Pajiba

I'd love to summon up the energy to be offended by Lockjaw Curry's comments, but... wait... why are you famous again?

Because you were arbitrarily picked to win a worthless, culturally bankrupt TV show that focuses solely on your ability to smile and show the most bare skin and throw temper tantrums?

Or was it because you had a equally culturally bankrupt TV show about your marriage to Peter Motherfucking Brady?

Or was it because in a desperate plea for attention that apparently wasn't satisfied by the preceding items, you shed your clothes and showed the world your bony, built-like-a-10-year-old ass in Playboy, the world's most irrelevant magazine?

Which was it again?

OK. So while it's not worth getting offended by her comments, I must say, that felt kind of good. Stupid, insipid, worthless cow.

I just want to thank you guys for including my LJ link AND the 'shrooms picture. I feel like I've won some sort of contest, like one of those crappy TV shows where the adoring fans get to sing with their teen pop idols.

Actually, I don't know if any shows like that actually exist. I got the idea from an episode of Hannah Montana (I was babysitting!).

Just for you, LS.

"What? O'Reilly said...what now? How the...whta the...aaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuughhhhhhh" *BOOM!*

I also want to accept this new designation as Pajiba's unofficial black correspondent. I hope I can be half as good as Larry Wilmore. Heck, I might even save you the trouble of reviewing the next Tyler Perry movie. By the way, how much does this pay? What? You mean I do this crap for nothing? AAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGHHHH..."BOOM!"

Adrienne Curry lost any kind of credibility her little post would have had if she hadn't tried to justify it by saying she LOVED (her emphasis) the comedians on BET. Sorry lady, but the comedians on BET suck hard. They basically tell the same old ass jokes with as many bleeps as possible. So, considering I don't even watch BET, not a big deal on that one.

But the Black History Month thing is a bit ridiculous. Then again, if I had to listen to Tyra calling me all times of the night in February screaming about how fierce she was on the cover of Sports Illustrated and how it changed the world, I might wanna boycott that too.

O'Reilly...what can I say? The man finally put a toe into the 21st century. Now if we could just get the rest of him over, there might be some progress. My brain literally hurt reading that. I really could not understand how someone could be so amazed that, oh my goodness, all that bad stuff you see on TV isn't actually TRUE! Ugh.

but, pleeeeease Al Gore run for President? Pretty please with kisses and cherries on top?

You realize Gore is being set up to run by the Democrat machine. He got an Oscar and an Emmy for things he had about as much to do with as Kennedy did with The Profiles in Courage which was ghostwritten for him but the machine decided to give give Kennedy a Pulitzer prize anyway.

Hillary and Obama are just rallying the party but at the convention the Hillary/Obama split will be healed with a big old helping of Gore-tex. He might even make a Nixonian comeback and get elected providing of course that he never dances in public again. The fact that he spends more on polluting via his electric bill than the average American spends on housing is more than negated by the Oscar/Emmy thing.

I was listening to O'Reilly when he made the remarks. At the time he was talking to Juan Williams, a black author, about the crudeness, vulgarity, and misogyny prevelant in hip-hop, the most popular and profitable component of black culture today. His comments were to lament that much of America and the world sees this believing it is the best that African-Americans can do when it is indeed untrue. Williams, having just written a book on the societal effects of low morality, agreed.

Amazing what a little context can do, no?

aaahhh, Bill O'Reilly. it's almost too easy. and Vermillion? while you're awesome, no question, Larry Wilmore is AWESOME. TOTALLY awesome. but you're young!!

completely off topic here, but since when has Pajiba started advertising sex-chat sites?

twice now in the last week i have come to the page and been greeted by an ad banner down the left side that features 3 short looping webcam captures of scantily-clad "amateur college girls" (Lisa, 21; Jenny, 20; etc.) asking if i wanna chat. wtf?

when i reload the page the ad is replaced by a different ad, but still...

wtf?

Should I know who he is by the way?

You're really better off not knowing.

Vermillion, I determined the context from the source not a second-party highlighting a few lines selected from an extensive conversation. You should try it sometime!
Short of pasting a transcript here, allow me to summarize the exchange between O'Reilly and Williams; the root of racism is fear which in turn is rooted in ignorance. Hip-hop and its values are the strongest representation of African-Americans in our pop culture. It is a shame, and dangerous, that all races have this to base African-American identity upon.

Ahhh....but there I go, staying on issue when ad hominen attacks are so much more fun!

As I recall, Renn, not only did the site include the very transcript you claim to not want to paste here, but they also linked to a video of said interview. So despite the (ahem) liberal use of bold font, one with an ounce of brainpower can see the 'context' these comments were made in.

I never said I did not understand what the topic was about. In fact, I said that the issue of hiphop and black culture was indeed a worthwhile one. I simply said I did not understnad why O'Reilly felt he had to bring up his delightful restaurant experience as part of it. And really though, is that the best defense you can come up with? That somehow his comments were valid becasue he happened to be talking to a black man about how terrible hip hop is? How does that make his comments any less insulting? Again I ask: did he really think, previous to this experience, that all black-owend and patroned restaurants were filled with boisterous, rude, and/or inconsiderate people?

And at what time were any ad hominem attacks were made, I ask? I directly addressed his words before even bringing his character into question. And 'ad hominem' is only called in when the personal aspect being brought up has nothing to do with the argument. He admits he has very little exposure to black culture beyond what he sees from hip hop. Therefore, if he wishes to address issues pertaining to said esposure, then I have the right to call him out on it.

As for your summary, how is that any better than the article above? You simply picked out the parts you deemed fit to relate to others, instead of linking to or copying your source. And the best part is, you do so, right after you state how the comments needed "context" instead of being highlighted on without the rest of the conversation. So bolding words in a transcript is misleading, but a three-sentence summary does the issue true justice.

I don't appreciate the tone you seem to be picking up in your posts, either. You assume that a person who has a problem with those comments simply did not pay attention or only looked at the bold font. I assure you I did much more, and I rarely if ever address such issues with only cursory information. I can accept that you may disagree, but I do not accept this tone of condescension. If you wish to debate the issue, that is fine. But respect your opponent enough to assume some comprehension of the topic until proven otherwise. I did it for you, afford me the same.

Oh, Adrienne. The problem with your rant was that, though you began with a valid desire for equality, you chose the wrong examples of racial "separation" to deride.
Black History Month exists because of the decades-long tendency to focus on white history in schools. BHM seeks to reconcile that by bringing attention to the importance of black history.
BET? It's a joke. It certainly doesn't speak for many blacks these days. It probably should be abolished - not because it's racist, but because it's stupid.
Oh, and you better believe that the Jews are still the littlest bit bitter about the injustices that they have endured. That only weakens your argument.
But can I disagree with you about your underlying argument? Not really, in all fairness. At some point in time or another, almost everyone has endured some kind of hardship. The blacks had a horrible time in the US, certainly, and I'm sure racism in many forms still exists. But you pointed out that there still is an inherent separation of skin color that we all allow by teaching white history in schools and then "fixing" it with a month for black history. We really should all be able to find a balance where we can teach history fairly, including the history of every ethnicity and culture to the best of our abilities - without having to call it "Black History" or "White History" or "Hispanic History", etc.
You also pointed out that universities, while aiming to assist "disadvantaged" students financially (in addition to offering them admissions), "disadvantaged" has essentially become a proxy for black, or hispanic, or not white - when there are plenty of whites who are in fact disadvantaged.
Basically? You failed your debate class. You've got too many little logical fallacies in your argument. But if you handed it over to someone with more of a perspective and more of a brain, they might have something there.

Cue Vermillion's head exploding. For reals this time.

His trip to the restaurant, Vermillion, was brought up to illustrate the disconnect between the perception held up of African-Americans and the reality of everyday folk. This context is more constructive I believe than that of O'Reilly "finally put(ting) a toe into the 21st century." I dare say if he was an African-American making the same comments it wouldn't be added to a list of "provocative statements regarding race" as Media Matters calls them, hence my ad hominem remark. But I guess with less than an "ounce of brainpower" I'm blind to skin color when it comes judging the quality of one's argument.
As far as my tone goes, I know that I'm a square peg trying to negotiate a round hole, politically speaking, on this site. I enjoy the diversity of opinions regarding films, but tire of the seemingly lock-step view of the world outside.

Vermillion, earlier in the broadcast O'Reilly spoke about his grandmother who hated African-Americans (I got that from the unedited stream at his website). He believed this to be because she had never known any, only saw them on TV being arrested. Hard as it is to imagine, I believe this condition still exists today. About 12% - 15% of Americans are black. Most of these citizens live in concentrated pockets around a few major metro areas. But nearly everyone has a TV. So most of what the rest of the population knows about them, or any other racial faction, is transmitted through pop culture including entertainment and news media. Not to mention the black kid living in a depressed inner city, with an absent father and a single mother working two jobs, who is looking for an identity. As a news media figure O'Reilly has used his position to illuminate that not all, in fact few, successful black people carry on like gangsta rappers (e.g. insular, anti-social, chauvanistic).
Maybe I'm being redundant here (I hope just clearer), but it is frustrating that some choose to focus on a racially divisive aspect of this situation rather than a more progressive one.

As I've said there are a lot of smart people who support this site and I particularly appreciate your time and energy. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Renn: Fair enough. Agree to disagree.

Mary: As I said, maybe you are more forgiving than I am when it comes to such things. But when folks would rather believe the ramblings a mediocre comedian or a music video featuring a silly-looking buffoon than what they encounter in reality, I tend to get a little miffed.

I never said O'Reilly was racist. I said he wasn't someone whose opinion I would accept without question when it came to race relations. The same goes for Sharpton as well. I don't see where an honestly unbiased opinion can come from either man when it comes to this topic. So while your exuberance is appreciated, it is quite unnecessary.

And calling members of your own race names isn't indicative of absence of racism. It is just that you don't like those particular people. To be accurate, your examples do prove he isn't racist by definition, but does nothing to prove that he isn't bigoted, prejudiced, or discriminatory. That is pretty much saying "well, he doesn't burn a cross on your yard or wear a white sheet on his head, so technically he is in the clear".

I personally think O'Reilly is quite media-savvy, and mainly says things (like above) to instigate such reactions in the audience. Do I think he honestly believes some of the things he says? Not really. But if he is going to say them, he should be able to accept criticism of such remarks, and so should his supporters.

Uhh, O'Reilly has credibility (highly educated including Harvard, thirty years in broadcasting, host of the most watched news program in the country) whereas Miss Curry (won a beauty contest, posed in Playboy, married "Bobby Brady") uhh...doesn't? She's barely a celebrity, and while entitled to her opinion...who cares? Now if she wants to tell me about picking out lingerie...hmmm, maybe.

Vermillion, since you and I agree that TV imagery is in no way a safe bet for forming opinions, here's what I've encountered in reality. These are a few unpleasant personal experiences of mine. (1)I was raped by a black man when I was 17. (2)Black friends of mine in high school sold drugs and carried guns. (3)A black man I went to college with killed a white woman. (4)I went with a black girlfriend of mine to a house, and she had sex with the guy for cocaine. (5)My father's best man, who happens to be black, had a son that I was close with who committed armed robbery when he was 20 years old. (6)Nearly every black girl in my class has a baby, or babies, with a man who is not in her or her child's life.

That's not just something I've seen on the news. However, most of these stories DID make it onto the news and into the paper, and they were viewed in one way or another by probably every white person in this area. So, unless approximately 85% of the population can spend quality time with the remaining 15% of the population and see for themselves that there's not a lot to worry about, the majority has nothing other than what they see and hear to base their opinions on. Most people trust the news. They expect to get the whole story. But wait, what if someone that they trust were to say, "Hey, I did this and everything was fine and I had a good time,"? (Hint, hint.)

Now, here's what didn't make it onto the news.

I known a black man who sponsors and helps organize charities in my commmunity. I've worked with a black man who runs a youth center to keep kids out of trouble. I know black people serving as police officers and firemen. These are people I know personally. I feel priviledged to know these people. I've been lucky enough to have experiences that have allowed me to form a well rounded perspective. Not everyone has this opportunitity for whatever reason. If I DID NOT know these outstanding black people, and all I had to base my opinion of black people on was the previously mentioned unpleasant experiences, I'd probably be crossing the street to avoid a black person approaching me. (If you read what I wrote and you think I'm being racist by saying that, then forget it. I'm wasting my fingertips.)

Overall, I feel that white people are in a way forced to believe what they see and hear because they aren't as exposed to black people in their personal lives. The news, TV shows, and hip-hop/rap don't exactly cover the good things that black people do in our society, and they certainly don't characterize black people as model citizens. Therefore, I hope that white people will become aware of the prejudice that can be formed, whether it is knowingly or unknowingly, by only basing opinions of black people on what they see on TV and hear on the news. Our society has a long way to go when it comes to breaking down stereotypes and ridding ourselves of prejudices, but if more people, like Mr. O'Reilly, put it out there and try to prove that these views are based on misinformation then maybe we'll start to move in the right direction.

Mary: No I do not think you are racist, I think you are human. I don't think anyone could go through such things and not react in such a way. Indeed, if someone were to think you were racist because of those lines, I would be the first to shut them down. I take it someone has accused you of such repeatedly, and they would be wrong.

And as I said before, I don't believe O'Reilly really believes a lot of the more controversial stuff that he presents on his show. He is very experienced in such matters, as you so helpfully mentioned. In the interviews I have seen of him away from his show, he comes off much less in-your-face and much more reasonable that he does on his various Factor shows.

But the idea of him mentioning a restaurant being surprisingly caricature-free somehow does more for race relations than the work so many people have done, such as the men you mentioned (since they are not considered newsworthy) is offensive. Maybe I would feel different if he indeed focused on such men, but the whole meeting with Sharpton thing feels too much like a setup. And as I said before, Sharpton is just as responsible. That is the root of my issue with it: it never seems genuine. And that layer of manufactured reality does more damage than good.

But hey, maybe there is someone who did benefit from the interview and do see blacks in a slightly more positive light. If so, good for them.

Renn: Yes, indeed, concepts are fun. I find they keep the brain awake.

As far as Curry, yes, she is quite.... unaware in some aspects. But she (apparently) does have an audience, and I am fairly sure the laws of probability state there has to be at least one person who actually thinks she has a point, even taking into account her lack of experience. That is why I asked.

Plus, I have met many a person who has had a lot more wisdom and knowledge than many a degree-holder, and they many not have even graduated high school. And some of the smartest people in the world can be pretty stupid. So it seems a bit unfair to base my judgment of said comments on their relative education, instead of the quality of the arguments themselves.

But what do I know? I am just a random guy on the internet. And we all know how credible they are.

And, she absolutely looks hotter in panties than O'Reilly ever would.

Ah, something we can both agree on.

Thanks and peace to you as well.