O'Reilly on Media Matters: "If I mention the word 'black,' I'm anti-black. If I mention the word 'gay' I'm a homophobe"
February 26, 2010 8:26 pm ET
From the February 26 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Of course, it might be to show what a crybaby little Bill is.
OK. So far, this is a fun game.
1. A post in which the commentator uses a metaphor but MMFA decides to take literally
2. A collection of links to other MMFA articles containing 30-60 second clips that show a "history" of some absurd notion usually involving racism
3. A statement of opinion that is neither a lie nor misinformation
MMFA also makes many laughable assumptions about the viewers of conservative commentators. They assume
1. That conservatives can't grasp metaphors and hyperbole
2. That conservatives can't possibly think for themselves
3. That conservatives believe in things that they don't
This post fits none of those categories. O'Reilly is simply wrong: MMFA has never criticized him for simply uttering one word. You may think that O'Reilly is simply exaggerating his charge against MMFA, but the charge that he's exaggerating is still false.
Your "laughable assumptions" sound like demonstrated facts to me, Mag.
That's part of the problem. When Beck says something like "life isn't fair, sometimes OJ gets away with murder" his listeners know exactly why he said that and why he made that comparison. That's the problem. The conservative blowhards know their listeners know exactly what they are implying, they're just hoping (or more likely, just don't care) that the rest us will understand what they are saying as well.
2. That conservatives can't possibly think for themselves
They can't. They blindly follow the ramblings and rantings of their cult heros without thinking things through and disdain and ridicule any counter arguments, no matter how much supporting evidence is provided. Several cases that make that clear is the continued ignorance between what reconcilition is and what the "nuclear option" is. The fact that conservatives are conflating the two shows that they do not take the time to learn the difference between the two. It is further compounded when conservatives believe GOP politicians and conservative talk show hosts who push the myth that using reconciliation is a "power grab" and "unprecedented" despite the widespread use by the republicans themselves. If they can't or don't want to know what the underlying problems and lies are for these premises, then an accusation of not being able to think for themselves is apt.
3. That conservatives believe in things that they don't
If you watched the summit meeting, the one think tha stood out was that it sounded like, most likely because it's true, that the republicans where all talking from the same script, even down to the same words and sentences. This is echoed by their supporters using the same words and sentences. If conservatives can't even express, in their own words, their positions and just parrot the same talking points they hear, then that is a very strong argument in favor of them believing everything they are told.
Now, you are not allowed to take issue with that statement or challenge the factual accuracy of it because it's ONLY MY OPINION. So you can't say anything about it.
And wasn't it Bill who argued that allowing gay marriage would inevitably result in the need to sanction interspecies marriage, so that humans could marry ducks and dolphins?
Grandpa Gasbag is a little out of touch.
"hey Marge, look at that! why, they're just like you and me! who woulda thunk it!"
that's about as racist as you can get.
The reasoning here is sort of similar to the Climate Change Denial Cultists'. They try to point to a snowstorm in December as proving that GW is a hoax. When it's explained that this weather is completely consistent with the reality of GW, they start squawking that " I guess everything proves Global warming".
BilldO makes bigoted remarks, but thinks anytime he says "gay" or "black" in a context that's not derogatory, that makes him not a bigot. Then his little lizard brain tells him that he's called a bigot any time he says these words.
Either:
1. Different races are just the same as everyone else and don't bring anything extra, they're completely interchangeable with any other race and thus the concept of diversity is a sham. Any criticism of anyone of a different race is a criticism of them as a person and not because of their race because really "they're just like us".
OR
2. Different races ARE different and bring much needed diversity, pointing out their differences isn't racism and in fact justifies diversity programs. Given that every race is different any criticism of a certain race is completely justified because you're just pointing out a difference and expressing an opinion on its worth.
Please people, pick a side and stick with it. You can't reasonably ask people to believe that the races are different and bring diversity while at the same time expect that those differences will never be criticized. Remember "different" does not necessarily equal "good". They're two different words for a reason.
I wouldn't have been surprised if O'Reilly had continued sharing his newfound knowledge by exclaiming that no one had a bone through their nose, and who'da thunkit?
Give me a break. Not only is O'Reilly a racist, he's ignorant.
Oh, and MagCynic... you're still a twit.
I hope McCain eats that phone baloney radio head for lunch. That guy is pure swill.
What I do remember is that when you talk about "people" who are "black", you are suprised that they can eat with a fork and knife and not scream "More ice-tea, em-effer"
The context in which you use the words "black" and "gay" are what we judge you with, Mr. O'Reilly.