Megan Kelly wtf?

The BBQ Pit
81

Where is the “Uppity Negros getting offended because we can no longer portray them in caricature” thread? Oh yeah…it’s in what passes for your head.

The whole point of Robert Downey, Jr. playing an actor pretending to be black (and not “blackface” in the historical sense, certainly) was to make fun of overly-dedicated Method-y actors who cross the line into self-parody in an effort to remain relevant. That it was RDJ doing so (who had just recently returned to being a relevant actor) added another layer of nuance to the satire, especially with him giving advice to Ben Stiller’s character to “Never go full retard”. Nobody who is cognitively functioning and not just looking for manufactured outraged took the performance as a serious attempt to pretend to be or take a role from a black actor or make fun of black people in general, any more than the film itself was an effort to make fun of Vietnam veterans faking injuries.

As for Kelly, this coudn’t have happened to a better person. She’s been a nasty piece of conservative propaganda who briefly attained larger celebrity by being mocked by Donald Trump in the nastiest possible fashion and somehow parlayed that to a job on a real network (albeit in the “soft news” category). All she had to do was keep her pretty head down and prattle on like the other morning t.v. hosts, but like all Fox talking heads she just can’t keep herself from shitting where she eats. Good riddence to her, and hopefully a lesson to CNN and other networks hiring rejected Fox personalities in a vain attempt to seem “balanced” to conservative viewers.

Stranger

82

So skin tone is out? How about straightening hair or extensions? I’m not saying people should dress as gross caricatures such as black face from a minstrel show but those getting offended because of a bit of makeup with a costume need to lighten up. Noone here on this board is going to whine if someone dresses as Trump and puts on a bit of orange powder.

83

“Dress up as” is fine. Maybe don’t wear their skin color as a costume, especially if it’s one that has caused all sorts of strife and injustice but, to you, it’s a fun thing to do for a day before taking it off.

84

Breaking news, we now have part of that conversation:

“Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon… you know, cause I’ve worked in a lot of offices, and I tell you, people do that all the time.”

85

Exactly.

I see octopus is wearing his Whataboutist costume. Not interested.

86

Yeah, general principles are so whataboutistisms…

Actually, when the principle is extended you just realize how silly you sound.

87

Because a public figure condoned a racist practice on public TV.

This is false. What most of us think is that she is completely aware of the history of blackface, but doesn’t understand why black people would care. She also very much did endorse blackface on her program. She said it on live TV because she thought she was being profound.

It would seem impossible that someone who has been in the business like her and dealt with past Halloweens with past examples of blackface does not know about the subject at all. We’re kinda tired of the “we didn’t know” excuse.

It’s not even like this is the first time.

I know that, in the post-Trump world, this may seem small. But it isn’t. It’s still racism, and racism still continues to deserve social opprobrium. The wider your audience, the more opprobrium is necessary.

And I disagree with iiandyiiii due to her past history. Hell, in my world, the Jesus is White stuff would have been enough to fire her. That’s white supremacist talk.

88

Funny how you skipped right over Jophiel, whom I agree with. You’re obviously only trying to score points.

Buh-bye now.

89

That’s what SHE said … about Trump.

90

Poor little Megan the Victim. So sad. NOT!

She has a history of saying stupid shit. Stupidity should be painful.

91

I know, right? It’s not like it’s only applied selectively or anything

92

Once again, this feels like one side seizing the stupidest thing possible to bring down the other; only it ends up being a big backfire. Of all the things one could attack this blonde numpty for, and people jump on some innocuous remark that anyone who wanted to could see what she was trying to say.

Crucify the network suits that gave this woman a show, for sure. But having a hissy fit over her lack of professionalism (?) social awareness (?) under the guise of racism just makes one side look reactionary and petty. Seems good fodder for an SNL skit (and the butt of the joke aint Ms. Kelly)

93

Right on time! You fucking asshole.

94

What a constructive on topic post. You are one of the unhinged loons that make this board such a success.

95

Is it, though? I mean, yes, she’s a twit who needs things explained to her. That’s objectively true. But I don’t think that’s the persona she intends to present, or the persona NBC was looking for when they hired her. It certainly doesn’t seem to have been her persona when she was on Fox. When she did a story on the national crisis of black people dressing up as Santa, I don’t recall there being another party there to point out that she was, in fact, being a total fucking idiot.

I really don’t think NBC wanted the face of their flagship daytime television program to be a simple minded idiot who needs basic concepts explained to her. I think they wanted someone who at least had the appearance of thoughtfulness and competence. Since they manifestly did not get that, it seems that shit-canning the moron is an entirely justified move.

96

Yes, we can see what she was trying to say. She asked “What is racist” about blackface on Halloween. She then argued that we didn’t see it as racist back in the 1980s. (Everyone I’ve found so far says she’s wrong.)

So her clear intent was to argue that blackface at Halloween should be acceptable.

What’s more, no one on HER SHOW with HER PANEL rebutted her. So it wasn’t a “devil’s advocate” position. She was genuinely arguing that kids should be able to paint their skin black to play black people on Halloween.

What I don’t get is this need to try and reparse everything people say to make it not racist. We go from picking it over with a fine tooth comb (rather than looking at the overall implication, which is always more important) to saying “well, she meant to say…”

Tough. She didn’t say whatever it is you think she meant to say. She argued that blackface should be okay on Halloween.

97

The second she tries to claim victimhood, I’m adding her to this thread.

Fuck her; she is not a victim here.

98

Exactly. This is the point. It doesnt take her any effort, she’s just very good at being racist.

You cannot seriously claim that ignorance is a defence for someone working in media.
She showed who she was, the network believed her.

99

CNN guy says NBC knew what they were getting when they paid her ……………….

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/don-lemon-says-megyn-kelly-controversy-partially-the-fault-of-nbc/ar-BBOUUFu?li=BBnb4R7

100

FYI:

I’ve been thinking a lot about our longer conversation regarding your objection to charged language used to “dehumanize” marginalized groups, like women.

Again, it was impressive that you wanted to engage with me about it, six years after I once used such a term.

As you know, I viewed such as a tool, selectively employed against opposing views as a way to attack political opponents, control the dialogue, and attempt to gain the moral high ground. That is, I was suspicious of the motive. I didn’t think anybody really cared about the actual issue, or that these “marginalized groups” really needed the language policed on their behalf.

However, you argued at such length and with such sincerity, that, I thought perhaps you did. You mentioned that you did “call out” language and offensive terms when they were used by people, even if they were on your side.

So, since then I started paying attention to threads you participated in to see if you did, in fact, do as you say you do, as evidence that you believe what you say you believe, and that this techniques is not just rhetorical weapon to be selectively employed your opponents.

I’ve seen two incidents of pretty severely charged language against women made by people on the left in threads you participated in, where you failed to call it out.

I called your attention to an instance here where someone called Megyn a “twat.” You failed to register it.

I don’t know why. Maybe you refuse to see it, or think it’s not done with bad intent. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.

When I see you calling me out on something 6 years old, that is happening around you every day, it is hard for me not to conclude that you were sincere.