Fox Gives O'Reilly The Boot

[L'Emmerdeur]

Despite Trump coming to his defense ("I don’t think Bill did anything wrong") O'Reilly is out of a job. Of course, this is a prime example of the dastardly machinations of the far left. Just ask O'Reilly's lawyer.

Word is that Fox has another slimy clown Tucker Carlson lined up to take over O'Reilly's time slot.

[Brian Peacock]

Presenter Bill O'Reilly has been dropped from Fox News over sexual harassment claims, the company says.

Did he grab 'em by the pussy?

[pErvinalia]

He can go and work on Glen Beck's show.

[laklak]

Plenty of options for him, Infowars, Brietbart, hell, he might just get a cabinet position.

[Animavore]

Of course, this is a prime example of the dastardly machinations of the far left. Just ask O'Reilly's lawyer.

I love when the Right are so fervently, religiously, zealously capitalist until consumers use the rules of capitalism (threaten to take away the demand) to hurt capital (supply) to get companies and businesses to change the some aspect to satisfy the needs of the customer in a way which works against some figure on the Right. Then they suddenly start crying about "McCarthyism" and "Communism" and how they're being attacked, while the companies involved only care about the profit margin and don't give a shit about them.

[mistermack]

He might be the next president.

[Scot Dutchy]

Plenty of options for him, Infowars, Brietbart, hell, he might just get a cabinet position.

The new White House spokesperson?

[Svartalf]

and put Frump himself out of tweets?

[Forty Two]

Of course, this is a prime example of the dastardly machinations of the far left. Just ask O'Reilly's lawyer.

I love when the Right are so fervently, religiously, zealously capitalist until consumers use the rules of capitalism (threaten to take away the demand) to hurt capital (supply) to get companies and businesses to change the some aspect to satisfy the needs of the customer in a way which works against some figure on the Right. Then they suddenly start crying about "McCarthyism" and "Communism" and how they're being attacked, while the companies involved only care about the profit margin and don't give a shit about them.

Well, people on the right can be just as hypocritical as the left. That being said, though, while people are free to threaten to take away demand, to lobby advertisers, to boycott and all that, people who support the thing that is being lobbied against and boycotted are also free to point out when such efforts are false, misleading, or as pointed out in the article you linked to, "character assassination." May the truth be tested in the crucible of public discourse.

These sexual harassment cases are not as simple as they are portrayed in the media, generally speaking. There many sides to the stories, and there are many motives for bringing such suits. None of us was there, and we don't know the truth. Just because Juliet Huddy says X, doesn't make it so. Just because O'Reilly denies it, doesn't make his denial true. So, I don't know how folks conclude that one or the other is right or wrong, and why O'Reilly should be boycotted, except that they are simply willing to believe one rather than the other at face value or they have a political motive to advance.

I don't mind him being off the air, because I didn't like his show. He wasn't very bright, and he pretended to be unbiased when he wasn't. But, I don't go much in for calling advertisers to demand they stop advertising because of allegations. It's lawful for people to do so, of course. It's just not my thing, and it's just not a practice I would like to see expanded.

[mistermack]

It's a bit of a coincidence. In the UK we have a Bill O'Reilly equivalent called Kelvin McKenzie.

They are what I call "professional assholes" who can feed shit to morons. It's a skill, and not as easy as it sounds. It's got to be actually entertaining to the morons. Not any old shit will do.

Kelvin McKenzie has got himself in hot water recently, by referring to a certain footballer as having the intelligence of a Gorilla. It turns out the guy has a black father, or grandad. So it's being seen as racial, and I think he's suspended but not sacked, as yet.
The irony of his position, is that he's made a living out of writing for gorilla-brained readers all of his career. And yet now he uses it as an insult.

I don't care about these two professional assholes. While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it. Which is always.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Just because Juliet Huddy says X, doesn't make it so.

Agreed. Andrea Mackris, Rebecca Gomez Diamond, Laurie Dhue, Andrea Tantaros, and Wendy Walsh all might also have been lying. The far left might have coerced them into it.

[Forty Two]

Well, look - it's not always about "lying" - in sexual harassment cases, both sides can be telling the truth, and both sides can be lying, about given facts and circumstances. Some things might have been said, and other things not. We don't know.

Further, just because there are multiple allegations against someone does not mean that the accusers are truth-tellers. Exhibit A: The Gian Ghomeshi trial this year where three separate accusers were each exposed, and ultimately admitted on the stand to being, liars. They outright lied and ruined a man's career over it, since the CBC fired the guy early on in the process because of it. http://thestarphoenix.com/opinion/colum ... r-own-ship

So, do I side with O'Reilly and think he didndonuffin? Nope. I don't know what he did or didn't do. However, sexual harassment cases are not just about who to believe - -we can certainly "believe" Juliet Huddy when she says that O'Reilly asked her to dinner, invited her to his hotel room, was pushy, and even crude. But, even if we accept that he said stuff like that, that doesn't make it "sexual harassment." Sexual harassment requires such behavior to be unwelcome, and not only that, it has to be so extreme as to create a "hostile work environment." So, a few comments and jokes are one thing vs. an repeated and ongoing pattern are another. And, women are allowed to date their coworkers and bosses in this world, and if they agree to go out on dates with them, as Huddy did, it is at least "possible" that she welcomed the idea. Maybe she didn't. I don't know, and she doesn't have to prove it conclusively - but, she has to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.

[mistermack]

Ten million dollars says he did it.

[L'Emmerdeur]

A "repeated and ongoing pattern" doesn't exist here, oh no certainly not. Several women coming forward with complaints over a period of years (and some of them receiving substantial out of court settlements) can with minimal effort be dismissed because after all, none of us were there.

[Hermit]

Is anybody surprised that the usual MRA types will resort to the uncertainty and doubt aspect of of promoting an atmosphere of FUD? It's a technique as old as the hills, and as predictable as sunset.

It's only a matter of time before the rest of the usual "arguments" are wheeled out, like "If it's true, why did they wait so long before making those accusations?" and "Is it a coincidence that women only accuse rich men of sexual assault? No. They are all goldminers."

And then comes the "F" component of FUD. "Women are trying to take over."

As a bonus, we'll get the tu quoque. "Here's a list of dozens of female school teachers who have been convicted of having it off with their underage students." and "What about that Miami mom (sic) who fucked three friends of her 14 year old son at his birthday party, huh?"

I forego commenting on each of those idiocies until someone pops up trying to defend them as reasonable retorts.