Things you should be looking at.
Here's to the King of Blood-On-Your-Hands Blowhards...if so many people weren't using his irrational bile to "irrationalize" their own messed-up behavior, I would almost - almost - feel sorry for him:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/oreilly-rages-against-joa_n_215157.html
Dan, I think you're doing exactly what Stewart just ridiculed.
Andrew, my original comment was directed at O'Reilly, not Stewart (per the HuffPost link I included); apologies if my post made it confusing to intuit where my sympathies actually lie. Not sure if that clarification of context changes your opinion of my post...if not, I guess I'll run out and get red food coloring and smear it across my fingertips :)
No, Dan, you still don't get it.People are responsible for their own actions; I'm not aware of anyone "using [O'Reilly's] irrational bile to 'irrationalize' their own messed-up behavior...."The insane anti-Semite was NOT following the lead of right-wing talking heads when he attacked the Holocaust Museum, and Stewart correctly ridiculed people who would make such an association -- the same association you appear to be making.
Andrew, I'm not sure I completely agree with you. My personal worldview is made up of a great deal more 'greys' than your extremely black-and-white assertion. I'm not sure that you're absolutely wrong on this issue, or that I'm absolutely right; perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between. In general, I believe absolutes form abstract and imperfect arguments that don't fully or accurately apply to reality, and (to me) your argument falls into this category: I usually find it intellectual folly to argue "this is the way everything works, no questions asked" and leave no room for doubt or error in its relation to reality (i.e., the ideological stances of many of the conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court). Even if it wasn't the primary motivation behind what may have got the anti-Semite in question out of bed and locked-and-loaded on the morning of his attack, the intolerance and hatred of so many right-wing talk show hosts seems to me to only be "fuel for the fire". The billions of people that inhabit this planet have varying degrees of susceptibility to suggestion, and your argument seems to partially posit that all of them are unequivocally as intellectually clear-headed as you. Aren't we all affected and influenced to varying degrees in what we experience (see and hear); and don't we all base many of our decisions on these experiences - what to eat, what to wear, how to communicate, etc.? Maybe the fact is that you simply haven't lived around as many right-wing assholes in real life as I have, and haven't heard many of them reiterate the same abhorrent and intolerant sentiments that they hear on radio and TV. Am I going to argue that O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, are legally culpable for others' violent and intolerant actions? Not necessarily. Do I think they are in some ways *morally* culpable for said violent intolerance? I respectfully reserve the right to have my own opinion on this issue.
Five months later, the conversation still continues:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-tv/arianna-on-olbermann-glen_b_364723.html
Post a Comment
Enter your email address to receive updates via email: