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

[glenn1]

No, actually you don't care if it's true or not. Eric Wemple talked to a historian with some knowledge about the issue. The only reason we even know that slave labor was used in the construction of the White House is because of payments made to their owners. We don't have any record of how the slaves were quartered or fed. In other words, O'Reilly has no basis for his claims and is simply talking out of his ass.

That's the first valid argument against what he said that I've heard yet in this thread, thank you. That being said, I still don't see why it matters tremendously. O'Reilly affirmed the statement Michelle Obama made and that's the major point here, not some basically irrelevant factoid tossed in. I understand others may think his statement is some insidious plot against her but I just don't see it that way. You could have just as easily mentioned some other factoid ("All the slaves who worked on the White House wore matching blue shirts!") and it still isn't going to downplay that they were still slaves owned by our government.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nobody is offended by the mere reminder of something that happened in the past and I appreciate Michelle Obama bringing it up.

However unlike you I'm also not offended when someone else reminds people of another something that happened in the past. Yes, the U.S. government used slaves to help build the White House. Yes, the same U.S. government ensured they were well-fed and housed for basically the same self-interested reasons they saw fit to use slaves in the first statement. Neither is an offensive statement.

Context context context, your pedantry constantly leaves it out. You talk of trees and completely miss the forest and that is your motivation. To see the context requires that you be able to feel.

 

[agent00f]

For sake of argument I'll agree with your belief that's why O'Reilly made the comment. And so what? While I wouldn't have made the comment because there was no real reason to, likewise I know she's a grown woman making an inherently political speech and is thus subject to criticism for what she says. Even dumb criticism.

You ought to give her a bit more credit for having the mental toughness that I know she does to be able to withstand such a withering 'criticism' of a small part of her speech. You don't need to protect her with layers of bubble wrap, she's perfectly capable of defending herself although here I don't see why it's even needed. The O'Reilly comment didn't really detract from anything she said since it was true but not really relevant.

You simply don't understand why O'Reilly says the things he does. The situation he finds himself in is in front of an audience like this:

I think white people are getting sick of being shit on all the time. For the past half century, we've heard nothing but negativity about anything white. It's gone so far into crazy territory that feminists will claim that radical Islam in Saudi Arabia is morally superior to "white capitalist patriarchy" in the UK. Let me remind everyone that the UK has a queen as its head of state, they elected Margaret Thatcher 3 times, and their current prime minster is a Theresa May. White people are so hated by the left that white women like Theresa May are considered worse than Islamic rapist men.

That brings us to where we are today. The regressive left and groups like Black Lives Matter keep trying to start a race war, and guys like Bill O'Reilly are speaking out against it. Dividing the nation and promoting sectarian violence doesn't make us stronger.

Consider what goes on in a head like that. It's one that after emancipation can't figure out why the blacks are still unhappy. Right now it's still thinking: "we already aren't enslaving or even segregating you, what more could you possibly want?"

So it's only natural bill says what it takes to make them happy.

 

[stlc8tr]

Yes, the same U.S. government ensured they were well-fed and housed for basically the same self-interested reasons they saw fit to use slaves in the first statement.

How do you know that the US government ensured that they were well-fed? AFAIK, that's just O'Reilly's opinion.

Edit: Here's a rebuttal to his opinion.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...the-long-tradition-of-slavery-apology/493223/

Moreover, Mrs. Adams took note of their condition—and her observation stands at odds with O’Reilly’s:

Two of our hardy N England men would do as much work in a day as the whole 12, but it is true Republicanism that drive the Slaves half fed, and destitute of cloathing, ... to labour, whilst the owner waches about Idle, tho his one Slave is all the property he can boast.
​

 

[glenn1]

You simply don't understand why O'Reilly says the things he does. The situation he finds himself in is in front of an audience like this:

Consider what goes on in a head like that. It's one that after emancipation can't figure out why the blacks are still unhappy. Right now it's still thinking: "we already aren't enslaving or even segregating you, what more could you possibly want?"

So it's only natural bill says what it takes to make them happy.

Okay, so Zin's concern is that O'Reilly is undermining Michelle Obama, and yours is that O'Reilly is pandering to his audience who is filled with retards and needs their biases soothed.

So let me try asking again and more directly - does anyone have concerns with the content of what O'Reilly actually said rather than just his motivations for saying it? Or that by even muttering those words he's somehow polishing up the unique selling proposition (pun intended) for the Slavery™ product line?

 

[openwheel]

saw the video, what an idiot O'Reiley is. People are even dumber trying to defend it.

 

[MajinCry]

Americans downplaying slavery? No surprise there. Now try bringing up the Native Americans, ta see how far this rabbit hole goes. The good ol' "We won they lost" mentality is a common one.

 

[glenn1]

Americans downplaying slavery? No surprise there. Now try bringing up the Native Americans, ta see how far this rabbit hole goes. The good ol' "We won they lost" mentality is a common one.

^ More fake concern. This is the exact same tactic used by the right not long ago that many in this thread (including me) decried for the same reasons it should be rejected now. Back then it was "Obama refuses to refer to this act of terrorism by our preferred terms (e.g. "radical Islamophobic hate" or whatever bullshit word salad they constructed that day) so therefore he must be minimizing the attack."

Only difference is now that instead of some pro-forma rebuke of (insert religiously motivated thoughtcrime here) we're supposed to make some pro-forma rebuke of slavery lest we be "minimizing" it. How myopic. How ridiculous. And how pointless.

 

[agent00f]

Okay, so Zin's concern is that O'Reilly is undermining Michelle Obama, and yours is that O'Reilly is pandering to his audience who is filled with retards and needs their biases soothed.

So let me try asking again and more directly - does anyone have concerns with the content of what O'Reilly actually said rather than just his motivations for saying it? Or that by even muttering those words he's somehow polishing up the unique selling proposition (pun intended) for the Slavery™ product line?

I'm simply informing you of how this system works, and part of that information is content in this situation is largely irrelevant.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

saw the video, what an idiot O'Reiley is. People are even dumber trying to defend it.

You like videos?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP3syBu4ZDM

 

[Jhhnn]

^ More fake concern. This is the exact same tactic used by the right not long ago that many in this thread (including me) decried for the same reasons it should be rejected now. Back then it was "Obama refuses to refer to this act of terrorism by our preferred terms (e.g. "radical Islamophobic hate" or whatever bullshit word salad they constructed that day) so therefore he must be minimizing the attack."

Only difference is now that instead of some pro-forma rebuke of (insert religiously motivated thoughtcrime here) we're supposed to make some pro-forma rebuke of slavery lest we be "minimizing" it. How myopic. How ridiculous. And how pointless.

Nobody demanded a pro-forma rebuke from O'Reilly. Nobody claimed he needed to say anything about it. What he said is objectionable because it serves to excuse slavery.

Beyond that, O'Reilly is an elitist asshole who applies Butz' comments to all of us. FUGM, chumps.

 

[agent00f]

You like videos?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP3syBu4ZDM

Surely someone of your intellect can see difference between an awkward joke and whitewashing slavery.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Surely someone of your intellect can see difference between an awkward joke and whitewashing slavery.

Awkward? The correct term is "racist" Dr. Einstein. But your inept attempt to whitewash it is duly noted. Look at you.

 

[glenn1]

Surely someone of your intellect can see difference between an awkward joke and whitewashing slavery.

LOL, spoken like someone who doesn't even know what whitewashing really is.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/24/editorial-no-whitewash-for-harriet-tubman/

 

[agent00f]

Awkward? The correct term is "racist" Dr. Einstein. But your inept attempt to whitewash it is duly noted. Look at you.

Upon further consideration, it appears the issue here is you don't understand what racism means. I suspect the reason is because when you say something about black people, and others call it racist, you start to associate the two. However, racism isn't really "white person awkwardly talking about black folk stuff", but rather a subset of this where the latter is actual denigrated.

For example in this instance, a black person can usually joke about this with another black person, no denigration involved. Or a smooth white guy like Mr. Clinton can also; Mrs Clinton tried but failed. However, if you said "them damn blacks always late and blaming it on CP time nonsense", or "they were never late back in good ol slavin' days", that's not really the same thing.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Upon further consideration, it appears the issue here is you don't understand what racism means. I suspect the reason is because when you say something about black people, and others call it racist, you start to associate the two. However, racism isn't really "white person awkwardly talking about black folk stuff", but rather a subset of this where the latter is actual denigrated.

For example in this instance, a black person can usually joke about this with another black person, no denigration involved. Or a smooth white guy like Mr. Clinton can also; Mrs Clinton tried but failed. However, if you said "them damn blacks always late and blaming it on CP time nonsense", or "they were never late back in slavin' days", that's not really the same thing.

So joking about colored-people time is not racism and not denigrating towards blacks? Who would have thought!

I imagine one has to be pretty damn "intelligent" to rationalize such cognitive dissonance and be able to deceive oneself so convincingly...I'll give you that.

 

[agent00f]

So joking about colored-people time is not racism and not denigrating towards blacks? Who would have thought!

I imagine one has to be pretty damn "intelligent" to rationalize such cognitive dissonance and be able to deceive oneself so convincingly...I'll give you that.

People within an in-group sometimes tell self-deprecating jokes. Mr. Clinton for example as a honorary black person can edge in on that in-group provided proper context. His wife rather less so, and you're completely far afield which explains the label of racism when you try.

Again, I'm explaining this for your own benefit because it appears you've been in at a social disadvantage in the past for not understanding it.

 

[brycejones]

So joking about colored-people time is not racism and not denigrating towards blacks? Who would have thought!

I imagine one has to be pretty damn "intelligent" to rationalize such cognitive dissonance and be able to deceive oneself so convincingly...I'll give you that.

Look at you the white knight riding in to deflect from the original subject of the thread.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

People within an in-group sometimes tell self-deprecating jokes. Mr. Clinton for example as a honorary black person can edge in on that in-group provided proper context. His wife rather less so, and you're completely far afield which explains the label of racism when you try.

Again, I'm explaining this for your own benefit because it appears you've been in at a social disadvantage in the past for not understanding it.

I've already questioned your sanity once...this will now make it the second time. Are you on meds?

 

[agent00f]

I've already questioned your sanity once previously...this will now make it twice. Are you on meds?

Can you explain in any detail which parts of that post is insane? I just want to be really clear if I'm bananas or you have predictably shitty retorts.

 

[glenn1]

Surely someone of your intellect can see difference between an awkward joke and whitewashing slavery.

LOL, we'll just use your convenient standard that you only apply after knowing the politics of someone saying things - Bill O'Reilly was just making an "awkward joke" about being well fed.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Can you explain in any detail which parts of that post is insane? I just want to be really clear if I'm bananas or you have predictably shitty retorts.

I think that you're really fucked up in the head...but by all means chalk it up as "predictably shitty retorts".

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

LOL, we'll just use your convenient standard that you only apply after knowing the politics of someone saying things - Bill O'Reilly was just making an "awkward joke" about being well fed.

But that's different...he's not the wife of our first "black" president.

 

[glenn1]

But that's different...he's not the wife of our first "black" president.

You mean the first "half white guy" according to Wanda Sykes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmyRog2w4DI&feature=youtu.be&t=1m45s

 

[agent00f]

I think that you're really fucked up in the head...but by all means chalk it up as "predictably shitty retorts".

Observing that you don't understand matters of race or social interaction doesn't make anyone "fucked up in the head". Fucked up in the head is more applicable to someone who cannot fathom that their understanding of the world is inadequate.

LOL, we'll just use your convenient standard that you only apply after knowing the politics of someone saying things - Bill O'Reilly was just making an "awkward joke" about being well fed.

You can of course choose to reject reality however you want, frankly it won't surprise anyone at this point.