Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

[Immanuel Can]

Bill O's downfall has way more to do with his popularity and the popularity of FOX than with his supposed harassing behavior.

If FOX were small potatoes, if Bill O just a blip (or if he were a big commie on MSNBC) not a soul would give two shits if he hit on the ladies.

True. Sadly, that's how it rolls: there are different standards, depending on what your politics are. Clinton's behavior is far less excusable, but nobody mentions that.

[Walker]

Too bad for him his name isn’t Clinton, and he’s not a progressive.
Too bad his name isn't Kennedy. Or Jackson.

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

What are the allegations other than he couldn’t be bothered to remember the names of some blondes, and that he liked to tell dirty jokes around the water cooler? Millions of paid dollars in hush money is a lot of smoke, which suggests something was blazing somewhere years ago. Deep pockets are certainly tender tinder.

A feasible theory to investigate, given the ways of folks, news persuasion, and technology these days, is that he was the subject of media-amplified robocomplaints directed towards his advertisers, the sheer volume of which threatened bad PC associations with their product’s good name. Technologically targeting as bogus coercion is bogus because of the flabby innuendo, sort of a flip on the jungle-law protection racket where your windows don’t get broken if you play ball. But smart companies say why take a chance when there's plenty of mouthpieces out there.

This promise of continued revenue loss was the excuse the new generation of Fox decision-makers needed to pasture a non-progressive, centrist dinosaur. Any ancillary female shenanigans was simply the vehicle for the inevitable intent of change to run over and flatten the past.

If Billy O’Reilly was more of a calculating realist regarding the ways of folks, he would have tabled the supremacy of his arrogance and done a Billy Graham, which is to never give a private audience to a female, adoring or otherwise, something all men walking the straight and narrow center-line would do well to remember.


American Beauty (5/10) Movie CLIP - Lester Blackmails Brad (1999) HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJVXg1AHQTY

[Skip]

But your description equally suits the poor, the weak and the uncelebrated.

In all mascularchies, yes. In the same type of culture, the same behaviour takes place at all levels.
The closer to the top, the less it's questioned, challenged, discovered, remarked or punished,
and some privileged groups consider it their right to abuse with impunity.
That's what I meant by levels of protectedness.

[Skip]

Clinton's behavior is far less excusable, but nobody mentions that.

How is it less excusable?
And I recall it being "mentioned" quite extensively - even 20 years later.

[Walker]

O'Reilly gave a big audience and a big voice to Trump,
when Trump was thought to be a chump.

That is all ye need know on the topic.

[Immanuel Can]

But your description equally suits the poor, the weak and the uncelebrated.

In all mascularchies, yes. In the same type of culture, the same behaviour takes place at all levels.
The closer to the top, the less it's questioned, challenged, discovered, remarked or punished,
and some privileged groups consider it their right to abuse with impunity.
That's what I meant by levels of protectedness.

"Mascularchies"? No such (real) word -- nor such a concept. That's a political neologism, not a descriptor.

It's like "Feminazis," a word coined to force a political agenda on the conversation. I would discard it.

[Immanuel Can]

Clinton's behavior is far less excusable, but nobody mentions that.

How is it less excusable?

For several reasons. First, for its being of longer duration and much more violent. Secondly, for the cover-ups orchestrated by him and Ms. Clinton. Thirdly, because he didn't just hold the role of second-rate pundit, but of the top power position in the world. And fourth, because he preened himself as the champion of the liberal left, an advocate for women and the oppressed. Fifthly, because he abused the Oval Office as a locale for the exploitation of interns, And lastly, because when caught he lied and perjured himself in front of the American public. And for all this, he now has book deals and acclaim.

And I recall it being "mentioned" quite extensively - even 20 years later.

It was talked about, because people always like to hear the dirt. But remarkably, he wasn't impeached. He should have been. Impeached and jailed. And even now, he's still running around free, and his wife, who helped him cover up his perversions by bullying witnesses into silence, was allowed to run for his office.

I'm neither a democrat nor a republican, personally. I'm not involved in that political dichotomy in any way. So I can look at this without partisan politics being involved. Clinton was a bad man. He got away with the kind of exploitation you deplore. Yet he was in the public eye all the time, and his actions are well-known.

Don't blame "mascularchies" for that. That one's on the democrats and the supporters of the liberal left.

[Immanuel Can]

Too bad for him his name isn’t Clinton, and he’s not a progressive.
Too bad his name isn't Kennedy. Or Jackson.

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

They don't care. They're not about truth. They're not about justice. They're about seeing their ideology win, no matter what it costs.

[Skip]

"Mascularchies"? No such (real) word -- nor such a concept. That's a political neologism, not a descriptor.

Of course there is no such word; I just coined it two hours ago. No politics involved. It describes a hierarchy of male dominance, in any political or religious system, which allows greater latitude for abuse of inferiors, and wider immunity from retribution, the higher one's position.

It's like "Feminazis," a word coined to force a political agenda on the conversation.

No, it's not like at all. That's a specific political reference. See where it contains "nazi"?

I would discard it.

You should.

but nobody mentions that.

It was talked about, because....

Oh, now I see.

[Immanuel Can]

but nobody mentions that.

It was talked about, because....

Oh, now I see.

Good.

When we talk about "Clintons" today, nobody seems to mention their history of sexual predation. Even when he was caught in the Lewinski scandal, as soon as the dirt was out people lost interest. The dirt hasn't stuck to his hands.

That's what I meant when I said, "Nobody mentions..." I meant, "nobody today," and "nobody who intends to do anything about it."

[Skip]

People always lose interest in old dirt; new dirt keep coming along to distract them.
In 20 years, they'll say "Bill who?", meaning all of the current crop of sexual predators;
they'll have a bunch of Jasons or Matthews to talk about.

[Harbal]

They're not about truth. They're not about justice. They're about seeing their ideology win, no matter what it costs.

This is so often true, whether the ideology be political, religious, or whatever.

[Skip]

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

Who didn't? Are all the microphones in America now off limits to Bill O'Reilly? In that case, an executive order might reverse that condition. Or are only some particular microphones denied? In that case, he would need some particular intervention to regain them. How can we help him if we don't know.
We just don't know.

They know better than that.

Who knows what better than whom, or what, about what, and how do you know what they know?
Still, it's good to know that somebody knows something.

They don't care. They're not about truth. They're not about justice.

Who are these they?

They're about seeing their ideology win, no matter what it costs.

Which ideology is that? What is the prize up for winning in this instance? What is the 'cost'?

So many theys, so little information!

[Immanuel Can]

So many theys, so little information!

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

[Dubious]

But I still don't get this "culture of" thing. Abusers are responsible for what they do...they don't deserve to get off the hook by having us blame "culture." We can't lock up a "culture," or even really find it, or do much to prevent a "culture" from abusing or harassing. We can, however, deal with individuals who do these things.

Every culture has a seamy side of taboos which consists in an abuse of power whether personal or institutionalized, the latter being of the incorporated kind usually requires the infrastructure of a “culture” to possess that power in the first place. Cultures are composed of sub-cultures in all realms from political or financial to entertainment.

The culture of abuse, which has never disappeared from history,...

Whose "culture" was this? It seems to me that abuse and harassment of all kinds are a cross-cultural phenomenon -- perhaps more pronounced in some situations than others.

The abuse of culture through the abuse of power is as you say “cross-cultural”. As such it is culture neutral.

The danger I fear there is that the "culture" language provides an excuse to people like Saville as simply another victim of a "bad culture." But I would say he was a wicked man, and that he personally needs to answer for all he did. I imagine most of his victims would agree, and probably wouldn't be content with "cultural reform" measures instead of assigned guilt.

Use of the word “culture” in the context of abuse does not excuse the crime...aside which crimes committed by individuals have almost nothing to do with an abuse of culture based on the inference that it’s a ‘group’ thing mostly and not an individual one.

I guess I'm just trying to pin down who you're indicting. I'm not saying you're wrong to accuse certain people; I just think the "culture" language is counterproductive. It obscures the guilty and makes abuse impossible to locate and address.

I think it’s a case of definition. If you believe that culture is mostly affirmative and masks the criminal then it makes sense to believe that culture used in that context is counterproductive. 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.

Culture as manifested and guided by humans is nothing more than a giant petri dish.