Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

[Walker]

So many theys, so little information!

i.e., "feed me."

They is them. A placeholder. Like in algebra. We are talking principles, not tabloids.

Keep in mind we’re working with the same box of crayons.

It's no secret, however, that Media Matters was promoting a "#StopOReilly" campaign that put pressure on businesses — dozens of them, in the end — to pull their ads from "The O'Reilly Factor."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/2 ... ews-237419

[uwot]

If you trace the grammar, you'll find the pronoun-referent is "Progressives" in the original comment.

You mean that:

...political neologism, not a descriptor.

[Immanuel Can]

But my view is that there are inimical by-products in all cultures which become subcultures producing distinct toxins of their own within the confines of the ruling one.

The problem with culture-blaming, though, is that you cannot ever be sure you've located the true "toxin" that you believe is "causing" the abuse problem. You end up guessing at stuff, then finding out the abuse didn't disappear when you changed what you used to think caused it.

Moreover, all the abusers within that "culture" get an excuse, because they are not individuals who made wicked choices, but rather, just unfortunate byproducts of the "bad culture" around them. So Bill O'Reilly, Bill Cosby or Bill Clinton are just another kind of "victims" of a "culture of abuse," for "culture" made them into the abusers they are; and the fact that they are morally responsible for their choices, regardless of their "culture" goes unaddressed. I call bull on that.

In contrast, the great thing about properly locating blame in the perps is it's much easier to find them, and it's much more certain as to how to assign guilt. They had a choice -- no matter how encouraged to abuse they may have felt, or no matter how difficult their culture made it for them. It's also key for the victims, who need responsibility properly assigned so they can stop feeling guilty for precipitating their own abuse -- an intuition which, though not rational, most abuse victims seem to experience. Justice requires the assigning of rightful responsibility; and culture-blaming obscures that.

Blaming "culture" is like blaming oxygen: it may be true that all perps share a common inclination to breathe oxygen, but that doesn't account for why they're perps. Now, it is certainly true that some cultures make it easier for perps to do what they do: but changing the culture won't eliminate the perps. They are perps because they want to perpetrate abuse; and those who want to will always find opportunity, unless they are stopped personally, and made to bear the responsibility of their abuses.

[uwot]

Moreover, all the abusers within that "culture" get an excuse, because they are not individuals who made wicked choices, but rather, just unfortunate byproducts of the "bad culture" around them.

Mr Can, you are a ludicrously narcissistic individual. That abusing other people is wrong is self evident to all but morons and psychopaths, but you believe that every human that has ever lived, or ever will, who does not share your analysis of ancient gobbledygook, will burn in hell forever. The vast majority of those simply do not have the cultural access to your petty belief system. They have committed the gravest sin, not believing that the new testament is an record of historical events, simply because they didn't have some nutcase, like you, to tell them of their error. "bad culture" has condemned most of humanity to eternal torture. But not you, because god loves you. Anyone who isn't you, and isn't a complete idiot, should be disgusted by you.

[henry quirk]

"abusing other people is wrong"

Mebbe so.

Ignoring 'innocent till proven guilty' and punishing based on hearsay and assertion is mebbe wrong too.

[Immanuel Can]

"abusing other people is wrong"

Mebbe so.

Ignoring 'innocent till proven guilty' and punishing based on hearsay and assertion is mebbe wrong too.

Indeed.

Is not it "abuse" to employ the mass media and public opinion to produce a condemnation in the absence of any legitimate use of the justice system? I would think it was. Whatever else one can say, a person accused deserves a fair trial -- not to be treated as a pariah on so flimsy a basis as a first-take allegation of something.

[Harbal]

Indeed.

Is not it "abuse" to employ the mass media and public opinion to produce a condemnation in the absence of any legitimate use of the justice system? I would think it was. Whatever else one can say, a person accused deserves a fair trial -- not to be treated as a pariah on so flimsy a basis as a first-take allegation of something.

Rubbish, if the guy looks guilty, lock him up. It's no good waiting till he's dead before his arse gets roasted, who is that going to satisfy?

[Dubious]

But my view is that there are inimical by-products in all cultures which become subcultures producing distinct toxins of their own within the confines of the ruling one.

The problem with culture-blaming, though, is that you cannot ever be sure you've located the true "toxin" that you believe is "causing" the abuse problem. You end up guessing at stuff, then finding out the abuse didn't disappear when you changed what you used to think caused it.

You don’t have to guess that cartels, for example, are inimical side-effects (to put it mildly) of the culture their in and indirectly created.

Moreover, all the abusers within that "culture" get an excuse, because they are not individuals who made wicked choices, but rather, just unfortunate byproducts of the "bad culture" around them. So Bill O'Reilly, Bill Cosby or Bill Clinton are just another kind of "victims" of a "culture of abuse," for "culture" made them into the abusers they are; and the fact that they are morally responsible for their choices, regardless of their "culture" goes unaddressed. I call bull on that.

Your conclusions are frankly absurd, not in sync and do not follow any of the arguments made. It’s as if you misunderstood - intentionally or not - the whole idea of culture vs. subculture and the organizational power of the latter to overrule the former.

As pointed out a few times “abuse of culture” is usually a GROUP thing not an individual one except insofar that individuals, such as those listed, are members of organizational power groups. The only thing I agree with is that obviously they are morally responsible for their choices. The fact that such individuals have a greater power to abuse makes the moral imperative that much greater. To blame culture per se instead of the power abuser is akin to a lawyer’s logic of excusing his client due to temporary insanity, inebriation or being stoned.

Culture, as understood, does not offer that kind of excuse though it may take a long time coming to terms with subcultures which have the means to become abusive.

[Skip]

So many theys, so little information!

If you trace the grammar, you'll find the pronoun-referent is "Progressives" in the original comment.

Progressives are running FUX now?
Yippee!!

So Bill O'Reilly, Bill Cosby or Bill Clinton are just another kind of "victims" of a "culture of abuse,"

Can you pick out the martyr from the perpetrators?

Blaming "culture" is like blaming oxygen

Nobody was blaming culture. It was merely pointed out that, within certain social structures and cliques, abuse is endemic and accepted as a part of the status quo. This atmosphere, or ambiance, or general understanding among the members of that structure sets up a localized cult or culture.
It's nothing to do with language, religion, literature or the ballet .
Turning the statement on its head seven times in succession makes no more difference to its validity than the 82nd water-boarding of the same ignorant prisoner will elicit the desired information.

[Skip]

They is them. A placeholder. Like in algebra. We are talking principles, not tabloids. Keep in mind we’re working with the same box of crayons.

Google can't translate any of the operative words. Who can?

But that's not important.
What i really can't make out are the following:
Who has done what wrong to whom?
What's it got to do with progressives?

[Walker]

They is them. A placeholder. Like in algebra. We are talking principles, not tabloids. Keep in mind we’re working with the same box of crayons.

Google can't translate any of the operative words. Who can?

But that's not important.
What i really can't make out are the following:
Who has done what wrong to whom?
What's it got to do with progressives?

Ah, 'tis a shame. Left behind at de gate he was. The topic is O’Reilly, lad. The facts have been presented. The stated conclusions are obvious. Folks are packing up. What’s to complain? He kissed the blarney stone and sits on a pot of gold, everyone should have such worries in this life.

[Skip]

So, what's all the caterwauling about?

Sadly, that's how it rolls: there are different standards, depending on what your politics are.

I very much doubt it. As a rule, capitalist bosses across the political spectrum, tend to fire employees who cause them embarrassment and, much, oh so much worse, cost them money. As a rule, popular media across the political spectrum, tend to make hay out of any scandal, especially if it involves sex, money and celebrity.
This isn't sad: audiences across the political spectrum lap it up very happily.

They didn’t even give him another chance to speak with a microphone in response to his pink slip.

Hadn't he had his more-than-fair shot at microphones already?

If the guy is innocent, he should fight the allegations in court.
(Caution: Being just slightly less guilty than some other bastard won't garner him a lot of sympathy)
If he's guilty, make the prosecution prove it in court.
If he's wrongfully terminated, or libeled and slandered - there's litigation for that.

I don't give a flying fig either way.
Why do you think there is anything wrong with publicly displayed glee at a self-righteous big-mouth being caught with his mitt in the honey-pot after years of loudly maligning other people on no factual grounds? That may be cruel, but it's sure as hell not unusual or unAmerican.

[Immanuel Can]

You don’t have to guess that cartels, for example, are inimical side-effects (to put it mildly) of the culture their in and indirectly created.

No. But abusers are quite different. They're surreptitious, and they generally pose as "good" people. That suits their purposes, because it multiplies their power. So if cartels are hard for the law to discover, abusers are many times more difficult to identify. Still, they're far easier to identify than a "culture of abuse," which is really like ghost-hunting: nobody can say for sure it exists or what its contributing factors are.

Your conclusions are frankly absurd, not in sync and do not follow any of the arguments made. It’s as if you misunderstood - intentionally or not - the whole idea of culture vs. subculture and the organizational power of the latter to overrule the former.

As pointed out a few times “abuse of culture” is usually a GROUP thing not an individual one except insofar that individuals, such as those listed, are members of organizational power groups. The only thing I agree with is that obviously they are morally responsible for their choices. The fact that such individuals have a greater power to abuse makes the moral imperative that much greater. To blame culture per se instead of the power abuser is akin to a lawyer’s logic of excusing his client due to temporary insanity, inebriation or being stoned.

Culture, as understood, does not offer that kind of excuse though it may take a long time coming to terms with subcultures which have the means to become abusive.

But the "culture" explanation DOES offer an excuse. Let me show you why.

There is a limited amount of culpability for any act.
The culpability is distributed (variously) among the guilty parties.
The guilty parties, in the case of a "culture of abuse," are more than one perpetrator.
Therefore: There is less culpability available for any one agent of the "culture of abuse."

Or, to put it even worse, to put it the way a "culture of abuse" theory is going to have to put it, it looks like this:

A "culture of abuse" is a whole culture that is the ultimate cause of abusive situations. (definitional, so non-controversial).
We are all products of such a culture. (a basic supposition of "culture" explanations)
So if "we" includes all people equally (i.e. a "culture,") then both perps and the abused are products of a bad culture.
Therefore: Bill Clinton is a victim. So is Bill Cosby. So is Jimmy Saville.

As you can see, it's just a warped way of looking at the situation. But that's the logic of "culture of abuse" accounts.

Now, if you don't look at it that way, then please explain what you mean by "culture of abuse." What are the constituent parts of this "culture" that we should be working on to change? Do you blame Hollywood? Please explain. Or is it Republicans or Brexit voters who create this allegedly abusive culture? Please explain how. Or is it all men who are responsible? We need to know what aspect of culture to address. It's not enough just to say, "somewhere out there is a thing that is causing all this abuse, and we'll shuffle the cultural deck randomly until things get better. Anybody who opts for "culture of abuse" thinking owes us a better explanation of what we are to do.

Moreover, how do we maintain personal, individual culpability and responsibility if the deep truth is that only the "culture" is ultimately at fault?

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody was blaming culture.

Sure somebody was. "Culture of abuse" was not my phrase, you'll note, but rather Dubious's coinage. I actually think it's a bad idea, one desperately in need of interrogation.

It was merely pointed out that, within certain social structures and cliques, abuse is endemic and accepted as a part of the status quo.

Well, if these "social structures" are so "certain," we ought to be able to say exactly what they are, and how they produce abuse, no? After all, we've just said that they're "certain," "endemic" and "accepted" in the "status quo." That would seem to suggest it would not be hard for us to find them.

However, if we cannot, then we're blowing smoke: we're blaming a "culture" but haven't the faintest idea whether or not we're saying anything sensible. It's actually all very "uncertain."

So if you wish to defend "culture of abuse" as an explanation, I welcome that: go ahead. I'd be happy to hear it. What are the constituent causes of a "culture of abuse"?

[Skip]

[S -Nobody was blaming culture. ]
Sure somebody was. "Culture of abuse" was not my phrase, you'll note, but rather Dubious's coinage.

As in organizational culture, distinct from the national culture, artistic culture, material culture, spiritual culture and Culture at large.

However, if we cannot, then we're blowing smoke: we're blaming a "culture" but haven't the faintest idea whether or not we're saying anything sensible. It's actually all very "uncertain."

Not really. I myself explained its meaning, twice, quite clearly.

So if you wish to defend "culture of abuse" as an explanation

I do not wish to defend it in any sense.
It's not an explanation of the specific behaviour: the specific behaviour is a natural byproduct - along with other habitual behaviours - of the prevailing mind-set in all enclaves of male hierarchy. The higher a member's status, the more entitled he feels to treat underlings and females with contempt, and the less he expects to be taken to task.

What are the constituent causes of a "culture of abuse"?

A closed, opaque system. A stratified class or caste structure, where all participants know who holds what rank. Lower tier populations (members, student, recruits, employees) are regarded and treated as peons, unworthy of respect or consideration. (Thus presenting a large pool of potential victims, joke-butts, personal whipping-posts, as well as exploitable human resources) Some designated categories of humans utterly and permanently barred from the higher levels. (Thus, cultivating a distinct 'species' of marked as prey.) Scorn of outsiders; complacent self-regard of insiders. (Thus, cultivating an atmosphere of superiority.) Privileges, rewards and perquisites - often quite lavish ones - accorded to the upper echelons. (Thus, cultivating self-congratulations, self-indulgence.) Closed, solid front against any scrutiny from outside; defensive stance of all members from criticism and blame from outside. (Thus, increasing layers of protection around an individual as he rises in the hierarchy, cultivating freedom from consequences.) Arrogance, narcissism, a sense of entitlement, cultivating a delusion of invulnerability in the higher ranks. (That's why they so often get careless once they're powerful, rich or famous enough: in mid-climb, their more unsavoury activities are clandestine.)