StrangeSox

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 10:58 AM) If you can make the distinction and it's fine in one setting, how does the effect of that distinction in another setting downplay the horrors of slavery? That makes no sense. You state, correctly, that he's wasn't pining for the good ole days. It appears that he was trying to lessen the impact of what Michelle Obama said about the progress we've made. I agree with you it was stupid for him to do in the first place, but I don't buy that him making a distinction between the treatment of some slaves versus others necessarily means he's trying to downplay slavery in general. Because of why he was making that distinction. Michelle Obama made a point about slaves who built the White House, and O'Reilly's response to was to claim that they didn't have it as bad as others. There's no way to describe that but to say he's downplaying how bad the slaves who built the White House had it. When professional historians are doing it as part of research, it's a distinctly different context than when a political pundit it using it in response to a political opponent. QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 11:00 AM) Ok fine, bad example. Pick another "better" slave owner that still owned slaves but didn't beat them into submission. We all can agree that slavery is awful and terrible and never should have happened. I think we can also agree that there was a spectrum of slave owners. Pointing that out doesn't downplay or justify the practice. Pointing that out as a response to someone making a point about the horrors of slavery is downplaying it, though. What other reason does Prof. O'Reilly have to bring it up if not to minimize what Michelle Obama was saying? I edited this example in last page, but hopefully it's an egregious enough example that we can all at least agree on: I don't want to Godwin this, but think of this analog: someone it talking about the horrific treatment of Jews at Dachau, and someone pipes up to say "actually, it wasn't only Jews who were killed, and they were treated even worse at Auschwitz-Birkenau!" Who cares? It's not relevant to the point being made, and you look like an asshole for bringing it up even if it is factually correct. There is a big difference between professional historians noting the differences in the camps and David Duke bringing it up in response to eulogies for Elie Wiesel. Just to stress again, O'Reilly is not David Duke, this is an example we hopefully all can agree on being used to illustrate the problems inherent in O'Reilly's response to Michelle Obama.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 10:46 AM) If you're debating whether slavery is good or bad, sure. But there's a difference between the treatment of slaves by people like Jefferson versus the treatment of slaves in the deep, deep South. Not recognizing and talking about the distinction allows people to be slavery apologists in the first place. Jefferson hired other people to beat his slaves and repeatedly raped at least one of them. He may have expressed a lot of anguish over it in his writings, but it Monticello was still a brutal, awful place. (long article, but I remember it being really good and worth the read when it first came out)

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 10:40 AM) Well, to that point, I'm saying I don't think he was being a slavery apologist, I think he was trying to make a dumb distinction between awful slavery and slightly less awful slavery. Making the point that slaves were treated differently =/= slave apologia. Making that distinction in a meaningful and relevant way in the appropriate forum is perfectly fine. Historians absolutely should and do study regional variations, and contemporary literature from slaves, freemen and whites alike attest to the horrors of being sold "down south" and how it'd be used as a punishment or threat to keep Upper South and northern slaves "in line." Making that distinction in response to the First Lady who is black talking about waking up every day in a house built by slaves makes you an a slavery-apologia peddling asshole, though. There's no other reason for conservative political pundit Bill O'Reilly to bring that up in response to Michelle Obama except to try to lessen the impact of her point about the legacy of slavery. Bill O'Reilly isn't some sort of neo-confederate pining for the Old South and openly going to bat for slavery, but that sort of rhetoric and what it was in response to still has the effect of downplaying the horrors of even the 'slightly less awful' chattel slavery of the Upper South. The author's/speaker's intentions aren't the only thing that matters.

The discussion was whether or not O'Reilly was peddling standard slavery apologia in response to Michelle Obama's speech (he was), not whether he's racist (he is, but we've known this for a long time for other reasons). I don't want to Godwin this, but think of this analog: someone it talking about the horrific treatment of Jews at Dachau, and someone pipes up to say "actually, it wasn't only Jews who were killed, and they were treated even worse at Auschwitz-Birkenau!" Who cares? It's not relevant to the point being made, and you look like an asshole for bringing it up even if it is factually correct.

No update since then, shack must still be cutting his lawn

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 28, 2016 -> 10:22 PM) Noam Chomsky on "lesser evil" voting and the problems with the voter-as-consumer mindset https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-f...er-evil-voting/ felt his 8 points deserved to be pulled out, especially #1/2. It's a message to leftists about voting for Clinton, but it applies to "protest" voters broadly imo. tl;dr "did you dummies already forget Nader 2000? jfc"

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 09:36 AM) Most of the people on this forum. You may not claim to be 'centrist', but you claim to be rational. And as far as I'm concerned, if you stand staunchly on the left OR right, you aren't rational. "Centrism is the only rational political ideology" is a pretty bad argument. I actually have more respect for people who have strongly held and coherent reasons for being a conservative than I do for "the answer must lay in the middle!" thoughtless political ideology. That's not to say that ending up between where the two parties happen to be at any given point in time is necessarily a bad thing, but there's nothing inherently good or noteworthy about finding yourself in that position. If both parties shifted rapidly and heavily rightward (leftward), and your positions shifted so that you still found yourself "in the middle," that wouldn't be the sign of a rational political viewpoint. You don't seem to be talking about anyone on this board, left or right, at least that I can recognize. Obama's been a mildly liberal President constrained at first by a handful of conservative/'moderate' Democrats in congress and then a fiercely oppositional Republican congress for the past five years. Kagan was a fairly moderate choice for SC, and Sotomayor was definitely to her left on most issues, but I wouldn't put either in the same "staunchly liberal" category as RGB.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 09:25 AM) I won't refute this, however, I think it's you that's ignoring context here. You're seeing exactly what you want to see. I see the context as O'Reilly just stating what he believes is historical fact about a very specific thing. He's not the one stretching it to "all slavery", which is exactly what you're doing -- and THAT is what's out of context. I've repeatedly said I didn't think he was stretching it to "all slavery," so I don't know why you keep repeating that. I'm limiting it to specifically the White House-building slaves, where he is still 1) factually incorrect and 2) even if he was correct, you still need to examine why he felt the need to bring up this 'fact' in response to Michelle Obama's speech. The context of it coming up in response to her speech is at the root of the problem, and you're not really addressing that.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 09:21 AM) It's a weird point though because slavery was terrible even if you weren't in the worst practices of chattel slavery. They were forced to work there, by force, after being separated from their families. So there's no "Ok, sure they were slaves"...no I don't think Michelle would be more comforted to know they treated their slaves well. Because it was slavery. That's just it. "Owning someone as chattel" and "treating them well" are mutually exclusive, even if you aren't starving them to death.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 09:16 AM) Again, I don't think he feels America has never done anything wrong. This is another example of what I'm talking about. He defends America on a few things, so that obviously means he believes America never does anything wrong. Bulls***. He made a rather simple claim as far as I'm concerned, and all I care about is if what he said true or false? The question is this: Were THOSE specific slaves [those that built the white house] treated as he claimed? That's it. That's the only question. If yes, then he's not wrong. If no, then he is. Period. But stretching it beyond that to "making excuses of slavery" isn't what I see happening. It's the simple matter of, in that specific instance, is what he's saying true or not? Don't look beyond that question. This is the problem with this country today, it's all black and white, apples or oranges...there seems to be no room for shades of grey anymore. Anytime I see a leftist talk, they talk as if they're centrists and the open minded ones, and as I've said many times, they aren't. Anytime I see a rightist talk, they also talk as if they're centrists and the open minded ones, and the same holds true for them. Looking at a single sentence and whether or not that single sentence contains factual statements while ignoring all other context is the problem. Why Bill O'Reilly was trying to bring up that 'fact' (which is false) is just as important as whether or not he was even correct. There are lots and lots of facts someone can bring up in relation to any topic, and why they choose to bring up a specific fact (or non-fact in this case!) and when they choose to bring it up is also part of the question. What liberal here pretends they're a centrist? For that matter, what conservative here does? I sure don't see myself or alpha trying to claim that label.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 09:09 AM) I think he also made those comments because Michelle Obama brought up a really ugly fact about America and O'Reilly is someone who thinks that America has never done anything wrong. So he has to be like "look it wasn't all that bad". O'Reilly grew up in a city on Long Island built through cheap federally and state subsidized housing that explicitly barred black residents through residential covenants, and he still couldn't comprehend an argument about racial inequality when this was pointed out to him.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 09:07 AM) How is this incorrect? Posting a link to thinkprogress to back up your incorrect claim is like me posting a link to fox news to back up O'Reillys. It was a link to ThinkProgress which includes quotes from a slavery historian specifically refuting O'Reilly's claim.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 08:57 AM) Looking at that video, I think he's just reporting on that specific circumstance and those specific slaves that Michelle Obama talked about. I don't think he's saying this applied to all slaves, or that he's even downplaying the horrors of slavery. He was historically wrong about that specific group anyway, but why bring it up at all if he's not trying to lessen the impact of what Michelle Obama was talking about? He's a conservative political commentator attacking a political enemy, not a history professor trying to provide some (incorrect, as it turns out) subtle nuance to a complex scenario. Keep in mind that even if he was correct about the level of food and quality of housing they were provided, his statement still only serves to say "well, these people held in chattel slavery didn't have it as bad as these other people held in chattel slavery." That's downplaying it, full-stop.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 08:51 AM) No, I don't know that. Especially today when the "racist" word is thrown around to the point it means nothing. If you're a white male that isn't a total left leaning snot, you're instantly labeled a racist. I don't know if Bill O'Reilly is a racist or not...if he is, f*** him, too. But I can tell you as a pretty anti-government (be it left or right), I've had the label applied to me simply because the leftists I know are very quick to judge others in this regard. See, some of us have actually paid attention to what O'Reilly's said for the last 10+ years, so we know that he doesn't deserve any benefit of the doubt.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2016 -> 08:49 AM) No, you're seeing what you want to see. He's not claiming that "all slaves" were treated this way. He's also not downplaying the horrors of slavery, either. He's claiming that the slaves that built the White House were treated "well" because they were given food and housing, which apparently is pretty questionable even when limited to just that group of slaves. Whenever you go down the road of "but they were well-fed and given housing!" when discussing chattel slavery, you're downplaying it. That's a nice bit of hand-waiving, but nowhere have you actually explained what his "point" is or why what he said is excusable. What was the point of his little "well-fed" history lesson in response to Michelle Obama's speech if it wasn't to downplay what she was saying? It's not just me, it's also recent RNC chairman Michael Steele along with plenty of other people. As for my personal political views, you're again just sort of making things up because you don't want to talk the topic. I'd never claim that my views are "centrist" and openly deride the idea that centrism-for-centrism's sake is good or even a coherent political philosophy. You can easily find me in this very thread pointing out that saying "I just take the moderate position!" means your ideology is defined entirely by what the ends of the spectrum are currently saying and not a well thought-out political philosophy. I'm a left-liberal and don't claim to be otherwise.

I'm seeing a man downplaying the horrors of slavery by claiming, incorrectly, that they were "well-fed" and were given housing. It's what people trying to downplay the horrors of slavery frequently try to do. He's making basically the same argument as this guy. I'm sorry if you don't see it, but at least realize that if at any point in a discussion about slavery, you pipe in with "but at least they were well-fed!", you're going to look like a dumb asshole at best.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 28, 2016 -> 01:48 PM) Talking about slaves being well fed and housed is garbage apologia. Former rnc chairman Michael Steele agrees. https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelSteele/st...123690039050240 O'Reilly decided that doubling down on "but the slaves were well-fed!" was the best course of action (not only is it pretty disgusting standard slavery apologia, it's also factually wrong)

Noam Chomsky on "lesser evil" voting and the problems with the voter-as-consumer mindset https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-f...er-evil-voting/

QUOTE (Tony @ Jul 28, 2016 -> 05:21 PM) It really is an incredible piece of footage. It also may just be our boy Greg. Perfect summation of modern politics really.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 28, 2016 -> 03:44 PM) I actually like Newt a lot (his policies, etc). Moon base by 2024!

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jul 27, 2016 -> 05:33 PM) To me, the biggest problem with this election is that there is a false equivalency being made that states Clinton and Trump are opposite sides of the same coin. That cannot be further from the truth. Whether you like the Clintons or not, Hillary Clinton has not called to stop all Muslims from immigrating to the US. Hillary Clinton has not called Mexicans "rapists" and "murderers." Hillary Clinton has not threatened to back out of NATO because other countries aren't pulling their weight. Hillary Clinton has not wished for the glory days when you could rough up protesters, or offered to pay the legal bills of a guy who punched a protester. Hillary Clinton has not invited a foreign country to hack her competitor and influence the election. In this forum, we have had people laugh off Trump's comments. He's joking! He's talking about an unlikely scenario! This election isn't a simple difference in political philosophies (though that exists - the idea of Trump appointing multiple Supreme Court justices is terrifying). This is about an election where the Republican nominee's temperament makes him singularly unqualified to hold the highest office in the country. This isn't Romney, McCain, either of the Bushes, Reagan, etc. where I disagree with their philosophy on governance or social issues. It's something more than that. Simply put, Donald Trump is a special kind of bad in Presidential politics in my lifetime. If you live in a swing state, please pay attention to the polls. A vote for anyone other than Hillary Clinton in those states is a vote for Trump. If this election doesn't shatter the false equivalency illusion, nothing ever will.

Trump really doesn't want this Russia story line to go away. https://mobile.twitter.com/MareikeAden/stat...325768900476928

Talking about slaves being well fed and housed is garbage apologia. Former rnc chairman Michael Steele agrees. https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelSteele/st...123690039050240

Bill O'Reilly, slavery apologist https://mobile.twitter.com/politico/status/...122869880659969