| |
FOXNews.com | Bill O'Reilly still an idiot
by Rattle at 10:46 pm EDT, Jun 16, 2003 |
] The reason these net people get away with all kinds of
] stuff is that they work for no one. They put stuff up
] with no restraints. This, of course, is dangerous, but
] it symbolizes what the Internet is becoming. Becoming? I guess Bill thinks the free press (free expression?) is a dangerous thing.. ] So all over the country, we have people posting the most
] vile stuff imaginable, hiding behind high tech
] capabilities. Sometimes the violators are punished, but
] most are not. We have now have teenagers ruining the
] reputations of their peers in schools on the Internet.
] Ideologues accusing public officials of the worst things
] imaginable. And creeps gossiping about celebrities in
] the crudest of ways. How is this the fault of the Internet? Would Bill have us start to place limits on speech on the net? Bill is angry about "word of mouth". "Word of mouth" pre-dates the Internet by thousands years. Its just grown more powerful and attained further reach due to the recent advances of information technology. Much in the same way it did because of the telephone, mail service, etc.. If this is a bad thing, then our human ability to communicate is a bad thing.. Do we need to return to the old arguments about "right to reply" and "equal time"? Europe seems happy to do so.. A mistake we made in the US for awhile, before we came to the conclusion that the entire concept was flawed.. ] The Internet has become a sewer of slander and libel,
] an unpatrolled polluted waterway, where just about
] anything goes. For example, the guy who raped and
] murdered a 10-year old in Massachusetts says he got
] the idea from the NAMBLA Web site that he accessed from
] the Boston public library. The ACLU's defending NAMBLA
] in that civil lawsuit. Is NAMBLA the problem? Or the web? Oh! Its the web! Thanks for clearing that up Bill! Oh yeah, and the ACLU is also bad.. Couldn't have one of his rants without shit talking the association who's mission it is to protect our civil liberties.. See a common thread here? A gross mis-understanding of what freedom of speech means? Its not freedom of speech if only the people you think should be allowed to talk, can talk. ] So which is the bigger threat to America? The big
] companies or the criminals at the computer?
] Interesting question. Take note, what brought this on was someone saying something about Bill that Bill didn't like. As the story goes.. The San Francisco Chronicle posts a story with an error, blogs link to story, Bill gets pissed at blogs. Now we have this Talking Point's memo, where he is pretty much suggesting that speech on the net should have limits. This is bullshit of the highest order. Bill seems to think that the only speaking should be done from the top of the ivory tower.. An opinion that seems to be common in the big media circles.. This guy is really dangerous. |
| |
RE: FOXNews.com | Bill O'Reilly still an idiot
by E2 at 12:04 am EDT, Jun 17, 2003 |
Right on Rattle, I think this might be a hint at something: ] ] And creeps gossiping about celebrities in
] ] the crudest of ways. Perhaps ol' billy dosn't like people talking when he can't interrupt them/change the subject/commercial break/ etc. |
|
| | |
RE: FOXNews.com | Bill O'Reilly still an idiot
by Rattle at 1:15 am EDT, Jun 17, 2003 |
E2 wrote:
] Right on Rattle, I think this might be a hint at something:
]
] ] ] And creeps gossiping about celebrities in
] ] ] the crudest of ways.
]
] Perhaps ol' billy dosn't like people talking when he can't
] interrupt them/change the subject/commercial break/ etc. The man is a master of crafting a skewed argument.. Take this snippit for a few examples: ] In truth, The Chronicle's story [is] small stuff compared
] to other Internet sins. The child molestation people have
] now figured out a way to chat about their crimes without
] being charged with obscenity. And the Supreme Court
] actually helped these people by ruling that virtual child
] porn, computerized images of kids being raped, are legal,
] an extension of free speech. First off, The Chronicle is the newspaper with the largest readership in Northern California.. Yet, this article is an attack on the Internet. This is clearly because the damage to Bill did not come from the Chronicle article, but rather the discussion about the Chronicle article on the net. "So which is the bigger threat to America? The big companies or the criminals at the computer? Interesting question." Indeed. Discussion can be dangerous. But in the context of that quote, I think its Bill's America that is threatened, not mine. Anyway, onward. Next, he ties in child molesters, and later in the article, NAMBLA. Everyone hates child molesters. He makes it related, not because its particulary relevant, but because it creates an emotion reaction in the reader/listner/watcher which brings them closer to O'Reilly. And then with the virtual child pron thing, he again breezes over any free speech implications. The Supreme Cout did not help child pornographers, they protected free speech. That court case would have been a very dangerous precident. Bill is an educated man, he likely sees this. But he also sees his large soccer-mom viewership, and in order to keep them glued to the TV, he needs that emotional reaction. Its in his best interest to be closer to that viewership then to the truth. He wants angry people behind him. If you watch his show enough, it becomes very clear that he panders to his viewship, while keeping them angry at all times about some topic where he can easily keep up the appearence of having the moral high ground. It appears to be his "forumla".. This all supports the assumption that the root of the problem is an issue with control of the discussion forum. You see, its easy to air feedback when you can pick and choose. You get to narrow it down to the dominate viewpoints, and pick the ones that are small enough to read in 10 seconds and display on the TV.. You can keep it simple, and never address any of the hard parts of the topic.. You can keep it emotional. You can put the comments in an order where they address each other in a way that supports your views. Its funny.. Somehow, the comments that oppose Bill's views always seem to be badly written, and easy to confront. It seems to be Bill's style to pick at least one every day that says "You will never air this".. He likes to appear to be an open forum, yet he spews un-American dribble like this, and manages to do it in a creative enough mannor to get his audience to buy it lock, stock, and barrel.. I say again, this man is really dangerous. |
|
| | |
RE: FOXNews.com | Bill O'Reilly still an idiot
by Lost at 10:02 am EDT, Jun 18, 2003 |
E2 wrote:
] Right on Rattle, I think this might be a hint at something:
]
] ] ] And creeps gossiping about celebrities in
] ] ] the crudest of ways.
]
] Perhaps ol' billy dosn't like people talking when he can't
] interrupt them/change the subject/commercial break/ etc. The man is a master of crafting a skewed argument.. Take this snippit for a few examples: ] In truth, The Chronicle's story [is] small stuff compared
] to other Internet sins. The child molestation people have
] now figured out a way to chat about their crimes without
] being charged with obscenity. And the Supreme Court
] actually helped these people by ruling that virtual child
] porn, computerized images of kids being raped, are legal,
] an extension of free speech. First off, The Chronicle is the newspaper with the largest readership in Northern California.. Yet, this article is an attack on the Internet. This is clearly because the damage to Bill did not come from the Chronicle article, but rather the discussion about the Chronicle article on the net. "So which is the bigger threat to America? The big companies or the criminals at the computer? Interesting question." Indeed. Discussion can be dangerous. But in the context of that quote, I think its Bill's America that is threatened, not mine. Anyway, onward. Next, he ties in child molesters, and later in the article, NAMBLA. Everyone hates child molesters. He makes it related, not because its particulary relevant, but because it creates an emotion reaction in the reader/listner/watcher which brings them closer to O'Reilly. And then with the virtual child pron thing, he again breezes over any free speech implications. The Supreme Cout did not help child pornographers, they protected free speech. That court case would have been a very dangerous precident. Bill is an educated man, he likely sees this. But he also sees his large soccer-mom viewership, and in order to keep them glued to the TV, he needs that emotional reaction. Its in his best interest to be closer to that viewership then to the truth. He wants angry people behind him. If you watch his show enough, it becomes very clear that he panders to his viewship, while keeping them angry at all times about some topic where he can easily keep up the appearence of having the moral high ground. It appears to be his "forumla".. This all supports the assumption that the root of the problem is an issue with control of the discussion forum. You see, its easy to air feedback when you can pick and choose. You get to narrow it down to the dominate viewpoints, and pick the ones that are small enough to read in 10 seconds and display on the TV.. You can keep it simple, and never address any of the hard parts of the topic.. You can keep it emotional. You can put the comments in an order where they address each other in a way that supports your views. Its funny.. Somehow, the comments that oppose Bill's views always seem to be badly written, and easy to confront. It seems to be Bill's style to pick at least one every day that says "You will never air this".. He likes to appear to be an open forum, yet he spews un-American dribble like this, and manages to do it in a creative enough mannor to get his audience to buy it lock, stock, and barrel.. I say again, this man is really dangerous. |
|
FOXNews.com | O'Really??
by Lost at 9:58 am EDT, Jun 18, 2003 |
] The reason these net people get away with all kinds of
] stuff is that they work for no one. They put stuff up
] with no restraints. This, of course, is dangerous, but
] it symbolizes what the Internet is becoming. Becoming? ] The Internet has become a sewer of slander and libel,
] an unpatrolled polluted waterway, where just about
] anything goes. For example, the guy who raped and
] murdered a 10-year old in Massachusetts says he got
] the idea from the NAMBLA Web site that he accessed from
] the Boston public library. The ACLU's defending NAMBLA
] in that civil lawsuit. Focus on what you will.. ] So which is the bigger threat to America? The big
] companies or the criminals at the computer?
] Interesting question. Just in case you didn't think O'Reilly was an idiot.. |
| |
RE: FOXNews.com | O'Really??
by flynn23 at 11:01 am EDT, Jun 18, 2003 |
Jello wrote: ] Just in case you didn't think O'Reilly was an idiot.. I am reminded of a great quote from Ted Nugent: "Free speech is important because it makes identifying the idiots a lot easier." |
|
There are redundant posts not displayed in this view from the following users: Dementia, Laughing Boy, Decius, wilpig.
|
|
