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

[emperus]

I believe the facts people choose to add or omit when making a statement or telling a story generally gives you a good idea as to their own personal believes(bias) and motivation for telling the story. Ex. O'reilly chose to state (in his view) slaves were well fed and had good lodging, but didn't choose to add that slaves were also beaten. I've asked a lot of people in this thread why they think that is. I haven't heard a good answer. Yet, people here have still chosen to qualify and defend that statement.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

There are very few really intelligent people on this forum who understand the world as you do and I appreciate the time you took to explain. I now have a much better understanding where you're coming from.

 

[agent00f]

In the future, when making the argument that the other side is just as bad, be careful to pick examples which are similar in reality and not just in your head. Just because something works in your head doesn't mean it's reflected in factual reality; that's very important to constructing a solid argument.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

In the future, when making the argument that the other side is just as bad, be careful to pick examples which are similar in reality and not just in your head. Just because something works in your head doesn't mean it's reflected in factual reality; that's very important to constructing a solid argument.

QFT.

 

[Moonbeam]

QFT.

I made no effort to understand or respond to your posts in this thread because I don't feel motivated to do so. All I see is a mountain of mental labor and probable misapplied assumptions. My guess as to the probable reason is that I don't fear what you think is that I could trust my life to what you feel, the quality of character that animates your being.

 

[agent00f]

QFT.

At this point it's pretty clear you don't know how arguments function. See, the way it works is I tell you where you're wrong, offering examples and reasoning in a sequence leads to a compelling conclusion. For example, it's simply a matter of reality that two black people telling a CP joke isn't the same as someone like you or orielly trying to rationalize slavery. Then, either you agree with it, or offer your own counterargument with associated luggage for your pov.

Honestly I have no idea what you were doing for those 10k+ posts without this information.

 

[openwheel]

You like videos?

I see how the 2016 Republicans see the World: Totally skewed.

It is really sad to see a major party in the US overtaken by complete morons.

 

[1prophet]

I believe the facts people choose to add or omit when making a statement or telling a story generally gives you a good idea as to their own personal believes(bias) and motivation for telling the story. Ex. O'reilly chose to state (in his view) slaves were well fed and had good lodging, but didn't choose to add that slaves were also beaten. I've asked a lot of people in this thread why they think that is. I haven't heard a good answer. Yet, people here have still chosen to qualify and defend that statement.

Because maybe he is afraid of being triggered by the ugliness that helped built this nation and scared he might have to come out of that whitewashed safe space of his in order to see the complete picture good and bad that made America great.

But then again we all have a bit of O'reilly in us when we indirectly exploit the lack of environmental, labor/pay & safety standards in third world countries (to bypass those very regulations in this country that we demand for ourselves) for our personal gain,

and when we are confronted by the ugliness of their exploited situation we avoid having to face up to it so we make ourselves feel better by saying things like they have jobs are well fed and have good lodging.

 

[HomerJS]

Okay, let's flip the script then and see if you are still outraged. Imagine that during the RNC convention, Barbara Bush mentions how much change we've seen in the past 200 years and specifically points out the 15th Amendment (championed by the Republican party) made the Obama election and Presidency possible. A Democratic commentator validates this statement but also adds that several northern states voted against it (including Biden's home state of Delaware and New York where Hillary Clinton hails from). Would you take that statement as evidence that the 2nd person was "minimizing" the acts of the people to try to withhold civil rights to freed slaves?

"Slaves were well fed" is equivalent to "Hitler loved dogs"

Your example just tells me the Republican and Democratic Parties were different back then

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

At this point it's pretty clear you don't know how arguments function. See, the way it works is I tell you where you're wrong, offering examples and reasoning in a sequence leads to a compelling conclusion. For example, it's simply a matter of reality that two black people telling a CP joke isn't the same as someone like you or orielly trying to rationalize slavery. Then, either you agree with it, or offer your own counterargument with associated luggage for your pov.

Honestly I have no idea what you were doing for those 10k+ posts without this information.

Unbelievable.

Moonie, please tell me what I'm missing here in regard to 'misapplied assumptions' that makes this racist CP time joke OK in "factual reality". All I can see is a man with a very weak grasp on sanity.

 

[glenn1]

"Slaves were well fed" is equivalent to "Hitler loved dogs"

Your example just tells me the Republican and Democratic Parties were different back then

Yeah, the difference is that I heard that I would say "well that's interesting but irrelevant."

You and others seem to think "OMG he's minimizing the Holocaust, why does O'Reilly want to kill all the j00s?"

 

[brycejones]

Yeah, the difference is that I heard that I would say "well that's interesting but irrelevant."

You and others seem to think "OMG he's minimizing the Holocaust, why does O'Reilly want to kill all the j00s?"

Yet you have spent days arguing this shit. Must be really important to you for some reason. Btw it is still sailing right over your head maybe if you were faster you would be able to catch it,

 

[glenn1]

Yet you have spent days arguing this shit. Must be really important to you for some reason. Btw it is still sailing right over your head maybe if you were faster you would be able to catch it,

Because I don't want our speech to be circumscribed by ritual kabuki phrasing or attempting to turn otherwise nondescript and innocuous words into thoughtcrimes. I opposed it when was Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer warning Bill Maher after he did a monologue on 9/11 that "all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do." I oppose it when right wing folks try to create a talking point about how Obama refuses to use certain words to describe terror events (Islamist murder jihadists or whatever the hell they wanted him to say). I opposed it when it was Patty Murray saying something relatively anaologous (see my post 81). And I'll oppose it now. I don't want us turning into a European nation where entire domains of conversation are out of bounds and criminalized and you can go to jail for saying the wrong kind of thing.

 

[ivwshane]

Because I don't want our speech to be circumscribed by ritual kabuki phrasing or attempting to turn otherwise nondescript and innocuous words into thoughtcrimes. I opposed it when was Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer warning Bill Maher after he did a monologue on 9/11 that "all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do." I oppose it when right wing folks try to create a talking point about how Obama refuses to use certain words to describe terror events (Islamist murder jihadists or whatever the hell they wanted him to say). I opposed it when it was Patty Murray saying something relatively anaologous (see my post 81). And I'll oppose it now. I don't want us turning into a European nation where entire domains of conversation are out of bounds and criminalized and you can go to jail for saying the wrong kind of thing.

Its odd that you say that when it appears that O'Reilly is acting as the thought police. He took Michelle Obama's words out of context to add some irrelevant point. His comments were akin to a stop and frisk, it was targeted and done with the purpose to harass.

 

[Moonbeam]

Unbelievable.

Moonie, please tell me what I'm missing here in regard to 'misapplied assumptions' that makes this racist CP time joke OK in "factual reality". All I can see is a man with a very weak grasp on sanity.

I was talking about what would happen to me if I tried to figure all this out, that I would get a tired brain and make a ton of mistakes, those misapplied assumptions, none of which I would be willing to subject myself to because I trust your are a fine human being. You have already won the only issue that matters to me.

 

[glenn1]

Its odd that you say that when it appears that O'Reilly is acting as the thought police. He took Michelle Obama's words out of context to add some irrelevant point. His comments were akin to a stop and frisk, it was targeted and done with the purpose to harass.

I must have watched something different than you. I saw him talk about several topics of slaves at the White House, including that they worked for several administrations. Here is the text quoted.

As we mentioned, Talking Points Memo, Michelle Obama referenced slaves building the White House in referring to the evolution of America in a positive way. It was a positive comment. The history behind her remark is fascinating. George Washington selected the site in 1791, and as president laid the cornerstone in 1792. Washington was then running the country out of Philadelphia.

Slaves did participate in the construction of the White House. Records show about 400 payments made to slave masters between 1795 and 1801. In addition, free blacks, whites, and immigrants also worked on the massive building. There were no illegal immigrants at that time. If you could make it here, you could stay here.

In 1800, President John Adams took up residence in what was then called the Executive Mansion. It was only later on they named it the White House. But Adams was in there with Abigail, and they were still hammering nails, the construction was still going on.

Slaves that worked there were well-fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802. However, the feds did not forbid subcontractors from using slave labor. So, Michelle Obama is essentially correct in citing slaves as builders of the White House, but there were others working as well. Got it all? There will be a quiz.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I was talking about what would happen to me if I tried to figure all this out, that I would get a tired brain and make a ton of mistakes, those misapplied assumptions, none of which I would be willing to subject myself to because I trust your are a fine human being. You have already won the only issue that matters to me.

And I would trust that agent00f is a fine human being as well. Point taken.

 

[Moonbeam]

And I would trust that agent00f is a fine human being as well. Point taken.

Hehe, well that was not my point, but it seems like a good one and I'm glad you made it.

 

[ivwshane]

I must have watched something different than you. I saw him talk about several topics of slaves at the White House, including that they worked for several administrations. Here is the text quoted.

Ok, I will take back my comment. I watched the complete context of the quote and it looks like O'Reilly was simply adding some history to Michelle's comment and he even gave the context of her comment correctly.
I was wrong and this is much ado about nothing (other than bill being possibly incorrect on the well fed and lodging part).

Here is the complete context of what bill O'Reilly said (I have no idea who the commentators are in the video so feel free to ignore them as I did).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5fnTn6JP9-k

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Hehe, well that was not my point, but it seems like a good one and I'm glad you made it.

Me too...it was a point I needed to hear.

So what is the only issue that matters to you?

 

[agent00f]

Unbelievable.

Moonie, please tell me what I'm missing here in regard to 'misapplied assumptions' that makes this racist CP time joke OK in "factual reality". All I can see is a man with a very weak grasp on sanity.

Again, it's understandable that you believe it's racist because when you tell that joke people consider it so. However, the concept of self-deprecating humor is someone even the whitest person can understand. For example, if you joke about your own lack of self-awareness, notice it's not equivalent to when I point out the same thing.

It also makes sense that this opinion these basic social codes are the realm of insanity is also what has prevented you from learning them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Me too...it was a point I needed to hear.

So what is the only issue that matters to you?

That you are a fine human being. That while I can discuss my views with you in the hope of understanding, I have no need for you to see anything (as if you were deficient).

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Again, it's understandable that you believe it's racist because when you tell that joke people consider it so. However, the concept of self-deprecating humor is someone even the whitest person can understand. For example, if you joke about your own lack of self-awareness, notice it's not equivalent to when I point out the same thing.

It also makes sense that this opinion these basic social codes are the realm of insanity is also what has prevented you from learning them.

Thanks for enlightening me regarding my profound ignorance in such matters...I'll look to see if Basic Social Codes 101 is available in my area this Fall.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That you are a fine human being. That while I can discuss my views with you in the hope of understanding, I have no need for you to see anything (as if you were deficient).

You certainly know how to get me to step back and think...but all I can say is 'thanks' and leave it at that.

 

[justoh]

Still haven't removed that quote, doc savage? final warning