 07:22 AM) 
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?
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?
1.) No, while obviously a firebrand-ish tactic, it made sense in context. It would be equally offensive if her ancestors were killed during the Salem Witch Trials and he described it as a witch-hunt, but her skin tone is a bit more evident. He obviously picked his words carefully, but I don't think it's meant to incite or imply anything other than live-up to the outlandish quest for publicity these people enjoy so much.
2.) Interesting word choice in the question.
I think there's a lot to be said for context. Of course [and I'll say it again] he picked the word carefully enough, but writers often link things with another to create a sense of familiarity or desperation, etc. It evokes a tone, and whether or not the Big O really did that for the quality of language or as a means with which to stoke the flames, it's over.
3.) Given my political affiliation, I must say it's okay so long as he doesn't make a direct threat against others.
As Amlord put it,
The question comes, naturally, if Michelle Obama DID say something offensive to our sensibilities, then lynching is justified, in O'Reilly's opinion? That's the part that I didn't like at all... not the statement itself, but the veiled threat hidden in "if/else" statement....
QUOTE
O'Reilly is saying that we shouldn't form a mob and beat her up (figuratively) for her statement unless we find out that she meant something that is offensive to our sensibilities by it.
The question comes, naturally, if Michelle Obama DID say something offensive to our sensibilities, then lynching is justified, in O'Reilly's opinion? That's the part that I didn't like at all... not the statement itself, but the veiled threat hidden in "if/else" statement....
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Feb 22 2008, 07:22 AM)
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?
No. Nappy Headed Ho was a stretch... Lynching isn't a racist term. 1.)Should FOX News suspend O'Reilly for his comments? Why or why not given the fact that Imus was suspended for his comments?
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. (I'm fairly sure George Lynch of Dokken fame wasn't having racist fantasis when he named his band either.)QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Feb 22 2008, 07:22 AM)
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?
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(BaphometsAdvocate @ Feb 22 2008, 09:19 AM)
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.
But the noose, as we've seen in Louisiana, is a powerful symbol that can be interpreted through association to imply a negative relationship between blacks and the act of lynching.
QUOTE(English Horn @ Feb 22 2008, 09:15 AM)
As Amlord put it,
The question comes, naturally, if Michelle Obama DID say something offensive to our sensibilities, then lynching is justified, in O'Reilly's opinion? That's the part that I didn't like at all... not the statement itself, but the veiled threat hidden in "if/else" statement....
QUOTE
O'Reilly is saying that we shouldn't form a mob and beat her up (figuratively) for her statement unless we find out that she meant something that is offensive to our sensibilities by it.
The question comes, naturally, if Michelle Obama DID say something offensive to our sensibilities, then lynching is justified, in O'Reilly's opinion? That's the part that I didn't like at all... not the statement itself, but the veiled threat hidden in "if/else" statement....
No and again, I don't think O'Reilly said this or implied this. Lynching is a gathering of a mob to do vigilante justice. You can see the symbolism that O'Reilly said we shouldn't all pile on her. Now, if she really meant she was never proud of her country, then let the piling on begin. What other words could he have chosen to suggest this "piling on" that everyone would grasp?
Respectfully, someone needs to stop reading mediamatters to find out what they should be 'outraged' about on any given day. I heard the clip, and it's nothing. He was defending her, for God's sake. Beyond that - Sorry, black people, but you don't own the word "lynch."
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Feb 22 2008, 09:21 AM)
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Feb 22 2008, 09:19 AM)
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.
But the noose, as we've seen in Louisiana, is a powerful symbol that can be interpreted through association to imply a negative relationship between blacks and the act of lynching.
Alternately people could stop standing around waiting to be offended
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".
But the noose, as we've seen in Louisiana, is a powerful symbol that can be interpreted through association to imply a negative relationship between blacks and the act of lynching.
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.
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".
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Feb 22 2008, 08:21 AM)
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Feb 22 2008, 09:19 AM)
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.
But the noose, as we've seen in Louisiana, is a powerful symbol that can be interpreted through association to imply a negative relationship between blacks and the act of lynching.
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.
1.)Should FOX News suspend O'Reilly for his comments? Why or why not given the fact that Imus was suspended for his comments?
O'Reilly represents much of what's wrong and has been wrong with this country. I think he should go,
2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20080212-3.html
(I have quoted three consecutive paragraphs, but presidential statements are public domain)
If Bush gets it, I don’t understand why some of the conservatives on this board don’t "gets it." O’Reilly certainly doesn’t "get it."
Here is his O’Reilly’s comment from nebraska29’s original post.
Consider what Eugene Robinson, an accomplished Black journalist, said about the matter on Countdown. Black perspective is important here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23275773/
O'Reilly represents much of what's wrong and has been wrong with this country. I think he should go,
2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?
QUOTE(President George W. Bush @ Feb. 12, 2008)
Our nation has come a long way toward building a more perfect union. Yet as past injustices have become distant memories, there's a risk that our society may lose sight of thereal suffering that took place. One symbol of that suffering is the noose. Recently, there have been a number of media reports about nooses being displayed. These disturbing reports have resulted in heightened racial tensions in many communities. They have revealed that some Americans do not understand why the sight of a noose causes such a visceral reaction among so many people.
For decades, the noose played a central part in a campaign of violence and fear against African Americans. Fathers were dragged from their homes in the dark of the night before the eyes of their terrified children. Summary executions were held by torchlight in front of hateful crowds. In many cases, law enforcement officers responsible for protecting the victims were complicit in their deeds [sic] and their deaths. ]
For generations of African Americans, the noose was more than a tool of murder; it was a tool of intimidation that conveyed a sense of powerlessness to millions.
The era of rampant lynching is a shameful chapter in American history. The noose is not a symbol of prairie justice, but of gross injustice. Displaying one is not a harmless prank. And lynching is not a word to be mentioned in jest. As a civil society, we must understand that noose displays and lynching jokes are deeply offensive. They are wrong. And they have no place in America today. (Applause.)
For decades, the noose played a central part in a campaign of violence and fear against African Americans. Fathers were dragged from their homes in the dark of the night before the eyes of their terrified children. Summary executions were held by torchlight in front of hateful crowds. In many cases, law enforcement officers responsible for protecting the victims were complicit in their deeds [sic] and their deaths. ]
For generations of African Americans, the noose was more than a tool of murder; it was a tool of intimidation that conveyed a sense of powerlessness to millions.
The era of rampant lynching is a shameful chapter in American history. The noose is not a symbol of prairie justice, but of gross injustice. Displaying one is not a harmless prank. And lynching is not a word to be mentioned in jest. As a civil society, we must understand that noose displays and lynching jokes are deeply offensive. They are wrong. And they have no place in America today. (Applause.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20080212-3.html
(I have quoted three consecutive paragraphs, but presidential statements are public domain)
If Bush gets it, I don’t understand why some of the conservatives on this board don’t "gets it." O’Reilly certainly doesn’t "get it."
Here is his O’Reilly’s comment from nebraska29’s original post.
QUOTE(Bill O'Reilly)
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.
The “unless” statement by Bill O’Reilly highlighted above, nullifies any defense for him.
The “unless” statement by Bill O’Reilly highlighted above, nullifies any defense for him.
Consider what Eugene Robinson, an accomplished Black journalist, said about the matter on Countdown. Black perspective is important here.
QUOTE
EUGENE ROBINSON: I think you kind of said it, Keith. That‘s the offense. You know what lynching was? Lynching was a horrific practice of murder, torture, dismemberment, burning alive, hanging, and the only purpose of lynching was to perpetuate white supremacy in the Jim Crowe South.
It wasn‘t—the idea of course wasn‘t to lynch all black people, but by lynching a few black people, not a few, by lynching some black people, to demonstrate to other African-Americans that this could happen to you. That you have no power. That we have all the power and that we can take anything we want from you, including your life.
It wasn‘t—the idea of course wasn‘t to lynch all black people, but by lynching a few black people, not a few, by lynching some black people, to demonstrate to other African-Americans that this could happen to you. That you have no power. That we have all the power and that we can take anything we want from you, including your life.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23275773/
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 22 2008, 10:08 AM)
1.)Should FOX News suspend O'Reilly for his comments? Why or why not given the fact that Imus was suspended for his comments?
O'Reilly represents much of what's wrong and has been wrong with this country. I think he should go,
O'Reilly represents much of what's wrong and has been wrong with this country. I think he should go,
Apparently this is a matter of opinion that is in the minority. If the viewers felt the same way you did, advertising dollars would drop, and Fox would then drop him.
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 22 2008, 10:08 AM)
2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20080212-3.html
I have quoted three consecutive paragraphs, but presidential statements are public domain)
If Bush gets it, I don’t understand why some of the conservatives on this board don’t "gets it." O’Reilly certainly doesn’t "get it."
QUOTE(President George W. Bush)
Our nation has come a long way toward building a more perfect union. Yet as past injustices have become distant memories, there's a risk that our society may lose sight of the real suffering that took place. One symbol of that suffering is the noose. Recently, there have been a number of media reports about nooses being displayed. These disturbing reports have resulted in heightened racial tensions in many communities. They have revealed that some Americans do not understand why the sight of a noose causes such a visceral reaction among so many people.
For decades, the noose played a central part in a campaign of violence and fear against African Americans. Fathers were dragged from their homes in the dark of the night before the eyes of their terrified children. Summary executions were held by torchlight in front of hateful crowds. In many cases, law enforcement officers responsible for protecting the victims were complicit in their deeds [sic] and their deaths. ]
For generations of African Americans, the noose was more than a tool of murder; it was a tool of intimidation that conveyed a sense of powerlessness to millions.
The era of rampant lynching is a shameful chapter in American history. The noose is not a symbol of prairie justice, but of gross injustice. Displaying one is not a harmless prank. And lynching is not a word to be mentioned in jest. As a civil society, we must understand that noose displays and lynching jokes are deeply offensive. They are wrong. And they have no place in America today. (Applause.)
For decades, the noose played a central part in a campaign of violence and fear against African Americans. Fathers were dragged from their homes in the dark of the night before the eyes of their terrified children. Summary executions were held by torchlight in front of hateful crowds. In many cases, law enforcement officers responsible for protecting the victims were complicit in their deeds [sic] and their deaths. ]
For generations of African Americans, the noose was more than a tool of murder; it was a tool of intimidation that conveyed a sense of powerlessness to millions.
The era of rampant lynching is a shameful chapter in American history. The noose is not a symbol of prairie justice, but of gross injustice. Displaying one is not a harmless prank. And lynching is not a word to be mentioned in jest. As a civil society, we must understand that noose displays and lynching jokes are deeply offensive. They are wrong. And they have no place in America today. (Applause.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20080212-3.html
I have quoted three consecutive paragraphs, but presidential statements are public domain)
If Bush gets it, I don’t understand why some of the conservatives on this board don’t "gets it." O’Reilly certainly doesn’t "get it."
In the quotes you provide, Bush refers to an actual noose, not the word lynch. The last quote does use the word lynching, but it refers to the historical act of killing people because they were black. We are comparing apples and oranges as I have already explained. 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.
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 22 2008, 10:08 AM)
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Feb 22 2008, 06:22 AM)
Leave it to Bill to put his foot in his mouth. In highlighting a supposed call for reason adn waiting for more evidence, Bill O'Reilly made an inappropriate reference to lynching and Michelle Obama. Of course, he couldn't say "call out" or "question," he had to use a racially sensitive term and then get defensive that the offensive term....offends people. I find it very interesting that whenever people try to pile on Obama, they come off looking worse. Hillary tried it with the plagiarism accusation and now Bill-O slipped big time.
Here is his O’Reilly’s comment from nebraska29’s original post.
The “unless” statement by Bill O’Reilly highlighted above, nullifies any defense for him.
In highlighting a supposed call for reason adn waiting for more evidence, Bill O'Reilly made an inappropriate reference to lynching and Michelle Obama. Of course, he couldn't say "call out" or "question," he had to use a racially sensitive term and then get defensive that the offensive term....offends people. I find it very interesting that whenever people try to pile on Obama, they come off looking worse. Hillary tried it with the plagiarism accusation and now Bill-O slipped big time. Here is his O’Reilly’s comment from nebraska29’s original post.
QUOTE(Bill O'Reilly)
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.
The “unless” statement by Bill O’Reilly highlighted above, nullifies any defense for him.
Consider what Eugene Robinson, an accomplished black journalist said about the matter on Countdown. Black perspective is important here.
QUOTE
EUGENE ROBINSON: I think you kind of said it, Keith. That‘s the offense. You know what lynching was? Lynching was a horrific practice of murder, torture, dismemberment, burning alive, hanging, and the only purpose of lynching was to perpetuate white supremacy in the Jim Crowe South.
It wasn‘t—the idea of course wasn‘t to lynch all black people, but by lynching a few black people, not a few, by lynching some black people, to demonstrate to other African-Americans that this could happen to you. That you have no power. That we have all the power and that we can take anything we want from you, including your life.
It wasn‘t—the idea of course wasn‘t to lynch all black people, but by lynching a few black people, not a few, by lynching some black people, to demonstrate to other African-Americans that this could happen to you. That you have no power. That we have all the power and that we can take anything we want from you, including your life.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23275773/
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(scubatim @ Feb 22 2008, 10:18 AM)
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!)
Read what Bush said again, scubatim. He was talking about the "noose" and the word "lynching" as symbols of a rotten, horrific past.
You have had much negative to say about school teachers recently. If a teacher "joked" about lynching to a lack child he/she
You know, every teacher in Fort Worth ISD had to do several hours in "diversity training" some years ago, because a few teachers made offensive racial remarks. Maybe O'Reilly should do some diversity training, but then he'd probably something to get his butt kicked out of class.
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 22 2008, 10:25 AM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 22 2008, 10:18 AM)
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!)
Read what Bush said again, scubatim. He was talking about the "noose" and the word "lynching" as symbols of a rotten, horrific past.
You have had much negative to say about school teachers recently. If a teacher "joked" about lynching to a lack child he/she should be dismissed and rightly so. Since teachers, in your opinion, should be drug tested like other professions, why shouldn't O'Reilly be held to the same standards school districts hold teachers on insensitive racial remarks?
You know, every teacher in Fort Worth ISD had to do several hours in "diversity training" some years ago, because a few teachers made offensive racial remarks. Maybe O'reilly should do some diversity training.
Ok, you have thoroughly confused me. What negative have I said about teachers? Please provide posts that I have written that is negative about teachers. Secondly, Bush is referring to actual nooses, which I have stated in plain English that nooses are pretty cut and dry as offensive. He then referred to lynching, the actual act of it. I would agree that the actual act of lynching as it was done (and I am sure still happens today) is offensive at best. When someone uses a word as O'Reilly did, it is in the metaphorical sense. There is no reason to believe he actually thinks anyone should lynch anyone.
I don't see where anyone has "joked" as you put it about anything. What insenstitive racial remark did he say? He was calling for the rest of the media to calm down about her comment. He was telling them to not attack her. He said "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." Meaning, before we (the media) attack her on her statement, let's make sure we know what she meant. If she actually has never been proud of this country before, then write all the negative articles you want. If this statement was taken out of context, leave her alone. Again, the word was used metaphorically.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 22 2008, 10:36 AM)
Ok, you have thoroughly confused me. What negative have I said about teachers? Please provide posts that I have written that is negative about teachers.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 21 2008, 07:59 AM)
Oh, now I understand, since teachers are all 60 year-old little ladies, it all makes sense to me. I mean, I wouldn't let my kids hang out with the street junkies that only get high under bridges downtown, but teacher that get high are just fine? I don't see any difference between the two. They are both junkies.
Ask and ye shalt receive.
I would say comparing teachers to "junkies" is quite demeaning.
He could have used the words "string up" or "go after" or "persecute" or "gang up on" or any other word. It's just a word. Not, as noted, a rope. Those upset about this are the same ones who freak out about "niggardly," mistaking it for a race word.
The sad thing is that those teaching our youth don't see anything wrong with state-sanctioned "re-education" of themselves regarding "diversity." Mao would be proud.
QUOTE
You know, every teacher in Fort Worth ISD had to do several hours in "diversity training" some years ago, because a few teachers made offensive racial remarks. Maybe O'Reilly should do some diversity training
The sad thing is that those teaching our youth don't see anything wrong with state-sanctioned "re-education" of themselves regarding "diversity." Mao would be proud.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Feb 22 2008, 10:50 AM)
He could have used the words "string up" or "go after" or "persecute" or "gang up on" or any other word. It's just a word. Not, as noted, a rope. Those upset about this are the same ones who freak out about "niggardly," mistaking it for a race word.
Oh come off it carlito. I'm one of the few on this board who has gone after O'Reilly. I sure as hell know what "niggardly" means. It means being tight with a buck. Try again.
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 22 2008, 11:54 AM)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Feb 22 2008, 10:50 AM)
He could have used the words "string up" or "go after" or "persecute" or "gang up on" or any other word. It's just a word. Not, as noted, a rope. Those upset about this are the same ones who freak out about "niggardly," mistaking it for a race word.
Oh come off it carlito. I'm one of the few on this board who has gone after O'Reilly. I sure as hell know what "niggardly" means. It means being tight with a buck. Try again.
I have to agree. It's just parcing at this point. I'm not sure Big O really meant anything racist and just wanted to inject the topic with a racial element.
In theory, doesn't that help Obama?
Uhh... I had to go to the top of this thread 3 times to make sure I wasn't in the Teacher/Drug Testing thread.
What are we debating in this one again? Oh right this one is about the latest manufactured outrage.
Seriously though if Sharpton isn't going to weigh in is this really a problem?
What are we debating in this one again? Oh right this one is about the latest manufactured outrage.
Seriously though if Sharpton isn't going to weigh in is this really a problem?
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Feb 22 2008, 07:22 AM)
Leave it to Bill to put his foot in his mouth. In highlighting a supposed call for reason adn waiting for more evidence, Bill O'Reilly made an inappropriate reference to lynching and Michelle Obama. Of course, he couldn't say "call out" or "question," he had to use a racially sensitive term and then get defensive that the offensive term....offends people. I find it very interesting that whenever people try to pile on Obama, they come off looking worse. Hillary tried it with the plagiarism accusation and now Bill-O slipped big time.
Here is his comment directly:
Since then, he has issued a kind-of apology and pleaded with people that the context of his statement is what matters. In other words, he wasn't calling for her to be lynched, but rather, that he was waiting to see what would bear out in regards to her comments about being proud of America. Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post also had some interesting comments on the matter.
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?
In highlighting a supposed call for reason adn waiting for more evidence, Bill O'Reilly made an inappropriate reference to lynching and Michelle Obama. Of course, he couldn't say "call out" or "question," he had to use a racially sensitive term and then get defensive that the offensive term....offends people. I find it very interesting that whenever people try to pile on Obama, they come off looking worse. Hillary tried it with the plagiarism accusation and now Bill-O slipped big time. Here is his comment directly:
QUOTE
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.
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.
Since then, he has issued a kind-of apology and pleaded with people that the context of his statement is what matters. In other words, he wasn't calling for her to be lynched, but rather, that he was waiting to see what would bear out in regards to her comments about being proud of America. Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post also had some interesting comments on the matter.
QUOTE
There's nothing funny about lynching. There's certainly nothing at all funny or remotely appropriate about the use of a lynching reference to talk about Michelle Obama, and the word "unless," followed by "[w]e'll track it down," is way beyond the pale. It's -- I'm almost speechless, but I have more to say, of course.
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?
1) No--he was defending Ms. Obama and likening what has happened to her as being caused by a lynch mob. I disagree with O'Reilly that MO's comments should have gone unnoticed, but I understand his point.
2) It is a graphic term, but after what we've all seen from the media, not inappropriate. What the media is doing right now to McCain over this non-story about the female lobbyist amounts to a media "lynching".
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.
BA
Does anyone here see the irony... the sweet justice of injustice equally doled out...
What was Oreilly talking about? Michelle Obama remarks of "for the first time in my adult life I feel proud of my country" Now if we take the full context of her remarks we can see she is using hyperbole to express the pride she is felling in the political movement of this country(that she sees)...
Now conservatives are biting at the bit at this soundbit... and O'reilly is talking about it, with the quick disclaimer "we should give her the benefit of the doubt" (reminds me of the ol' "with all do respect" comment before you say something out of line to a person of authority)right before then saying how reckless it is to say it and how they should lynch her if she means she her words exactly as many conservatives want to interpret it.
If we are being fair and objective about it, O'reilly likely wasn't being racist.., he was speaking metaphorically, and it had nothing to do race, IMO. But still, if conservatives can dish it out the "let's make the biggest deal out of a comment" ideals, well it just as fair they take it.
QUOTE
Alternately people could stop standing around waiting to be offended
Does anyone here see the irony... the sweet justice of injustice equally doled out...
What was Oreilly talking about? Michelle Obama remarks of "for the first time in my adult life I feel proud of my country" Now if we take the full context of her remarks we can see she is using hyperbole to express the pride she is felling in the political movement of this country(that she sees)...
Now conservatives are biting at the bit at this soundbit... and O'reilly is talking about it, with the quick disclaimer "we should give her the benefit of the doubt" (reminds me of the ol' "with all do respect" comment before you say something out of line to a person of authority)right before then saying how reckless it is to say it and how they should lynch her if she means she her words exactly as many conservatives want to interpret it.
If we are being fair and objective about it, O'reilly likely wasn't being racist.., he was speaking metaphorically, and it had nothing to do race, IMO. But still, if conservatives can dish it out the "let's make the biggest deal out of a comment" ideals, well it just as fair they take it.
1.)Should FOX News suspend O'Reilly for his comments? Why or why not given the fact that Imus was suspended for his comments?
Of course not. Are you able to fathom any differences between Imus' and O'Reilly's commentary or in your mind are they in effect one and the same? As a practical matter, FOX obviously will be the one to decide whether Bill should take a break and it does not seem this is the course they will chose. If you don't like it, turn the channel.
As an ethical/moral consideration, Bill should take care in these times to watch his words. It seems everyone these days is "stepping into it" in one way or another. You know, there is such thing as over-correction in these matters though. This simply does not rise to the occasion.
2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?
Yes, his appeal is absolutely legitimate. Is it always appropriate? Of course not. Is it ever appropriate? Of course it is. The context of Bill's commentary is a fine example of taking this out of context.
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?
It wasn't a racist reference. Why do you believe so? Because Michelle O'bama is black? Is that the sole criteria? There is no way to standardize appropriateness with these things. IMO, Don Imus crossed a line for me but Bill has not. Are you suggesting we should take the term "lynching" out of the verancular except when referencing in documentary the travesties of our past? Gimme a break.
Of course not. Are you able to fathom any differences between Imus' and O'Reilly's commentary or in your mind are they in effect one and the same? As a practical matter, FOX obviously will be the one to decide whether Bill should take a break and it does not seem this is the course they will chose. If you don't like it, turn the channel.
As an ethical/moral consideration, Bill should take care in these times to watch his words. It seems everyone these days is "stepping into it" in one way or another. You know, there is such thing as over-correction in these matters though. This simply does not rise to the occasion.
2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?
Yes, his appeal is absolutely legitimate. Is it always appropriate? Of course not. Is it ever appropriate? Of course it is. The context of Bill's commentary is a fine example of taking this out of context.
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?
It wasn't a racist reference. Why do you believe so? Because Michelle O'bama is black? Is that the sole criteria? There is no way to standardize appropriateness with these things. IMO, Don Imus crossed a line for me but Bill has not. Are you suggesting we should take the term "lynching" out of the verancular except when referencing in documentary the travesties of our past? Gimme a break.
Oh how accurate was Eugene Robinson's prediction about the way O'Reilly's defenders would react. So far the settlers have pretty much circled the wagons on this thread. Beware though, all Indians have not yet arrived.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23275773/
BTW: Carlitoswhey, I’m sure Robinson knows what “niggardly” means.
QUOTE
EUGENE ROBINSON: Well this is enough for me. But here‘s what‘s going to happen. By tomorrow morning, some defender will come out and say “I know Bill O‘Reilly and he‘s no racist.” And my response is, I don‘t care. How can anyone know what‘s in his heart, what‘s in his soul? That is irrelevant to me. All you can go by is his words and his actions. And he keeps saying these things that sound pretty darn racist to me.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23275773/
BTW: Carlitoswhey, I’m sure Robinson knows what “niggardly” means.
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 22 2008, 12:36 PM)
Oh how accurate was Eugene Robinson's prediction about the way O'Reilly's defenders would react. So far the settlers have pretty much circled the wagons on this thread. Beware though, all Indians have not yet arrived.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23275773/
BTW: Carlitoswhey, I’m sure Robinson knows what “niggardly” means.
QUOTE
EUGENE ROBINSON: Well this is enough for me. But here‘s what‘s going to happen. By tomorrow morning, some defender will come out and say “I know Bill O‘Reilly and he‘s no racist.” And my response is, I don‘t care. How can anyone know what‘s in his heart, what‘s in his soul? That is irrelevant to me. All you can go by is his words and his actions. And he keeps saying these things that sound pretty darn racist to me.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23275773/
BTW: Carlitoswhey, I’m sure Robinson knows what “niggardly” means.
And who is Eugene Robinson to judge? Does anyone care what he has to say? Does the fact that he's black make him judge, jury and executioner?
Of course, if the defense "Bill O'Reilly is not a racist" is insufficient, than what on God's green earth could possibly BE a defense? Sheesh.
Good God, I used to respect Eugene Robinson...
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, it just shows that he either has no feel for nuance and connotation or that he is a manipulating jerk who knows exactly what he said and to whom he was saying it. I go with the former over the latter.
2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?
I've already answered this. The guy's brain doesn't work fast enough to get nuance and connotation.
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?
I'm discounting this as a stupid blunder. You can't fix stupid, so that door has been open for many thousands of years. It will remain that way for the duration of the species.
The more I think of O'Reilly's behavior over the years, the more I feel sorrow for his condition. I think he's got old fart's syndrome, the symptoms of which include chronic crankiness, delusions of being sexually attractive, and more delusions of grandeur.
But isn't it nice that he won't join a lynch mob without proof that Mrs. Obama doesn't like something about the perfect United States of America. What a guy. He'll wait for proof of dissatisfaction before getting the rope, so I figure give him lots of rope. You know how that trite old metaphor goes.
I really think that he's losing a big piece of his central processing system. I pity the guy.
No, it just shows that he either has no feel for nuance and connotation or that he is a manipulating jerk who knows exactly what he said and to whom he was saying it. I go with the former over the latter.
2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?
I've already answered this. The guy's brain doesn't work fast enough to get nuance and connotation.
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?
I'm discounting this as a stupid blunder. You can't fix stupid, so that door has been open for many thousands of years. It will remain that way for the duration of the species.
The more I think of O'Reilly's behavior over the years, the more I feel sorrow for his condition. I think he's got old fart's syndrome, the symptoms of which include chronic crankiness, delusions of being sexually attractive, and more delusions of grandeur.
But isn't it nice that he won't join a lynch mob without proof that Mrs. Obama doesn't like something about the perfect United States of America. What a guy. He'll wait for proof of dissatisfaction before getting the rope, so I figure give him lots of rope. You know how that trite old metaphor goes.
I really think that he's losing a big piece of his central processing system. I pity the guy.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Feb 22 2008, 12:09 PM)
And who is Eugene Robinson to judge? Does anyone care what he has to say? Does the fact that he's black make him judge, jury and executioner?
Of course, if the defense "Bill O'Reilly is not a racist" is insufficient, than what on God's green earth could possibly BE a defense? Sheesh.
Good God, I used to respect Eugene Robinson...
Of course, if the defense "Bill O'Reilly is not a racist" is insufficient, than what on God's green earth could possibly BE a defense? Sheesh.
Good God, I used to respect Eugene Robinson...
I watched Robinson make this statement. He was calm, not a racing maniac. His demeanor depicted hurt more than anger. Read Bush's statement again. Somehow he managed to understand what lynch and noose mean to African-Americans. I pleasantly surprised Bush got it and greatly disappointed that you and the precious right-wing O'Reilly haven't.
I respect Eugene Robinson and there is no reason you shouldn't.
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 22 2008, 12:24 PM)
Somehow he managed to understand what lynch and noose mean to African-Americans.
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?).
It's most likely because Bill O is a republican pundit. I honestly don't listen to any of those people anymore, as there's way too much good music on the radio in Dallas, but was it really meant to be a biggoted comment?
Has anyone else (ie Liberal pundits and/or Presidential candidates) ever made an insensitive comment unintentionally? Think about... how did the media/liberals handle that?
1.)Should FOX News suspend O'Reilly for his comments? He wasn't suspended for sexually harassing that woman, so i don't see why Foxnews would do it now. Oh sorry, allegedly harassing the woman who strangely received a large payday from O'reilly once talks of taped conversations came out. ....This is what the sleazeball does. He wags is pencil and plays like he is a journalist. He's a shock jockey with an agenda. He's not a serious commentator. It's not like he's doing respectable news. He's far closer to Limbaugh than he is Brokaw.
2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly? Yes, his appeals are legit. He obviously doesn't want her lynched (which is inexorably and absolutely linked to blacks), but it was a lazy statement. This is funny, because the jerk was blowing up Obama's comments and trying to pathetically suggest that she isn't proud to be an American, when the entire context of her speech clearly relates that she is speaking about the election process, not the literal sovereign country. He took her words entirely out of context everytime he verbally repeated them. The worst thing about O'Reilly, is that he covers for himself by saying "I don't think she hates her country" but he always leaves.... "but maybe she does" and proceeeds to repeat that this is HUGE news and McCain should use it constantly, and spends 20 minutes on it and rants how his radio show was just FLOODED with calls about it, and gets a partisan conservative blogger to totally misrepresent the blogosphere and its reaction to it. He does nothing but hitjobs, and frames the discussion in a way to attack her and by association any liberal. His show's supposedly objective observers or admitted partisan Republicans. The woman he had on to speak about the blog world, related just how angry all conservatives were and how no liberals were defending it and it descended into an all out attack on liberal bloggers being hate mongerers. Luckily, the girl had enough honor to admit that she was a biased right-wing blogger who comes from a right-perspective, or else one might fully believe that this kid was some sort of fair or studied observer. The filth I have seen on Freerepublic and redstate is just as vitriolic and vile as what I have seen on some liberal blogs. O'Reilly is far worse than Coulter or Hannity or Limbaugh....they don't try to make people believe they're objective. Anyway...Someone should show more awareness and tact with the word, but it shouldn't be banned of course.
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? I don't believe in escalation like that. I don't believe gay marriage means that peopel are going to think it's okay to marry pets and their grandmother. I don't think it opens the door to anything. It's a lazy comment, nothing more.
....This is what the sleazeball does. He wags is pencil and plays like he is a journalist. He's a shock jockey with an agenda. He's not a serious commentator. It's not like he's doing respectable news. He's far closer to Limbaugh than he is Brokaw. 2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly? Yes, his appeals are legit. He obviously doesn't want her lynched (which is inexorably and absolutely linked to blacks), but it was a lazy statement. This is funny, because the jerk was blowing up Obama's comments and trying to pathetically suggest that she isn't proud to be an American, when the entire context of her speech clearly relates that she is speaking about the election process, not the literal sovereign country. He took her words entirely out of context everytime he verbally repeated them. The worst thing about O'Reilly, is that he covers for himself by saying "I don't think she hates her country" but he always leaves.... "but maybe she does" and proceeeds to repeat that this is HUGE news and McCain should use it constantly, and spends 20 minutes on it and rants how his radio show was just FLOODED with calls about it, and gets a partisan conservative blogger to totally misrepresent the blogosphere and its reaction to it. He does nothing but hitjobs, and frames the discussion in a way to attack her and by association any liberal. His show's supposedly objective observers or admitted partisan Republicans. The woman he had on to speak about the blog world, related just how angry all conservatives were and how no liberals were defending it and it descended into an all out attack on liberal bloggers being hate mongerers. Luckily, the girl had enough honor to admit that she was a biased right-wing blogger who comes from a right-perspective, or else one might fully believe that this kid was some sort of fair or studied observer. The filth I have seen on Freerepublic and redstate is just as vitriolic and vile as what I have seen on some liberal blogs. O'Reilly is far worse than Coulter or Hannity or Limbaugh....they don't try to make people believe they're objective. Anyway...Someone should show more awareness and tact with the word, but it shouldn't be banned of course.
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? I don't believe in escalation like that. I don't believe gay marriage means that peopel are going to think it's okay to marry pets and their grandmother. I don't think it opens the door to anything. It's a lazy comment, nothing more.
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 22 2008, 10:49 AM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 22 2008, 10:36 AM)
Ok, you have thoroughly confused me. What negative have I said about teachers? Please provide posts that I have written that is negative about teachers.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Feb 21 2008, 07:59 AM)
Oh, now I understand, since teachers are all 60 year-old little ladies, it all makes sense to me. I mean, I wouldn't let my kids hang out with the street junkies that only get high under bridges downtown, but teacher that get high are just fine? I don't see any difference between the two. They are both junkies.
Ask and ye shalt receive.
I would say comparing teachers to "junkies" is quite demeaning.
So I equated a teacher that is a junkie as a junkie is a blanket statement that all teachers are junkies? That is your post? You really know how to stretch, don't you? I don't see anything here that says that teachers are bad or that teachers are junkies. You can put any profession in place of teacher. Nice try.
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 22 2008, 11:36 AM)
Oh how accurate was Eugene Robinson's prediction about the way O'Reilly's defenders would react. So far the settlers have pretty much circled the wagons on this thread. Beware though, all Indians have not yet arrived.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23275773/
BTW: Carlitoswhey, I’m sure Robinson knows what “niggardly” means.
QUOTE
EUGENE ROBINSON: Well this is enough for me. But here‘s what‘s going to happen. By tomorrow morning, some defender will come out and say “I know Bill O‘Reilly and he‘s no racist.” And my response is, I don‘t care. How can anyone know what‘s in his heart, what‘s in his soul? That is irrelevant to me. All you can go by is his words and his actions. And he keeps saying these things that sound pretty darn racist to me.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23275773/
BTW: Carlitoswhey, I’m sure Robinson knows what “niggardly” means.
You seem to support Mr. Robinson's position, so I ask, what does he keep saying that sound pretty darn racist?
Anyone could have made the prediction that people would defend O'Reilly based on the fact that what the uproar is about was taken out of context. You know why? Because it was!
QUOTE
BTW: Carlitoswhey, I’m sure Robinson knows what “niggardly” means.
It depends. If it's the ex-Atlanta Falcon, I'm not so sure. If it's the lead singer from Oxbow, I think you are right, because I remember an Oxbow song that had lyrics about niggardly-wired florescent lights or something like that.
Just for historical perspective, Lynching and nooses have not always been, as kalabus puts it, "inexorably and absolutely linked to blacks," for a few rather obvious reasons. It is only of late that nooses have become the currency of racism, at least for anyone who saw "Lonesome Dove."
- There were some lynchings of drug cops in Mexico over the past 10 - 20 years, and I'm 100% sure those federales were not black.
- In this country, white Tories and Republicans were lynching victims. That's how the word "lynch" started - a judge named Lynch talking about Tory loyalists.
- Obviously, hanging was the death penalty for many years in many places, notably merry old England.
- Specific to nooses, many if not most lynchings didn't involve a rope. People were burned and beaten to death. Here is a New York Times article describing a lynching from 1897.
QUOTE
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.
I would be curious as to who would suggest that lynching is not intimately tied to the treatment of African-Americans in American society. Who else was the target by and large?
No other group experienced it to the degree that African-Americans did. Yes, you can find general interpretations of what lynching is, however, the record indisputably shows that the single word is tied to African-American history. It is for that reason that brilliant Einstein's dangle nooses on trees or behind their trucks. Even the dumbs one have that figured out. 
No one is saying that O'Reilly meant it literally. Everyone knows it was a metaphor for holding Michelle Obama accountable. At the same time, it was inappropriate and is unjustifiable in any way. There are plenty of descriptive terms to describe holding others accountable, O'Reilly's lacked respectability and gravitas.
QUOTE
What's the difference between this and Imus? Maybe that Imus's intention was to insult those basketball players and O'Reilly's wasn't? Just a thought.
So if you ignorantly make an irresponsible metaphor, then you're off the hook because you were "defending" them? If I interview a Native American CEO and refer to him as a "chief" or "Indian giver," but say that he isn't and that I'm defending him, then it's o.k. and I should let it go? Should we let racist commentary and terminology to pass without so much as a mention? Is this the '50s or something again?
QUOTE
Lynching may have a connotation here, but that doesn't mean that is the meaning everyone
In American history, it applies almost exclusively to African-Americans and horrible treatment towards them.
QUOTE
This question sounds pretty authoritarian. Let people speak their mind, so that we can judge their intent. We can judge people by what they say--their ideas, not the phonetic sounds that come out of their mouths.
I don't know, authoritarian or would it be holding people accountable? Should women be referred to as "Sweetie" and Jews as "Kikes" and people not even flinch, because we don't want to be authoritarian? The hallmark of an authoritarian culture would be to use dismissive terms of others to "put them in their place." That's what most oppressive fascist states do, interesting that efforts to combat that garner resistance in some quarters here.
QUOTE
Yes lynching is fine. Lynch mob is a term used often and its implied verb lynching is too
I disagree, it was horribly inappropriate. I would like to see further evidence that lynching in America primarily wasn't aimed at African-Americans. Until that can be proven through hyperlinks and other sources, as opposed to vague and simplistic dictionary defitions-the fact remains that it is a racist term at worst, loaded terminology in the least.
1.)Should FOX News suspend O'Reilly for his comments? Why or why not given the fact that Imus was suspended for his comments?
It is O'Really's job to holler at the top of his lungs. He is a shock jock. You could argue though, to be fair to Imus, O'Reilly should be treated with the same blind justice. Besides, watching people getting fired is a form of entertainment, right? Maybe they could even get D'Trump to host the event.
2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?
If the FCC still bans cuss words from the air regardless the context, then that legitimizes complaints from any group about words they consider offensive.
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?
Should cars belching white smoke be allowed on public roadways? Is it really a safety hazard, or just an overblown nuisance which an educated public can easily avoid if they so choose? Or is it more reasonable to say most people simply don't want to have to exert their lungs, to gasp or choke on their breath, just because others are willing to damage their own lungs with such harmful emissions?
Perhaps a special area could be designated, as was done for smokers, so people could observe such extremists huff and puff their flames, - such as a special channel devoted to intolerance, where a person could conveniently view opposing extremist rantings. I personally think, now that Fidel Castro has retired, he should do the talk show circuit and debate Fred Thompson. Two opponents, teeth clenched on their Cubans...now that would be entertaining.
It is O'Really's job to holler at the top of his lungs. He is a shock jock. You could argue though, to be fair to Imus, O'Reilly should be treated with the same blind justice. Besides, watching people getting fired is a form of entertainment, right? Maybe they could even get D'Trump to host the event.
2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?
If the FCC still bans cuss words from the air regardless the context, then that legitimizes complaints from any group about words they consider offensive.
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?
Should cars belching white smoke be allowed on public roadways? Is it really a safety hazard, or just an overblown nuisance which an educated public can easily avoid if they so choose? Or is it more reasonable to say most people simply don't want to have to exert their lungs, to gasp or choke on their breath, just because others are willing to damage their own lungs with such harmful emissions?
Perhaps a special area could be designated, as was done for smokers, so people could observe such extremists huff and puff their flames, - such as a special channel devoted to intolerance, where a person could conveniently view opposing extremist rantings. I personally think, now that Fidel Castro has retired, he should do the talk show circuit and debate Fred Thompson. Two opponents, teeth clenched on their Cubans...now that would be entertaining.
The historical origin of lynchings aside, it is a well established reality and absolutely clear in the collective American consciousness, that the act of lynching is irretrievably linked, and associated almost exclusively with attacks by whites against black Americans. The linkage is too established and too pervasive to assume anything else in my opinion.
Is the proportion of lynchings as it concerns African Americans not very high? Doesn't matter.
Is lynching a concept that begun with African Americans? Doesn't matter.
Have more whites been lynched than blacks? Doesn't matter.
American culture has established a conept and connotation that lynching is an act of terror or violence that most commonly relates to unjustified assaults on blacks by racist whites.
Is the proportion of lynchings as it concerns African Americans not very high? Doesn't matter.
Is lynching a concept that begun with African Americans? Doesn't matter.
Have more whites been lynched than blacks? Doesn't matter.
American culture has established a conept and connotation that lynching is an act of terror or violence that most commonly relates to unjustified assaults on blacks by racist whites.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Feb 22 2008, 07:22 AM)
QUOTE
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.
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.
Lynching may have a connotation here, but that doesn't mean that is the meaning everyone.
My heart may start bleeding here. Lynching has a legal meaning.
QUOTE
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.
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(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.
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!)
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?).
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 excuse?
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 butt?
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?
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Feb 23 2008, 05:56 AM)
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 excuse?
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 butt?
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?
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 excuse?
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 butt?
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?
If he had called for a lynching, all of your points would be valid. However, he called for the media not to lynch, and I doubt he meant that in the literal sense. All of your examples were deliberate attacks on individuals. Just using the word lynch does not make you a bigot. If it did, you and I would both be bigots, right? Context does matter as I have just proven. O'Reilly did not call for the torturous death of Mrs. Obama. No one on this board has advocated it. Using a term metaphorically does not constitute bigotry. If he had verbally attacked her, you would be right about at minimum a suspension. He did not. I also don't think you are any better by calling him "a bigoted, clueless, stupidly insensitive, out of touch. old White guy."
QUOTE(vanguard @ Feb 22 2008, 09:27 AM)
1.)Should FOX News suspend O'Reilly for his comments? Why or why not given the fact that Imus was suspended for his comments?
Of course not. Are you able to fathom any differences between Imus' and O'Reilly's commentary or in your mind are they in effect one and the same? As a practical matter, FOX obviously will be the one to decide whether Bill should take a break and it does not seem this is the course they will chose. If you don't like it, turn the channel.
As an ethical/moral consideration, Bill should take care in these times to watch his words. It seems everyone these days is "stepping into it" in one way or another. You know, there is such thing as over-correction in these matters though. This simply does not rise to the occasion.
2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?
Yes, his appeal is absolutely legitimate. Is it always appropriate? Of course not. Is it ever appropriate? Of course it is. The context of Bill's commentary is a fine example of taking this out of context.
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?
It wasn't a racist reference. Why do you believe so? Because Michelle O'bama is black? Is that the sole criteria? There is no way to standardize appropriateness with these things. IMO, Don Imus crossed a line for me but Bill has not. Are you suggesting we should take the term "lynching" out of the verancular except when referencing in documentary the travesties of our past? Gimme a break.
Of course not. Are you able to fathom any differences between Imus' and O'Reilly's commentary or in your mind are they in effect one and the same? As a practical matter, FOX obviously will be the one to decide whether Bill should take a break and it does not seem this is the course they will chose. If you don't like it, turn the channel.
As an ethical/moral consideration, Bill should take care in these times to watch his words. It seems everyone these days is "stepping into it" in one way or another. You know, there is such thing as over-correction in these matters though. This simply does not rise to the occasion.
2.)Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?
Yes, his appeal is absolutely legitimate. Is it always appropriate? Of course not. Is it ever appropriate? Of course it is. The context of Bill's commentary is a fine example of taking this out of context.
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?
It wasn't a racist reference. Why do you believe so? Because Michelle O'bama is black? Is that the sole criteria? There is no way to standardize appropriateness with these things. IMO, Don Imus crossed a line for me but Bill has not. Are you suggesting we should take the term "lynching" out of the verancular except when referencing in documentary the travesties of our past? Gimme a break.
I feel compelled to reply on this topic! Are we as Americans ready to have a "PRESIDENT OBAMA"? I totally agree with Vanguard as stated above. Can we please "get off the dime" and get on with the OBVIOUS problems are country is having!! Certainly if Obama is elected this type of conversation cannot be tolerated. Why are there still Americans who absolutely cannot let this topic die. Obama will get the support of the entire country if he is elected because IMO we as citizens rally around our President after all is said and done. There can't be people out there still spending their overtime hours "reading between the lines" so to speak. Let's get over it people! I'm not a fan of Bill O'Reilly, but I heard this particular newscast and here we are again "building mountains out of molehills".
Nighttimer, you quoted me and you're trying to link me in with O'Reilly apologists?
I understand the associated link of that word and its absolute connection with blacks.
All I'm stating is that I don't think Bill O Reilly( Though he has shown his prejudices before with that black restaraunt being behaved comment) wants Michelle Obama lynched. I don't think he is endorsing lynching. He just lazily used it. I also don't think he was trying to be racist, I actually feel that he is so arrogant and naive, that he thinks he can say things like that.
I don't think he's a serious journalist. I don't think he is a legit news voice at all. He's said a mountain of ridiculous things over the years. I just don't think suspension makes sense from Foxnews standpoint. Why suspend him now? He wasn't suspended after talking family values, issuing out challenges to questionable people tp prove their innocense and going ahead and paying off a women who had incriminating tapes against him. He's a cartoon character. He's a parody almost. He's a joke.
This is why suspension is meaningless to me.
He doesn't want Obama lynched, I have no reason to believe he does.
I don't deny or refute the absolute connection of lynching and African Americans. It's obvious, entrenched, established and unshakeable.
American consciousness has forever linked the two, and O'Reilly was beyond irresponsible and absolutely naive to think that you can reference the organization of lynch mobs to go after Michelle.
So, acting like I'm some well-intentioned white person who doesn't really get it? I don't see that as fair.
I get it, but it's Bill O'Reilly. What's the use? He's not part of the respected news estabishment. He's a shock jockey entertainer. He runs an opinion show with biased directives. He shouldn't be held to the same standard of actual journalists and I don't see the necessity of punishing him like one either.
Given the culture of Foxnews and O'Reilly, suspension doesn't factor, or warrant for cultural ignorance or naive arrogance.
I understand the associated link of that word and its absolute connection with blacks.
All I'm stating is that I don't think Bill O Reilly( Though he has shown his prejudices before with that black restaraunt being behaved comment) wants Michelle Obama lynched. I don't think he is endorsing lynching. He just lazily used it. I also don't think he was trying to be racist, I actually feel that he is so arrogant and naive, that he thinks he can say things like that.
I don't think he's a serious journalist. I don't think he is a legit news voice at all. He's said a mountain of ridiculous things over the years. I just don't think suspension makes sense from Foxnews standpoint. Why suspend him now? He wasn't suspended after talking family values, issuing out challenges to questionable people tp prove their innocense and going ahead and paying off a women who had incriminating tapes against him. He's a cartoon character. He's a parody almost. He's a joke.
This is why suspension is meaningless to me.
He doesn't want Obama lynched, I have no reason to believe he does.
I don't deny or refute the absolute connection of lynching and African Americans. It's obvious, entrenched, established and unshakeable.
American consciousness has forever linked the two, and O'Reilly was beyond irresponsible and absolutely naive to think that you can reference the organization of lynch mobs to go after Michelle.
So, acting like I'm some well-intentioned white person who doesn't really get it? I don't see that as fair.
I get it, but it's Bill O'Reilly. What's the use? He's not part of the respected news estabishment. He's a shock jockey entertainer. He runs an opinion show with biased directives. He shouldn't be held to the same standard of actual journalists and I don't see the necessity of punishing him like one either.
Given the culture of Foxnews and O'Reilly, suspension doesn't factor, or warrant for cultural ignorance or naive arrogance.
Here is an audio clip courtesy Media Matters of the O'Reilly comment.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802200001...amp;rid=3980370
I suppose it's reasonable to think that O'Reilly was defending Michelle Obama until he gets to the lynching thing. Then he compounds his ill advised choice of words with the word "unless." Does this mean he is perfectly willing to lead a virtual lynching, if he finds that Michelle Obama is indeed an "angry woman"? There are a lot of angry people, some on this board and that admittedly could include me. Where oh where is there a law against anger?
Note: I posted this on the wrong McCain thread yesterday.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802200001...amp;rid=3980370
I suppose it's reasonable to think that O'Reilly was defending Michelle Obama until he gets to the lynching thing. Then he compounds his ill advised choice of words with the word "unless." Does this mean he is perfectly willing to lead a virtual lynching, if he finds that Michelle Obama is indeed an "angry woman"? There are a lot of angry people, some on this board and that admittedly could include me. Where oh where is there a law against anger?
Note: I posted this on the wrong McCain thread yesterday.
Context.
Bill O'Reilly is a blowhard and wrong on many issues in my opinion, but his words are being fit into the context we choose that either make him right or wrong. Just like David Schuster, it's the context you are familiar with.
Schuster used the term "pimping" just like any young person would today. The only ones who think Schuster meant the literal term when using "pimp" are old people who have no idea what is up with young people today. When I change my clothes before a show into something more contemporary, they call me "pimped out". Did I just get accused of forcing women to be sex slaves? Of course not. The context has nothing to do with the literal term.
So, the same with O'Reilly. He used a term in the context that had nothing to do with white men murdering black people by hanging them. People use the term everyday "someone left me out to hang" that has nothing to do with anybody getting murdered. So, to be fair, neither did O'Reilly - he was not using the term literally.
But this has me concerned more than a little. If the choice comes down between Obama and McCain, I would vote for Obama. That choice has nothing to do with gender, race, or age. Obama could become this generation's Kennedy and truly unite people after having a party that survives by dividing people. But is this what is going to happen for the entire Obama presidency? Every time someone disagrees with him, will it be because he's black? If we use the terms we use everyday among ourselves that have little literal meaning when talking about Obama, will that make us racists?
One would hope that seeing Obama rise to the top and leading our nation would put the appearance of institutional racism to bed, but if this O'Reilly incident is any indication, it's simply going to get worse because the opportunities to find racism will expand exponentially. In my opinion, if people are already looking for racism in O'Reilly's comment as opposed to a comment made in a figurative sense, Obama getting elected will be very, very bad for us. What he offers in the spirit in uniting all of us will be overshadowed by the opportunists who have more to gain by keeping racism alive.
Bill O'Reilly is a blowhard and wrong on many issues in my opinion, but his words are being fit into the context we choose that either make him right or wrong. Just like David Schuster, it's the context you are familiar with.
Schuster used the term "pimping" just like any young person would today. The only ones who think Schuster meant the literal term when using "pimp" are old people who have no idea what is up with young people today. When I change my clothes before a show into something more contemporary, they call me "pimped out". Did I just get accused of forcing women to be sex slaves? Of course not. The context has nothing to do with the literal term.
So, the same with O'Reilly. He used a term in the context that had nothing to do with white men murdering black people by hanging them. People use the term everyday "someone left me out to hang" that has nothing to do with anybody getting murdered. So, to be fair, neither did O'Reilly - he was not using the term literally.
But this has me concerned more than a little. If the choice comes down between Obama and McCain, I would vote for Obama. That choice has nothing to do with gender, race, or age. Obama could become this generation's Kennedy and truly unite people after having a party that survives by dividing people. But is this what is going to happen for the entire Obama presidency? Every time someone disagrees with him, will it be because he's black? If we use the terms we use everyday among ourselves that have little literal meaning when talking about Obama, will that make us racists?
One would hope that seeing Obama rise to the top and leading our nation would put the appearance of institutional racism to bed, but if this O'Reilly incident is any indication, it's simply going to get worse because the opportunities to find racism will expand exponentially. In my opinion, if people are already looking for racism in O'Reilly's comment as opposed to a comment made in a figurative sense, Obama getting elected will be very, very bad for us. What he offers in the spirit in uniting all of us will be overshadowed by the opportunists who have more to gain by keeping racism alive.
1.) Should FOX News suspend O'Reilly for his comments? Why or why not given the fact that Imus was suspended for his comments?
Of course not. It would take away so much of the fun that Keith Olbermann has on his broadcasts with "Worst Person in the World".
We can't be firing folks like him every time one of them inserts his foot in his mouth. And he did not call Michelle Obama any of the names that Imus called the women's basketball team.
2.) Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?
I think O'Reilly said it wrong, but he probably had good intentions. Sometimes he's like a bull in a china shop with these comments. He knows what he means, but he can't deliver the thought the way he means it.
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?
I watched lots of cowboy movies when I was growing up where the posse was going to "string up" the bad guy (or the good guy framed for the crime), and they had nothing to do with African Americans. But it remains that lynching is a documented part of our relatively recent history, and feelings are still deep and tender about the terrible injustices. So wouldn't it be better, out of courtesy to the segment of our population that remembers, not to use lynching references, despite our innocuous intentions?
Of course not. It would take away so much of the fun that Keith Olbermann has on his broadcasts with "Worst Person in the World".
We can't be firing folks like him every time one of them inserts his foot in his mouth. And he did not call Michelle Obama any of the names that Imus called the women's basketball team.
2.) Is O'Reilly's appeal to "context" legitimate? Is "lynching" an appropriate term for a public media figure to throw out indiscriminantly?
I think O'Reilly said it wrong, but he probably had good intentions. Sometimes he's like a bull in a china shop with these comments. He knows what he means, but he can't deliver the thought the way he means it.
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?
I watched lots of cowboy movies when I was growing up where the posse was going to "string up" the bad guy (or the good guy framed for the crime), and they had nothing to do with African Americans. But it remains that lynching is a documented part of our relatively recent history, and feelings are still deep and tender about the terrible injustices. So wouldn't it be better, out of courtesy to the segment of our population that remembers, not to use lynching references, despite our innocuous intentions?
What exactly should my position be?
A.) Bill did nothing wrong in using the term "lynching".
B.) Bill should not have used this term when referencing a black person.
c.) Bill should never use this term within any context unless when decrying the travesties of a racist past.
Is there an appoved list of terms/phrases out there? You know, I'm not only too young but I'm afflicted with this "white" insensitivity. Come on, I'm sure there are other nouns/verbs/adjectives I should be aware of? Ignorant inquiring minds want to know...
A.) Bill did nothing wrong in using the term "lynching".
B.) Bill should not have used this term when referencing a black person.
c.) Bill should never use this term within any context unless when decrying the travesties of a racist past.
Is there an appoved list of terms/phrases out there? You know, I'm not only too young but I'm afflicted with this "white" insensitivity. Come on, I'm sure there are other nouns/verbs/adjectives I should be aware of? Ignorant inquiring minds want to know...
QUOTE(vanguard @ Feb 23 2008, 12:13 PM)
A.) Bill did nothing wrong in using the term "lynching".
B.) Bill should not have used this term when referencing a black person.
B.) Bill should not have used this term when referencing a black person.
If he did nothing wrong by using a word [which is just a word until people give power to it], why should he not have used it when referencing a certain group?
QUOTE(vanguard @ Feb 23 2008, 12:13 PM)
What exactly should my position be?
A.) Bill did nothing wrong in using the term "lynching".
B.) Bill should not have used this term when referencing a black person.
c.) Bill should never use this term within any context unless when decrying the travesties of a racist past.
Is there an appoved list of terms/phrases out there? You know, I'm not only too young but I'm afflicted with this "white" insensitivity. Come on, I'm sure there are other nouns/verbs/adjectives I should be aware of? Ignorant inquiring minds want to know...
A.) Bill did nothing wrong in using the term "lynching".
B.) Bill should not have used this term when referencing a black person.
c.) Bill should never use this term within any context unless when decrying the travesties of a racist past.
Is there an appoved list of terms/phrases out there? You know, I'm not only too young but I'm afflicted with this "white" insensitivity. Come on, I'm sure there are other nouns/verbs/adjectives I should be aware of? Ignorant inquiring minds want to know...
Here yah go:
The Dictionary of Uncomfortable Words: What to Avoid Saying in Polite (or Any) Conversation
But really, the best way for an inquiring mind to move from ignorance to enlightenment is to pay attention.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Feb 22 2008, 12:38 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?).
It's most likely because Bill O is a republican pundit. I honestly don't listen to any of those people anymore, as there's way too much good music on the radio in Dallas, but was it really meant to be a biggoted comment?
Has anyone else (ie Liberal pundits and/or Presidential candidates) ever made an insensitive comment unintentionally? Think about... how did the media/liberals handle that?
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?).
It's most likely because Bill O is a republican pundit. I honestly don't listen to any of those people anymore, as there's way too much good music on the radio in Dallas, but was it really meant to be a biggoted comment?
Has anyone else (ie Liberal pundits and/or Presidential candidates) ever made an insensitive comment unintentionally? Think about... how did the media/liberals handle that?
It is interesting to note, aevans176, the difference between your post here and those about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson going back six months. It seems you are obsessed with and condemn Sharpton and Jackson, even when they haven’t done anything - but you are afraid they just might.
At the same time, you kind of wink 
at any of the sins of those on the right, like Bill O’Reilly. Why?QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jan 30 2008, 01:48 PM)
Al Sharpton, in my opinion, is a catalyst. He's a lightning rod. He intentionally stirs the pot of racism in order to keep himself gainfully employed speaking (and/or whatever he does). It keeps him in the limelight.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jan 12 2008, 08:03 AM)
Interesting thoughts. I personally don't care for Jesse Jackson, so you have a grand point. However, all in all if I were a liberal I'd think
Obama is probably the stand out choice at this point in the race. I would imagine if Obama had Sharpton on his right arm, that might be the nail in the coffin with white voters. Mr. Jackson, while aggravating
doesn't feel like such the race baiter/card player... even if he very well may be. I'm not sure.
Obama is probably the stand out choice at this point in the race. I would imagine if Obama had Sharpton on his right arm, that might be the nail in the coffin with white voters. Mr. Jackson, while aggravating
doesn't feel like such the race baiter/card player... even if he very well may be. I'm not sure.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jan 3 2008, 04:47 PM)
First of all, the law does protect Mr. Horn in Texas, which is exactly why a story of this scale has resulted in no indictment. Obviously you've misunderstood the law somehow. I'll leave that alone, as Al Sharpton isn't protesting in the DFW area here for a reason. Maybe because the lawyers in the Rainbow Coalition (or NAACP) know they have no leg to stand on.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Nov 8 2007, 11:43 AM)
In reference to J Jackson or Sharpton, I think what you're saying is exactly what aggravates people. Why is Al Sharpton on talk shows like Michael Bazedon? I heard him the other day acting as if he was a role model. It's sad that Black America can't see how denegrating of a race baiter and how divisive a guy like that is.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 8 2007, 11:06 AM)
Get offended? Beat someone up. Then Ice Cube and Will Smith and Al Sharpton will come to your rescue. Hog wash man. Hog wash.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Sep 13 2007, 07:30 AM)
I can't wait for Al Sharpton and the NAACP to defend this dude. The video does show him as the aggressor. I believe that they should've pepper sprayed him also. That would've taught him a lesson.
I could go on, but it sounds like a broken record. It appears you are being much more charitable to Bill O’Reilly and his ilk than you are to Al Sharpton. and Jesse Jackson. Again, why the inconsistency?
Note: In case you don't know, the little red leftward pointing arrow next to the date takes you to these posts without having to have a link.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Feb 22 2008, 03:57 PM)
QUOTE
BTW: Carlitoswhey, I’m sure Robinson knows what “niggardly” means.
It depends. If it's the ex-Atlanta Falcon, I'm not so sure. If it's the lead singer from Oxbow, I think you are right, because I remember an Oxbow song that had lyrics about niggardly-wired florescent lights or something like that.
Just for historical perspective, Lynching and nooses have not always been, as kalabus puts it, "inexorably and absolutely linked to blacks," for a few rather obvious reasons. It is only of late that nooses have become the currency of racism, at least for anyone who saw "Lonesome Dove."
- There were some lynchings of drug cops in Mexico over the past 10 - 20 years, and I'm 100% sure those federales were not black.
- In this country, white Tories and Republicans were lynching victims. That's how the word "lynch" started - a judge named Lynch talking about Tory loyalists.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that "lynching" came from William Lynch, a slaveowner in the mid 1700s who left Jamaica for Virginia, where he helped instruct slaveowners on how to break the spirit of slaves. So said Denzel Washington in "Great Debators" at least. I could be wrong, and I suspect you could be wrong, too. This might be one of those apocryphal historical debates, like where Mark Twain got his name from. But I'm curious.
QUOTE
Here's the thing: your historical perspective is good and valid and illuminating. But teenage students in Jena knew what a rope hanging from a tree meant. Obviously, no matter how historically shaky the connection between lynch mobs and racism may be, the two have gained that connection in recent years.
Personally, I'm not really upset about the thing. I actually enjoyed the firsthalf of his statement calling for prudence when dissecting Michelle Obama's past.
Still, I think we should be thoughtful about what words we choose. Recently I wrote an article about an islamic financial company and I found myself having to rephrase a sentence with the words "ground zero" in it. (Which used to me the origins of something, but now means a place where terrorists attacked, I guess.) So I can only understand the tightrope Bill O'Reilly is walking.
But, you know what, that's the price of being on tv all the damn time. You gotta watch what you say, you have to be comfortable with how your mind works in real time, and you have to learn how to filter yourself, you know? If we can talk about the Obamas while avoiding the subtext of race, it will be better for the nation. So whatever helps O'Reilly express his viewpoints without including a subtext of race is good for everyone. If that means a two week suspension, fine, if it means a slight "hey you shouldn't have said that" from his produ