Popdust

✖

Satire

Bill O'Reilly Is "on His Last Legs Anyway"

The former host of The O'Reilly Factor wants us to remember that people who are old like him barely matter

Does anyone remember who Bill O'Reilly was?

We probably shouldn't talk about him in the past tense. He's still alive, after all, though probably not for much longer. He's only 70, so he could live another 30 years, and probably someone in the world would be happy to see him still shuffling about, mumbling about writing another Killing So-and-So book, but most of us can see that he's on his last legs. How else could you explain the idea of a man who was once considered a sharp political commentator speaking dismissively about the deaths of tens of thousands of people?

That's exactly what O'Reilly did when calling in to Wednesday's episode of The Sean Hannity Show. Referring to the COVID-19 pandemic that is currently ravaging the hospital system in New York City, Hannity and O'Reilly started out by pining together for a return to normal life, which prompted O'Reilly to find an optimistic angle, saying, "We're making little steps. Bernie Sanders, you know, he's—he's gone, that's really good for everybody."

Seann Hannity Bill O'Reilly Two47 Newswww.youtube.com

It's unclear what O'Reilly might have meant by that—if he felt that the Vermont senator dropping his bid for the Democratic nomination was a positive move in terms of Trump's reelection chances, Joe Biden's shot at the nomination, or just for the country in general. While it seemed to be a complete non-sequitur, perhaps O'Reilly was under the impression that Bernie Sanders' campaign was somehow responsible for the spread of the coronavirus—when people get on in years, it can be hard to tell what they're even talking about.

But after that brief tangent, O'Reilly managed to get back on topic, producing some figures downplaying the on-going tragedy in a way that almost seemed to suggest that the disruption of familiar routines was actually the bigger issue: "The projections that you just mentioned are down to 60,000, I don't think it will be that high. 13,000 dead now in the USA. Many people who are dying, both here and around the world, were on their last legs anyway." As always, O'Reilly is demonstrating the pinnacle of emotional restraint by keeping things in perspective

Bill O'Reilly - We'll Do It LIVE!www.youtube.com

The "projection" he mentioned is the current estimate for the eventual US death toll from the coronavirus. While it's not clear if that figure will include the deaths that are currently being left out of the total count, 60,000 is significantly less horrifying than previous estimates, which put the expected fatalities closer to 100,000. The fact that Bill O'Reilly happens to think 60,000 is still an overestimate cannot be attributed to any expertise in medicine, epidemiology, or statistics, so the best bet is that he's simply confused—as tends to happen to people who are barely clinging to life. It's good to know that when Bill O'Reilly passes—whether that's a week from now, a year, or twenty years—his loved ones can skip the mourning process and shrug their shoulders because, however he dies, he was old anyway. He was on his last legs.

We can leave aside the fact that many of the people who have already died as a result of contracting the novel coronavirus have been in the prime of their lives. O'Reilly would seemingly acknowledge that those cases deserve our sorrow. His point is just that most of the people who are dying are old like him, and therefore not really worth getting that upset about. If we look at Italy, for example, the death rate for people in their 40s who contracted the virus is less than 1%, while with people in their 70s (like Bill O'Reilly) the virus has killed nearly a quarter of the infected. But they're old anyway, so no big deal. Right, Bill?

Three Bill O'Reilly Sexual Harassment Accusers Speak Out | The Last Word | MSNBCwww.youtube.com

The overall message seems to be that if you've ever lost a loved one who was old, you were wrong to get upset about that. They were on their last legs anyway. And if that seems like a heartless, cruel message, please keep in mind that—before he was outed as a serial sexual harasser and removed from Fox News—Bill O'Reilly once hosted the highest-rated show on cable news. These days he is a c-list radio personality.

In other words, he is mentally and physically a hollowed-out husk of his former self—withered away and rapidly deteriorating. We can either wait for him to die, or accept that his life is already devoid of value and start ignoring him now. He's on his last legs anyway.

Three Questions to Determine Whether You Should #FireTuckerCarlson

A handy guide to ruining someone's career over comments from ten years ago

Tucker Carlson

Richard Drew/AP/Shutterstock

Tucker Carlson has been dominating the most recent news cycle due to unearthed audio from his appearances on the "Bubba the Love Sponge Show" between 2006 and 2011.

These clips include uber-sexist comments referring to various women as "whores," racist comments referring to Iraqis as "semi-literate primitive monkeys," and Tucker's impassioned defense of a pedophile on the grounds that he married his child victim.

His advertisers have been dropping like flies, with his Monday show relying on direct-response ads and promos for other Fox News shows instead of national commercials. Fox News stands by him. And Tucker Carlson is decidedly not sorry.

— (@)

While Tucker's description of his past words as "naughty" hardly begins to describe his defense of child abuse, his point on trying to destroy someone's career over decade-old comments might hold some water.

Should we be so fast to call for someone's proverbial head over something they said in the past?

Maybe. Here's a handy little guide for deciding.

Question 1. Were they serious?

As our collective social sensibilities shift over time, comedy does too. Adam Sandler movies used to be major theatrical releases; now they soft-launch on Netflix. From South Park to Family Guy to Superbad, everything that was once the height of popular comedy eventually loses its throne.

In the same vein, our senses of humor change as we mature. "Edgy humor" that passed as "funny" when we were kids in the 90s and early 2000s might no longer be so great in light of newfound social consciousness. And while not a good look, digging up a racist joke someone made when they were much younger does not necessarily mean they're a racist.

So when trying to decide whether or not to ruin someone's career over old comments, the question remains: were they serious?

1a. Yes

If yes, jump to Question 2.

1b. No

If no, they're still not off the hook just yet. Oftentimes "comedy" simply amounts to a humorous means of stating "the truth." So the real question isn't necessarily whether or not they were joking. It's "did they genuinely hold the sentiments they were the joking about?"

1ba. Yes

If yes, jump to Question 2.

1bb. No

If no, and you know the person was joking and does not hold the sentiments of the character they were playing during the joke, feel free to explain to them why their joke was upsetting or damaging. But there's no sense in ruining someone's career or livelihood over a sentiment they never even actually held.

Question 2. Do they still hold those views?

So let's say the person, whether serious or "joking," did genuinely hold the racist, sexist, or otherwise problematic views they expressed in the past. People change over time. People make mistakes. Viewpoints and belief systems are not necessarily static. Ignorance can be overcome through proper education and an open mind. As such, the person who made that comment ten years ago is not necessarily the same person in front of you now. So do they still hold those views?

2a. Yes

If the person you're dealing with still holds those views, attempt to explain why they're wrong. Many people's ignorant views have never been properly challenged. Give them the chance to see reason and comprehend the gravity of their words. Are they open to changing themselves?

2aa. Yes

Jump to Question 3.

2ab. No

If the person is truly unrepentant and stagnant in their damaging ideologies, go ahead and boycott them. There's no reason to support someone who thrives on racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

2b. No

Jump to Question 3.

Question 3. Are they genuinely sorry?

Sometimes you hold an incorrect belief, someone points it out, and you change your mind. Oftentimes, you look back at your prior views, from long ago or even just the other day, and regret ever having held them. That's part of being human. Again, people are not static.

When someone is genuinely sorry for their past views and shows a willingness to change, that effort should be celebrated, not punished. That's not to say people shouldn't be held accountable for their past wrongdoings or that not being racist or sexist is some kind of accomplishment. Rather, it's to say that willingness to change is a sure sign of progress, and progress should always be encouraged. So are they actually sorry?

3a. Yes

Maybe someone said something problematic ten years ago, or maybe they said something problematic yesterday. If they're sorry, if they understand their error, if they truly try to change, let them. Don't ruin someone's life over an experience through which they're actively striving to grow.

3b. No

Or are they just sorry they got caught? If their apologies are hollow and they continue to hold their damaging sentiments and push those beliefs, screw 'em. Boycott away.

Ultimately, the choice of what people you want to support is up to you. This holds true for entertainment, business, and even your personal life. You are under no obligation to support anyone whose views and beliefs align with violence, damage, and degradation against yourself, your loved ones, your friends, or other people in general.

At the same time, it's important to recognize that people can grow and that growth is a core element of being human.

Of course, if someone doubles down on their sexism and racism and homophobia and defenses of pedophiles and child abusers, well, by all means, boycott all their sponsors and #FireTuckerCarlson.

Dan Kahan is a writer & screenwriter from Brooklyn, usually rocking a man bun. Find more at dankahanwriter.com

POP⚡DUST | Read More...

Down the Rabbit Hole: Exploring Weird YouTube

Fetishizing Autism: Representation in Hollywood

5 Romantic Movie Gestures That Are Actually Super Creepy

From Your Site Articles