Aubrey O’Day Says That Fidel Castro And Adolf Hitler Are Totes “Brilliant”

TorskyOrg
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 09:29 am: [report]

Hey Kate,

You’re clearly an idiot. I mean that in the nicest possible way. I figured maybe you were a rightwing nut, or maybe jealous because Aubrey looks better than you…..but judging by your headline about Mary J. Blige and Farrah Fawcett Having An Affair, you’re clearly just a a harmless idiot.

Aubrey didn’t defend anyone. She said a true fact that those FauxNews #&@$% dared her to say because it’s some sort of PR rule. Castro and Hitler WERE brilliant. That’s not condoning what they did, it’s stating a fact.

william.paul
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 09:33 am: [report]

Ok, not the best wording on her part. But I do see what she was getting at.

Christinaval
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 09:38 am: [report]

I get what she was saying also. There’s a difference between good and evil and being smart or stupid. I don’t think Hitler and Castro would have been able to get to where they were/are if they weren’t brilliant. And for that matter I don’t think any evil person in history was stupid. Charles Manson was brilliant too. Is a psychotic, evil way.

Oh Kathryn!
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 09:40 am: [report]

Honestly, this is just like attacking Will Smith when he said Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. This is pointless. The fact of the matter is Castro and Hilter were brilliant enough to rise to power. She didn’t say that they have done the best things ever.

retro chic
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 09:44 am: [report]

“Brilliant” isn’t confined to the Einsteins who want to good with it, in fact, they’re probably in the minority in terms of their impact in the world thru the ages. “Brilliant” has nothing to do with good-or-evil intent or execution.

*sam*
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 10:03 am: [report]

I agree, there’s nothing wrong with stating facts. As everyone else has mentioned, they were/are “brilliant” in their own right. Saying such does neither condones nor condemns their actions.

Please quit taking things and twisting them into something they’re not in order to stir up controversy or ‘debate.’ Any intelligent person should be able to understand the difference between discussing someone’s obvious intellect and making a morality statement about someone’s actions. I’m seriously not trying to be rude here, but with writing like that, you sound like you belong at Fox News. :(

Riley
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 10:10 am: [report]

Haha.  She explicitly states she isn’t condoning their behavior, but only admitting the fact that they are brilliant; and she is defending them?  Poor Kate, never the sharpest knife in the drawer.

calenia
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 10:11 am: [report]

Ordinarly, I am all for making fun of “celebrities” when they say stupid things, Prejan was a lot of fun, but in this case O’Day actually made a valid point and was surprisingly articulate in that clip. Of course Hitler and Castro were/are brilliant, that shouldn’t be questioned, they are also evil murderers who perpetrated some of the greatest crimes against humanity, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive. You failled to understand the difference if you though she was saying they were good or condoning their actions in anyway.

Kate Torgovnick
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 10:24 am: [report]

I’ve read all your comments, and I still 100% think this is a gross misuse of the word brilliant. Are/were Castro and Hitler excellent power-climbers who manipulated situations to their will to the detriment of huge numbers of people? Definitely. But that is a far, far, far cry from “brilliant”—which absolutely has the connotation of positive contributions to society. The derivation of the word comes from the verb “to shine.”

And really, you think she’s articulate in this clip? “He’s outlived dozens of our presidents.” Yeah, because they’re elected every four years rather than declaring themselves in power for life.

*sam*
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 10:30 am: [report]

@Kate: if that’s your major qualm, then that’s fine (I don’t agree, but, to each their own). However, IMO, you should have stated that in the original article. By writing your article the way you did, you came off sounding as though you took her ‘brilliant’ comment to mean that she thinks they’re wonderful people, which she obviously doesn’t.

xifeng882
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 10:34 am: [report]

@Kate: Outlived, as in they DIED. I highly doubt she was referring to time in office but rather to how long they lived. And brilliant doesn’t necessarily have to have a positive connotation. Words are very tangible and are rarely concrete.

william.paul
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 10:43 am: [report]

@kate, I’m with *sam* on this. If the biggest problem you have is that she misused a word, that’s fine. I agree that she isn’t very articulate, but harping on her vocabulary (or lack thereof)bypasses what she was speaking about entirely.

calenia
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 11:10 am: [report]

She expressly stated she didn’t condone their behavior which I why I thought she was articulate. Ok, so my threshold wasn’t really high for her, but to get that out with all the rest of the chatter showed she was trying to hold her own in a reasonably articulate way while the pundits were trying to insinuate what you are: that she thinks they’re awesome which she simply did not say.
Those two “leaders” did shine in their efforts to become supreme rulers, they fit the definition of brilliant, just not your interpretation of it.

Riley
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 11:20 am: [report]

Brilliant implies nothing more than intellectual capability.  I know many brilliant people that are wastes of life.  Hitler was a brilliant strategist and both were brilliant politicians - they both manipulated their country’s weak points, you have to be fairly smart to pull that off for any extended period of time.  You can disagree with her notion on the two men, which is fine. 

However, you sound just like the people on Fox News.  When they couldn’t come up with an adequate response to her statement, they immediately went to the emotional aspect.  “Oh my god!  How can you say they were brilliant!?!  They’ve killed people!”  As if admitting someone is smart somehow validates the actions of their entire life.

brandyalexander
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 11:34 am: [report]

I think its just a knee-jerk reaction when someone says something positive about a negatively-viewed person.  It would be like if I kept saying how gorgeous Ted Bundy is, and harped on it, like “yeah, he killed people, and it was absolutely wrong, but he was gorgeous!”  It was just kind of a silly thing to go off on, and Fox’s reaction was silly, and this article was silly, too.  She didn’t say anything wrong, though I wonder why she felt she needed to say anything at all.

Riley
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 11:41 am: [report]

@Brandyalexander - She was posed a question regarding Castro, and then another regarding Hitler.  I’m glad she took a stance instead of talking loudly over others with an answer/response that makes no sense; kind of like every interview show I have ever seen.

brandyalexander
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 11:46 am: [report]

@ Riley: I didn’t hear the Hitler question.  I’m thinking maybe she was just made nervous by Fox’s idiotic and leading questions… I feel like they probably are putting extra emphasis on Castro to highlight their stupid obsession with so-called socialism.  Like I said, I don’t think she said anything wrong, though I do see why it makes people feel uncomfortable.

retro chic
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 12:14 pm: [report]

Kate, not sure if you’re an actual journalist, but personal negative feelings about someone doesn’t negate their factual, however unpopular, statements. Just like the way the Fox-guys jumped all over her to make her look silly instead of focusing on the content – they weren’t being journalists, either. Even valid commentary is based in fact.

effing hickster
wrote on September 1 2009 @ 03:59 pm: [report]

She’s not all that articulate, but she had a valid point. However, Fox setting up that love match of an interview was absolutely idiotic. So not brilliant.

*facepalm*

MissChaotic
wrote on September 2 2009 @ 01:09 am: [report]

Um, you all know that Castro was paid by the US government to overthrow the super-violent embezzling criminal named Fulgencio Batista?

...anyways, I get what she was saying. Not everyone has issues with comprehending complex thoughts so to assume your readers do by posting rather insulting headlines just infuriates your “clientele”.