lol the guy @ 0:18, he must be a fan of V for Vendetta
Ya know, I despise O'Reilly, but he's right. The cops are saying things that don't make sense, the media is fanning the flames to get ratings, and the rioters are destroying property and hurting people because they feel slighted.
You know things are going downhill when you start agreeing with Bill O'Reilly.
[QUOTE=Freakie;47638922]You know things are going downhill when you start agreeing with Bill O'Reilly.[/QUOTE]
Was going to post this, myself. I wonder why no one mentions the criminal history of Grey. Probably because it would dull the ammo the media is using for their current riot inciting
Because media sucks
[QUOTE=Freakie;47638922]You know things are going downhill when you start agreeing with Bill O'Reilly.[/QUOTE]
Bill O'Reilly is in the same boat as Shepard Smith, two very smart and brilliant reporters, stuck on a network that is rife with bullshit. They really wouldn't do better on MSNBC or even CNN, I'd much rather the two of them join an independent news organization so they could freely speak THEIR minds and not the minds of the network bigwigs. Thankfully, sometimes the two of them DO get their own small segments where they do freely speak logic and reason, much like Bill did here, albeit with a little "fox sass".
[QUOTE=TheTalon;47639144]Was going to post this, myself. I wonder why no one mentions the criminal history of Grey. Probably because it would dull the ammo the media is using for their current riot inciting[/QUOTE]
It's television, there's a reason why they call it the "idiot box".
I agree with all the points in the video, I just find it hugely ironic that a Fox News program is suggesting crazy theories, speculation without full details and responsibility.
Respect to him for putting this out, but I'm amazed the network allowed it out based on past stories.
None of his stats had real sources. "NY Times" isn't a source, it's the name of the paper.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;47639144]Was going to post this, myself. I wonder why no one mentions the criminal history of Grey. Probably because it would dull the ammo the media is using for their current riot inciting[/QUOTE]
His criminal history doesn't really anything to do with the incident other than to assassinate his character. The story is about how the police killed a man, not that they killed an angel
Never thought I'd agree with Bill O'Reilly about anything. I was expecting to sit here frustrated and angry about stupidity but I found myself nodding and agreeing.
Did I step into opposite land? Did I sleep so hard I woke up in a different universe?
The point brought up by Britney Cooper in this video is right-the-fuck on. It is a question of grammar. We speak of black people as 'thugs' as if the latent potential was there and it only manifested itself in this riot, but the grammar of our society does not have a way to speak about systemic violence or policing - or, if it does, that grammar is locked away in certain places of critical inquiry and not at all made mainstream.
No one is saying that things aren't getting better for black people and other minorities generally, but it is only getting better because of vigilence sustained on the part of organizations like the NAACP. So, when they point out that the police force is doing violence against them, theres no point in saying, "Well, at least you aren't getting lynched in trees like your ancestors right?" [not saying this is what O'reilly did, but the tone is ever present in the language which trivializes police brutality].
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." Unfortunately, it requires people like us to keep doing the bending - it aint gonna bend itself.
I thought that he would skew information, but I found [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/us/no-sharp-rise-seen-in-police-killings-though-increased-focus-may-suggest-otherwise.html]one[/url] of the articles that he cited. Still can't find the other one though.
EDIT:
All the data he cited was in the link.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;47639717]Bill O'Reilly is in the same boat as Shepard Smith, two very smart and brilliant reporters, stuck on a network that is rife with bullshit. [/QUOTE]
Please. O'Reilly is a joke. "They do statistics differently over there [in Amsterdam]." He twists the facts as much as the rest of fox news to fit his points.
Didn't he also lie about going to a war zone recently?
[QUOTE=Flameon;47640680]The point brought up by Britney Cooper in this video is right-the-fuck on. It is a question of grammar. We speak of black people as 'thugs' as if the latent potential was there and it only manifested itself in this riot, but the grammar of our society does not have a way to speak about systemic violence or policing - or, if it does, that grammar is locked away in certain places of critical inquiry and not at all made mainstream.[/QUOTE]
They're being referred to as thugs because they're burning cars and buildings and overall acting like thugs. Not because of the color of their skin but because they're assholes.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;47640789]Please. O'Reilly is a joke. "They do statistics differently over there [in Amsterdam]." He twists the facts as much as the rest of fox news to fit his points.
Didn't he also lie about going to a war zone recently?[/QUOTE]
You're thinking of Brian Williams.
Bill O'Reily is usually full of shit but he's capable of being smart.
Did anyone agreeing with the video watch for anything other than "rioting is bad"? Even 1/4 of the way in he kinda goes off the edge and into classic O'Reilly territory. Who is suggesting the problem is that we don't magically provide jobs to every warm body on American soil? Lambasting people for being poorly educated in areas that have virtually non-existent educational standards seems a little unfair, and saying "you'll work your way up" in reference to bottom-rung minimum wage slave labor is a relic of a lost era. O'Reilly wins some points for being neutral about the incident and what caused Gray's death, and for the most part he's right about the riots, but unsurprisingly even his best attempts at being fair and articulate eventually fall back to his core values, which are a bit off for my tastes.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47640810]You're thinking of Brian Williams.
Bill O'Reily is usually full of shit but he's capable of being smart.[/QUOTE]
I'm thinking of O'Reilly. Lied about going to warzones and reporting on the death of jfk (specifically about the death of some friend of Lee Harvey Oswald).
[URL]http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/08/hbos-bill-maher-calls-out-bill-oreillys-out-and/202806[/URL]
[QUOTE=FalconKrunch;47640793]They're being referred to as thugs because they're burning cars and buildings and overall acting like thugs. Not because of the color of their skin but because they're assholes.[/QUOTE]
You are missing the forest for the trees here. Her point is that we have a language that is comfortable in addressing lawless violence, but not a language which puts in perspective the violence OF the law.
Even if you think the people rioting are thugs, consider the following: there is a grammar in society that refuses to make excuses for riots, but there is also a grammar in society that is always-and-willing to make excuses for when officers kill black people.
[QUOTE=Flameon;47642833]You are missing the forest for the trees here. Her point is that [B]we have a language that is comfortable in addressing lawless violence, but not a language which puts in perspective the violence OF the law.[/B]
Even if you think the people rioting are thugs, consider the following: there is a grammar in society that refuses to make excuses for riots, but there is also a grammar in society that is always-and-willing to make excuses for when officers kill black people.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Flameon;47640680]The point brought up by Britney Cooper in this video is right-the-fuck on. It is a question of grammar. We speak of black people as 'thugs' as if the latent potential was there and it only manifested itself in this riot, but [B]the grammar of our society does not have a way to speak about systemic violence or policing - or, if it does, that grammar is locked away in certain places of critical inquiry and not at all made mainstream.[/B]
No one is saying that things aren't getting better for black people and other minorities generally, but it is only getting better because of vigilence sustained on the part of organizations like the NAACP. So, when they point out that the police force is doing violence against them, theres no point in saying, "Well, at least you aren't getting lynched in trees like your ancestors right?" [not saying this is what O'reilly did, but the tone is ever present in the language which trivializes police brutality].
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." Unfortunately, it requires people like us to keep doing the bending - it aint gonna bend itself.[/QUOTE]
If I'm interpreting your post correctly (you made it pretty hard to do so - I don't think you know what grammar means - but here goes), you mean to argue that we have convenient language to describe black crime but we don't have the same for systemic violence, oppression, and policing against blacks, and that we aren't talking about these things, and that this is wrong. Ok, fine.
I would call systemic violence/policing police brutality, words which you have in fact used. Admittedly, it is a race-neutral term, but I think it'd be pretty fucking awful to invent a new term or change an old one to describe violence by the state against blacks specifically, or any race for that matter. As for systemic oppression against a specific race, this is called institutional racism. Again, inventing some new word to specify racism toward blacks doesn't seem ethical to me, even if there was such a term for every single race. It would only serve to increase the boundaries between human beings, a concept called "segregation," you may have heard of it. Violence or oppression by the state is reprehensible, [B]period[/B]!
You'd know that police brutality and institutional racism, especially with regards to black people, are talked about [I]fucking constantly[/I] in the mainstream if you pay attention, so I don't really get what you [I]or[/I] Brittany Cooper are talking about. Brittany Cooper says we don't have the language to describe the "systemic violence that white folks do in the name of anti-blackness and white supremacy." Well... how about [I]white supremacy[/I]? People [I]are[/I] talking about these things, they're among the most talked about subjects in the United States right now, maybe even the world!
On the subject of the word "thug." I'm aware that the meaning of words can change as a language evolves, but in my honest opinion, the only reason the meaning of the word "thug" is changing to mean "black criminal" is because people are claiming that that is the case, and others are believing it. Even [I]if[/I] thug really does become synonymous with "black criminal," deciding on a word that would have the same implication for whites won't do a damn thing but continue to perpetuate this divide among people over one of the most idiotic and trivial societal qualms in human history: skintone. We don't need more racial division in this country. We should keep talking about institutional racism and racial police brutality, as they certainly exist and are obviously problematic, but this whole idea of inventing new terms and mutating language in a direction that makes it increasingly racial is completely unethical. Our language is racial enough as it is.
As far as the letter of the law is concerned, the races are equal. Demographic and societal differences arise with citizens' collective apathy or ignorance of existing demographic and economic problems. For example, perpetually poor and uneducated black-majority neighborhoods that exist largely as a result of white flight and of businesses' unwillingness to invest there. Of course, this latter point is not surprising when you consider the fact that businesses end up getting torched and looted during riots caused by racial tension.
I propose, then, a potential solution to such racial tension. A logical follow-up to the civil rights movement - a civil [I]morals[/I] movement. There's only so much human folly that can be alleviated with laws. If we want to live in a better world, with better people, we need to change the way people think about and perceive race. Call it a pipedream, but we need a legitimate social movement, and I don't mean a lazy social media campaign, I mean a [I]real[/I] movement with strong black and white leaders and good men who can get seriously ethical and unite Americans under a common banner of decency, morality, and humanity.
[QUOTE=Furioso;47643248](see above)[/QUOTE]
I said grammar as in 'the grammar of civil society' - the fact that you didn't know what I was saying kind of proves the point, no?
I don't wanna go through a point-by-point refutation of what you said so instead heres just some stuff that stuck out to me, thanks for the reasoned discourse by the way.
[quote]"I think it'd be pretty fucking awful to invent a new term or change an old one to describe violence by the state against blacks specifically, or any race for that matter"[/quote]
I think this stance is precisely the problem because it treats anti-black violence as an aberration or sudden new thing, the exception, as opposed to being engrained in our society since its inception. My problem with this line of thinking is that it acts as if we have to make a new term to describe a new thing, when in reality we need a term to describe something which has been ongoing and systemic.
Consider it this way: we could have described 'racism' simply as a violation of human rights [in the same category as say depriving someone of the right to vote or freedom of speech], but just because circa 1500s civil society did not have the word racism did not mean that it wasn't a constant feature of their society. Much the same with the grammar of our society today - problems are not at the forefront of our mind/tounges, so we jump to the linguistic shorthand which prioritizes black criminals as thugs as opposed to police as agents of ... say... white supremacy?
And I agree, white supremacy IS a way we can talk about this violence, however, that kind of vocabulary is not part of the grammar of civil society.. it is in the fringes, locked away in the academy or enclaves for social justice. Look no further than OP's video to see how it is not part of our grammar...
[quote] the only reason the meaning of the word "thug" is changing to mean "black criminal" is because people are claiming that that is the case, and others are believing it.[/quote]
This part is just the tail wagging the dog.
[editline]2nd May 2015[/editline]
Like seriously, I don't know, dont you find it at all [I]worthy of thinking[/I] how our grammar is so capable of creating, and seriously considering, [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1463145"]excuses for police brutality[/URL], but has zero tolerance for criminality, or even a passioned defense of it?
[QUOTE=Flameon;47643349]I said grammar as in 'the grammar of civil society'[/QUOTE]
I was not aware that this was a term, thanks for the clarification. It just sounds oddly antiquated, like something I would expect to read in an 18th century treatise. I bet other users made similar misinterpretations.
[QUOTE=Flameon;47643349]I think this stance is precisely the problem because it treats anti-black violence as an aberration or sudden new thing, the exception, as opposed to being engrained in our society since its inception. My problem with this line of thinking is that it acts as if we have to make a new term to describe a new thing, when in reality we need a term to describe something which has been ongoing and systemic.[/QUOTE]
Violence in general has been an ongoing and systemic part of cultures and societies the world over... I don't see why "anti-black violence" isn't a sufficient enough descriptor.
[QUOTE=Flameon;47643349]Much the same with the grammar of our society today - problems are not at the forefront of our mind/tounges, so we jump to the linguistic shorthand which prioritizes black criminals as thugs as opposed to police as agents of ... say... white supremacy?[/QUOTE]
I think the problem here is not the language, but the people who are altering the language to mean something else. I don't think continuing that trend is a step in the right direction.
[QUOTE=Flameon;47643349]And I agree, white supremacy IS a way we can talk about this violence, however, that kind of vocabulary is not part of the grammar of civil society.. it is in the fringes, locked away in the academy or enclaves for social justice. Look no further than OP's video to see how it is not part of our grammar... [/QUOTE]
I disagree. The concept of white supremacy and violence against blacks is engrained deeply in American culture, especially modern educated America (chuckle if you like, but collectively we're all a lot smarter than we were a few dozen yeas ago), and I see and hear people discuss it frequently on a lot of news outlets and in social media. It is talked about. But like I mentioned in my other post, the problem is collective apathy to these problems.
[QUOTE=Flameon;47643349]Like seriously, I don't know, dont you find it at all [I]worthy of thinking[/I] how our grammar is so capable of creating, and seriously considering, [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1463145"]excuses for police brutality[/URL], but has zero tolerance for criminality, or even a passioned defense of it?[/QUOTE]
When you put it that way, and now that I'm aware what you mean by "grammar," I agree with this point.
Probably the only thing I can agree with Bill.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;47640940]I'm thinking of O'Reilly. Lied about going to warzones and reporting on the death of jfk (specifically about the death of some friend of Lee Harvey Oswald).
[URL]http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/08/hbos-bill-maher-calls-out-bill-oreillys-out-and/202806[/URL][/QUOTE]
Ok great.
Broken clocks etc., though.
So glad that his first instinct is the same as everyone else who seeks to defend police at every angle possible. "We just don't know what happened," they all collectively shout. It's too far-fetched to assume anything terrible happened to another black person at the hands of police, ho ho ho.
Bill honestly is one of the better reporters on fox. If you look past all his bad videos he has equally as many good ones, you just don't see them because that's not what people want you to see
To say I'm surprised this is getting winners is an understatement.
There is literally nothing different here from what O'Reilly normally does.
- Citing publications and not sources
- Using stats to ignore the issue of police violence entirely
- Fox news calling other networks irresponsible
- Viewpoint the government doesn't need to do social programs or employment initiatives
- "You work your way up."
- "If you want a job, you can get a job."
- Claiming there is no such thing as systemic racism
Did nobody watch past the opening?
[QUOTE=Hypershadsy;47643554]Ok great.
Broken clocks etc., though.[/QUOTE]
I was responding to a post that said
[quote]Bill O'Reilly is in the same boat as Shepard Smith, two very smart and brilliant reporters, stuck on a network that is rife with bullshit.[/quote]
I'm not disagreeing with the video in the OP but with this statement.
[QUOTE=Furioso;47643422]
I disagree. The concept of white supremacy and violence against blacks is engrained deeply in American culture, especially modern educated America (chuckle if you like, but collectively we're all a lot smarter than we were a few dozen yeas ago), and I see and hear people discuss it frequently on a lot of news outlets and in social media. It is talked about. But like I mentioned in my other post, the problem is collective apathy to these problems. [/QUOTE]
Apathy would imply that people know it is a problem but do nothing about it. What we have here is a different belief.
See OP's video, and all the winners it is attracting. He literally says white supremacy is [I]not[/I] part of American culture, that systemic discrimnation doesn't exist, etc.
O'Reilly is not in the minority with these believes. The vast majority of people have a certain grammar which dismisses discussions of "anti-black violence" or "white supremacy' as being, a.) wrong, and b.) reverse racist.
I don't understand how this is any different than standard Bill O'Reilly, or why so many here seem to agree with it. He conflates [i]causes[/i] for these kinds of violent outbursts with [i]justifications[/i], though admittedly a lot of idiots on the left are doing so as well. He's taking real issues like wealth inequality, systemic racism, and police indiscipline and dismissing them as simple excuses. You can hate the rioters and what they're doing while still acknowledging that these events have origins. People who feel that the institutions are serving their interests, people who feel that they have something to lose, don't do this. He's telling them to pick themselves up by their bootstaps for fucks sake.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
