Last week Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar got into a very heated exchange with Bill O'Reilly on The View over the building of a Mosque in New York City, near ground zero. O'Reilly stated that polls taken revealed that 70% percent of Americans do not want the Mosque built and he further stated that "Muslims killed us on 911". Is Bill O'Reilly an extremist racist? Should the two women have walked off until he apologized? Does comments such as the ones made by O'Reilly help to create a climate of hate, anomosity, and hostility toward an entire culture?
8 comments:
I think Whoopi should have gone back to her line about The Beckster and used it on Billo.
"Bill, you're a pile of steaming dog mess!".
And Joy....she's Italian. Trust me, I know. You don't want to piss an Italian woman (like my late Gramdma) off....EVER!
well, I'm not so sure the ladies should have walked off. If Billo would have shut his big mouth long enough for them to get in a word to dispute his idiotic statements maybe they wouldn't have had to walk off. The wingnuts are so full of hot air and stink. It's all comedy from here on out, they have nothing of interest to say and sure don't offer any facts or answers to our problems. Cry babies, that's all they are! :-)
I don't know if O'Reilly is necessarily an extremist racist. However, I do feel he was out of line by lumping in the many good Muslims with the extremists who attacked us on 9/11. His citing of the poll in which he claimed 70% of Americans are against seeing the Islamic Center built a few blocks away from the cite of the WTC attacks(I wish they would quit calling it the "Ground Zero Mosque") is faulty for two reasons:
1. Polls to me are iffy at best. Who are they polling? How many people are they polling? If 70% of those polled are against it that's one thing. However, that doesn't mean that 70% of Americans are against it.
2. Bill is also using the faulty "ad populum" argument. Even if 70% of Americans are against seeing the Islamic Center built near Ground Zero, that doesn't mean they are right. If we were to go back in time to revisit polls regarding whether or not blacks and women should get the right to vote, I'll bet you a majority of Americans were against it. How many of us today are going to say those people in the majority were right?
Whoopi and Joy shouldn't have walked off the set. In addition to it looking contrived, walking away from a debate doesn't solve anything. Although it did make for great TV.
Yes, I think O'Reilly's comments do foster hatred toward Muslims. I will give him credit for apologizing and clarifying what he said.
Hi Hugh: They were pissed off and not without good reason.
Hi Sue: I agree, they should not have walked off. They should have calmly talked to O'Reilly like the remainding panelist did. What he was saying about Muslims was very hurtful and it got the best of them. They showed class by returning, but you notice that Joy did not return to her original seat :-)
Hi Malcolm: I agree with you, especially about the issue of polls and statistical information in general. As one of my instructors said in college; there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics :-)
If this was just some random guy making the comment without 9 years of solid history on the subject, I'd definitely say he needs to qualify his speech and make a distinction.
However, failing to adjunct "Muslim" isn't quite the crime it's made out to be when you do not hold that opinion.
O'Reilly is on record all over the place bending over backwards to make the distinction and remind people that "Muslims" aren't, by and large, extremists. He has been for years.
He does this, it seems to me, to implore more moderate Muslims to stand up and speak out against the extreme element.
So failing to qualify one statement here is not a big deal. Nobody can be expected to be that incredibly PC all the time.
I mean, are people PC when they implicate the entire Tea Party with racism? What's the difference in terms of guilt by association?
I'm not trying to make this very political, but it seems that the kid-gloves act with Islam doesn't play out the same everywhere else.
And, let us never forget, America's idea of a "radical" against Islam is a schmuck who threatens to light holy books and then doesn't go through with it.
There are bigots in America lumping all Muslims in together, and there are many people opposing the New York mosque on false information and sterotypes rather than genuine emotion and reason.
But if America were ever going to be anti-Muslim, it would have been in late 2001 on in a major, major way.
Muslims in America are treated more fairly than Muslims in a lot of other parts of the world, including but not limited to: France, Germany, Denmark, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Australia - just to name a few places.
Seriously. At what point do we become too politically correct as a country?
I agree he should have qualified his statement. But I also realize that he doesn't have to.
The American people are not stupid.
Loons will be always be loons and they'll always be out there, but fair-minded individuals know the context of the entire situation and of O'Reilly's career and will not go from 0 to Muslim hate over a missing descriptive.
Well, technically, all things being "equal," O'Reilly's statement was actually accurate.
No viewpoint here - strict speech.
Muslims attacked us = correct.
Insensitive? Yes. I can see that and do agree.
Were they terrorists? Yes. They were terrorist acting under the banner of Islam, so to say "Muslim" is a factual statement.
I can say, "Some young boys were molested by Catholic priests."
That is 100% true. I just didn't make the distinction that not all priests are kiddie fiddlers. So some may be upset that I didn't; others may feel I didn't have to. But I doubt anyone hears that and thinks, "WOW! EVERY priest is a child molestor!"
Now, if Bill had said "all" Muslims or "Islam attacked us" or something to that effect, then that is an incorrect, generalizing, bigoted statement.
Other than that, I don't really disagree with you.
He could have chosen his words better. Knowing O'Reilly, however, there was probably an intentional aspect to the stick-by-his-guns way of handling it as it happened.
But it's not PC to choose your words as not to offend. I agree. It is PC, however, to break balls over someone not always abiding that standard.
See Juan Williams' firing as an example. :(
Hi Josh: I am not a good hair splitter, so I won't do that here. "Muslims bombed us", registers as not making a clear enough distinction from, "All muslims bombed us" to me...sorry.
Words can be harmful, I understand. And that's why I don't necessarily disagree.
I was just touching on the "equal" aspect.
Ironically, if we were people, all religions and all races and all nationalities, truly "equal," then distinctions on top of distinctions really wouldn't be called for.
Those separating themselves from society would simply stand out to all.
For a guy like me, they already do. So when I hear "Muslims" and attacks used together, I instantly know that radical lunatics are being referred to--and, if not, are responsible--and not all the many Muslims I know here in northern VA and the other billion-plus around the globe.
Post a Comment