No O'Reilly thread yet? (Slaves that built White House were well fed!)

[Blackjack200]

Rape, beating, murder and everything else was 100% done. Those were also things done to non slaves. The point Glenn was making is that it was not as prevalent as its made out to be. What Glenn said is that slavery even without those things was immoral. No doubt those things happened more under slavery, and that is a fact, but the way slavery is usually presented is that they were always beat, always raped and that was not typical. As pointed out, slavery was about owning property aka people. You will get more production out of people if you dont murder all of your property, or beat them so they cant do work.

What you are expecting is virtue signaling. Anything less than that will mean that he supports slavery.

I will ask you this, do you believe I am a racist or in any supported slavery because of this post? If you at this point believe yes, then I can actually show you were I have gone off on people for trying to compare lesser things to slavery. I find slavery a horrible stain on not just American history, but human history. I also know through history classes that the narrative of slaves being perpetually raped and beaten as being the norm is simply not true. It was frequent, but not the norm for most slaves.

Michelle Obama: "Wow, this house was built buy slaves, and now we're a black family living in it, look how far we've come as a country!"

Bill O'Reilly: "Actually, those slaves had it pretty good."

Dank: "WTF, Bill O'Reilly, WTF?"

Glenn: "Actually, he was really saying how bad slavery was because they treated the slaves well"

emperus: "No, they didn't treat the slaves well, they were beaten, tortured and raped"

realibrad: "Yeah, but so were other people. Also, it's not good to beat your slaves because then they don't work as hard. You're expecting virtue signaling."


Cannot make this shit up.

 

[realibrad]

God damn analytics. I go to the news article, read it, and then it has the suggested videos. Just watched the video about the dad playing a prank on his son for his birth day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FoNdhdhxng

Got me right in the feels.

 

[emperus]

What do you mean by that? Are you capable of some honesty here? Or are you just going to run away and continue screaming "dog whistle" at every fn little thing you imagine to be offensive for the rest of your life?

People who would write this.

He was citing historical facts ffs. I'm really having a lot of trouble getting worked up over this one. But the storm of outrage is awesome to behold!

To a statement where someone is citing that slaves were well fed. People who always seem to excuse racism or qualify it in some manner.

Of all the facts in the world pertaining to this issue, why would he list that one? What did that even have to do with the truthfulness of Michelle's statement that slaves built the White House? But of course you know. It's the same very reason you said he was just citing a historical fact.

 

[glenn1]

Michelle Obama: "Wow, this house was built buy slaves, and now we're a black family living in it, look how far we've come as a country!"

Bill O'Reilly: "Actually, those slaves had it pretty good."

Dank: "WTF, Bill O'Reilly, WTF?"

Glenn: "Actually, he was really saying how bad slavery was because they treated the slaves well"

emperus: "No, they didn't treat the slaves well, they were beaten, tortured and raped"

realibrad: "Yeah, but so were other people. Also, it's not good to beat your slaves because then they don't work as hard. You're expecting virtue signaling."


Cannot make this shit up.

Oh sorry I guess we interrupted your opportunity to convey your righteousness by proclaiming how bad slavery was than the next person. We can't even discuss the relative treatment of different groups of slaves because somehow that's 'victim blaming' or some other crap.

 

[zinfamous]

Even I'm shocked by the utter pettiness and intransigence of the conservative bubble in this thread.

Michelle uses an analogy to merely point out a manner of progress that our society has made. She doesn't discuss horrors, she doesn't really discuss anything. She merely brings to attention (which she has often done) the fact of a tangible measuring stick of progress. An actual accomplishment that is worthy of note when looking at the short history of our country, and our society.

Conservatives now, for some reason that they refuse to admit and defend choose to interject facts of history, (or semi-facts of history), simply to downplay that note--to insist that she went out of her way to remind us of horror, when in fact "it wasn't all that horrible!"

This behavior is, innarguabely, incredibly disgusting. She didn't do a single thing to "divide," to play a race card, to shame any particular person that would listen to her speech. Rhetorically, none of that was there. In no way was this the point of her analogy. It absolutely takes a petty, racist, shallow and divisive type of human to inject notions of racism, division, horror, and shame into those very few words that she spoke. Further, you guys argue from the false point that she suggests this, then cherry-pick some little nuggets of speculative "well, in some cases!" pieces of information that might well be accurate, but you choose to represent as the whole with a little jab of "Well, it wasn't all that horrible to be a slave, because!"

What is the point of this? Has it really gotten to the point where the lot of you have been so completely drained of intellectual honesty and curiosity that not a single rhetorical phrase can be easily understood for what it is, rather than be digested under the lens of innuendo and underhanded meaning that you very much want to be there? When you inject these false assumptions, you must then seek to destroy by repainting real horror under a neutral, somewhat less offensive pallet?

What is this? where does it come from? Why are conservatives so invested in team sports politics that rational, adult behavior--usually formed by experience, ideas that challenge rather than confirm prejudices, honest education--has been so easily tossed aside in favor of irrational, passion-filled thoughts that seek first to divide, then to hate, then to destroy?

basically: Grow the fuck up.

 

[zinfamous]

Oh sorry I guess we interrupted your opportunity to convey your righteousness by proclaiming how bad slavery was than the next person. We can't even discuss the relative treatment of different groups of slaves because somehow that's 'victim blaming' or some other crap.

She didn't even talk about how bad slavery was you ignorant fucking sockpuppet!

O'Really and his mindless little peanut gallery did. "The relative treatment of slaves" is nothing but a bullshit strawman to the rhetoric of the actual message. How motherfucking petty can you be? Has your soul really become this black and empty?

Open your fucking eyes, nitwit.

 

[emperus]

Even I'm shocked by the utter pettiness and intransigence of the conservative bubble in this thread.

Michelle uses an analogy to merely point out a manner of progress that our society has made. She doesn't discuss horrors, she doesn't really discuss anything. She merely brings to attention (which she has often done) the fact of a tangible measuring stick of progress. An actual accomplishment that is worthy of note when looking at the short history of our country, and our society.

Conservatives now, for some reason that they refuse to admit and defend choose to interject facts of history, (or semi-facts of history), simply to downplay that note--to insist that she went out of her way to remind us of horror, when in fact "it wasn't all that horrible!"

This behavior is, innarguabely, incredibly disgusting. She didn't do a single thing to "divide," to play a race card, to shame any particular person that would listen to her speech. Rhetorically, none of that was there. In no way was this the point of her analogy. It absolutely takes a petty, racist, shallow and divisive type of human to inject notions of racism, division, horror, and shame into those very few words that she spoke. Further, you guys argue from the false point that she suggests this, then cherry-pick some little nuggets of speculative "well, in some cases!" pieces of information that might well be accurate, but you choose to represent as the whole with a little jab of "Well, it wasn't all that horrible to be a slave, because!"

What is the point of this? Has it really gotten to the point where the lot of you have been so completely drained of intellectual honesty and curiosity that not a single rhetorical phrase can be easily understood for what it is, rather than be digested under the lens of innuendo and underhanded meaning that you very much want to be there? When you inject these false assumptions, you must then seek to destroy by repainting real horror under a neutral, somewhat less offensive pallet?

What is this? where does it come from? Why are conservatives so invested in team sports politics that rational, adult behavior--usually formed by experience, ideas that challenge rather than confirm prejudices, honest education--has been so easily tossed aside in favor of irrational, passion-filled thoughts that seek first to divide, then to hate, then to destroy?

basically: Grow the fuck up.

Well said.

 

[glenn1]

She didn't even talk about how bad slavery was you ignorant fucking sockpuppet!

O'Really and his mindless little peanut gallery did. "The relative treatment of slaves" is nothing but a bullshit strawman to the rhetoric of the actual message. How motherfucking petty can you be? Has your soul really become this black and empty?

Open your fucking eyes, nitwit.

Again, please provide the appropriate verbiage to use to express my disapproval of slavery in order to meet your standard.

 

[Moonbeam]

So while he fact checked Michelle Obama's statement and validated it was true, he didn't sufficiently make a ritual denunciation of slavery so that's an unsatisfactory fact check?

True. He did exactly what you do on a regular basis, completely not notice the hideousness that lies behind both your world views. It isn't the fact that the slaves may have been well fed, a point of view not in actual evidence but theoretically true, (who would not care for a human tool you pay money for, and from which you earn your labor free living), or the absence of mentioning the fact that slavery, just like anti-Semitism for historically valid reasons is and should be ritually denounced, as should all bigotry and prejudice, are not issues to be derided as unsatisfactory fact checking. They represent a callous disregard for the emotion of empathy that should guide every genuine human heart. They are comments that represent the exudation of puss that issues from the infection of the denial of bigotry, the callous indifference of minds too enfeebled by self hate to allow the manifestation of organic shame that should form the touchstone of health at the root of every decent human being.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

People who would write this.



To a statement where someone is citing that slaves were well fed. People who always seem to excuse racism or qualify it in some manner.

Of all the facts in the world pertaining to this issue, why would he list that one? What did that even have to do with the truthfulness of Michelle's statement that slaves built the White House? But of course you know. It's the same very reason you said he was just citing a historical fact.

You being the expert in such matters, I'll defer to your keen perceptions that it was indeed a racist 'dog whistle'. Acute insensitivity to such "obviously" blatant racism is one of the many benefits of white privilege.

 

[realibrad]

Michelle Obama: "Wow, this house was built buy slaves, and now we're a black family living in it, look how far we've come as a country!"

Bill O'Reilly: "Actually, those slaves had it pretty good."

Dank: "WTF, Bill O'Reilly, WTF?"

Glenn: "Actually, he was really saying how bad slavery was because they treated the slaves well"

emperus: "No, they didn't treat the slaves well, they were beaten, tortured and raped"

realibrad: "Yeah, but so were other people. Also, it's not good to beat your slaves because then they don't work as hard. You're expecting virtue signaling."


Cannot make this shit up.

Thank you for perfectly showing what I was saying people do.

Bill 100% tried to make Michelle's speech seem less important (it was important) by saying slavery was not as bad. Michelle did not say anything about the horrors of slavery. Her focus was about how far we have come and damn right we have come far. Bill just wanted to take the spotlight from her and he is a dick bag. What Bill said was factually correct, but the goal was not to give out information.

Here is Michelle's quote where she talked about slavery.

That is the story of this country, the story that has brought me to this stage tonight, the story of generations of people who felt the lash of bondage, the shame of servitude, the sting of segregation, but who kept on striving and hoping and doing what needed to be done so that today I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves.

That makes Bills comment seem weird, because what she said was also factually true. Its pretty clear to me what his intent was.

Where I jumped in was emperus's narrative which was to say that the typical situation slaves encountered were beatings and horrible conditions. That is untrue. The typical slave would not be beaten or raped. That in no way means slavery was not horrible and that is what Glenn also said. I was not defending Bill as I think his position is immoral. What I did was to say that Glenn was right on the point that you dont need to exaggerate slavery because the details are bad enough.

But, if you want to see me as defending Bill, or diminishing slavery go ahead. You are wrong and I doubt you care. This is political season and you have a job to do.

 

[HomerJS]

Not the first time in the last 5 years I can remember Republicans opining that slavery wasn't so bad.

And they wonder what's our problem attracting minorities?

 

[realibrad]

Even I'm shocked by the utter pettiness and intransigence of the conservative bubble in this thread.

Michelle uses an analogy to merely point out a manner of progress that our society has made. She doesn't discuss horrors, she doesn't really discuss anything. She merely brings to attention (which she has often done) the fact of a tangible measuring stick of progress. An actual accomplishment that is worthy of note when looking at the short history of our country, and our society.

Conservatives now, for some reason that they refuse to admit and defend choose to interject facts of history, (or semi-facts of history), simply to downplay that note--to insist that she went out of her way to remind us of horror, when in fact "it wasn't all that horrible!"

This behavior is, innarguabely, incredibly disgusting. She didn't do a single thing to "divide," to play a race card, to shame any particular person that would listen to her speech. Rhetorically, none of that was there. In no way was this the point of her analogy. It absolutely takes a petty, racist, shallow and divisive type of human to inject notions of racism, division, horror, and shame into those very few words that she spoke. Further, you guys argue from the false point that she suggests this, then cherry-pick some little nuggets of speculative "well, in some cases!" pieces of information that might well be accurate, but you choose to represent as the whole with a little jab of "Well, it wasn't all that horrible to be a slave, because!"

What is the point of this? Has it really gotten to the point where the lot of you have been so completely drained of intellectual honesty and curiosity that not a single rhetorical phrase can be easily understood for what it is, rather than be digested under the lens of innuendo and underhanded meaning that you very much want to be there? When you inject these false assumptions, you must then seek to destroy by repainting real horror under a neutral, somewhat less offensive pallet?

What is this? where does it come from? Why are conservatives so invested in team sports politics that rational, adult behavior--usually formed by experience, ideas that challenge rather than confirm prejudices, honest education--has been so easily tossed aside in favor of irrational, passion-filled thoughts that seek first to divide, then to hate, then to destroy?

basically: Grow the fuck up.

It comes from the right not wanting to feel guilty about loving a country that has horrible things in the past. Its hard to love the US completely when you are reminded that the US did things like slavery, internment of US citizens, medical experiments ect. The right and the left have both created a bubble where any guilt about their stance is attacked. The difference is that the right tends to get defensive about positions that are fucking way worse like slavery.

People dont like having their beliefs challenged.

 

[realibrad]

Not the first time in the last 5 years I can remember Republicans opining that slavery wasn't so bad.

And they wonder what's our problem attracting minorities?

our or their?

Dont expect much from a party that is imploding.

 

[HomerJS]

our or their?

Dont expect much from a party that is imploding.

Notice how the attitudes of some haven't changed since the 1700s

Whether its slavery then or police abuse of blacks today we should just shut up and be grateful cause "you're in Merica"

 

[glenn1]

Not the first time in the last 5 years I can remember Republicans opining that slavery wasn't so bad.

And they wonder what's our problem attracting minorities?

You guys should have a contest for who can denounce slavery the best and think of the fanciest insults for those who don't reach up to your level of professionalism in it. You could turn it into an entire reality TV show.

 

[emperus]

You being the expert in such matters, I'll defer to your keen perceptions that it was indeed a racist 'dog whistle'. Acute insensitivity to such "obviously" blatant racism is one of the many benefits of white privilege.

Simple question.

What did the fact the slaves were well fed even have to do with the truthfulness of Michelle's statement that slaves built the White House?

 

[Jaskalas]

It absolutely takes a petty, racist, shallow and divisive type of human to inject notions of racism, division, horror, and shame into those very few words that she spoke.

You don't really understand the other side do you?

Her context... her words, they never saw them. They believe those words were something else, something hateful and divisive. A person I know thinks she actually said "I wake up sad every morning in a house built by slaves". Michelle Obama never spoke those words, but it fits the context / narrative they were sold by right wing media. It's what they then remember.

Their context is as if she hates the white house. Because it was built by slaves. So old man 'Reilly must do what his generation is known for, and Patriotic chest bump for the "honor" of the white house. "It wasn't that bad..." is stupid even in that context... but at least you need to know where they're coming from.

Someone injected it, sure... but the rest just follow the dog whistle. That's how politics works in this country. That's the... intelligence of our people, sad as that may be.

 

[realibrad]

Notice how the attitudes of some haven't changed since the 1700s

Whether its slavery then or police abuse of blacks today we should just shut up and be grateful cause "you're in Merica"

I don't think the right believes there is abuse of blacks. Its not like they think there is, but its okay because of other progress. The problem with that debate is the same thing here. Those on the left exaggerates events which makes those on the right dismiss the events. The way the event of Michael Brown's death was presented is what allows the right to dismiss the issues. Its the same thing I have been telling those on the left to stop doing to Trump. The more they exaggerate something that is already bad, the less credibility the left has.

Had people focused on Bills point and what he said, it would be quick and easy to show his motive. Instead we get bogged down in other shit because everyone wants to virtue signal about their positions.

 

[brycejones]

You don't really understand the other side do you?

Her context... her words, they never saw them. They believe those words were something else, something hateful and divisive. A person I know thinks she actually said "I wake up sad every morning in a house built by slaves". Michelle Obama never spoke those words, but it fits the context / narrative they were sold by right wing media. It's what they then remember.

Their context is as if she hates the white house. Because it was built by slaves. So old man 'Reilly must do what his generation is known for, and Patriotic chest bump for the "honor" of the white house. "It wasn't that bad..." is stupid even in that context... but at least you need to know where they're coming from.

Someone injected it, sure... but the rest just follow the dog whistle. That's how politics works in this country. That's the... intelligence of our people, sad as that may be.

I appreciate your honesty.

 

[realibrad]

You don't really understand the other side do you?

Her context... her words, they never saw them. They believe those words were something else, something hateful and divisive. A person I know thinks she actually said "I wake up sad every morning in a house built by slaves". Michelle Obama never spoke those words, but it fits the context / narrative they were sold by right wing media. It's what they then remember.

Their context is as if she hates the white house. Because it was built by slaves. So old man 'Reilly must do what his generation is known for, and Patriotic chest bump for the "honor" of the white house. "It wasn't that bad..." is stupid even in that context... but at least you need to know where they're coming from.

Someone injected it, sure... but the rest just follow the dog whistle. That's how politics works in this country. That's the... intelligence of our people, sad as that may be.

Goes both ways on that point. Trump saying stupid X is twisted into an even worse thing he did not say.

 

[zinfamous]

Again, please provide the appropriate verbiage to use to express my disapproval of slavery in order to meet your standard.

you didn't read a thing, did you? It's staggering to me how obtuse you guys are.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Simple question.

What did the fact the slaves were well fed even have to do with the truthfulness of Michelle's statement that slaves built the White House?

Simple answer. This is purely a matter of opinion and I think that you're being hypersensitive. But, by all means, imply I'm racist for having a different opinion. I see you.

 

[glenn1]

you didn't read a thing, did you? It's staggering to me how obtuse you guys are.

You keep saying the same thing. My refusal to condemn slavery the way YOU think I should isn't evidence of anything much less that I'm a racist or that I minimize slavery. It's just a sign that you evidently feel some OCD need to hear some ritual words being said or avoid some topics. "How dare you talk about slaves that weren't beaten!"

 

[Moonbeam]

You guys should have a contest for who can denounce slavery the best and think of the fanciest insults for those who don't reach up to your level of professionalism in it. You could turn it into an entire reality TV show.

In a world full of suffering, you chose to be a pedant, to stand for empty minor intellectual truths that fly in the face of deep pain. You take pride in your capacity to take a pedantic, politically incorrect stance, a meaningless nuanced fact or two as if your capacity to distance yourself from the suffering of others was some sort of virtue. Your problem is that you are all up in your head because you refuse to feel. You are the well fed slave with a rich intellectual life and a heart that is in chains.

I suggest you work on your own humanity before you worry about the issue of political correctness. You will find new meaning in the notion of slavery when you experience it's reality internally.

Your posts are nothing more to me than the ritual condemnation of political correctness. You show contempt for the very thing that you are. I bet you can guess to what I would attribute the reason.