In a recent episode of “The View,” Whoopi Goldberg found herself at the center of controversy after making comments that compared the experience of Black Americans to the plight of women in Iran.

The ensuing discussion, which quickly went viral, ignited a fierce debate about the realities of oppression, the importance of objective truth, and the dangers of equating vastly different struggles.

The segment was later dissected and critiqued on Fox News’ “Gutfeld!” with Tyrus and a panel of commentators, who did not hold back in their criticism of Goldberg’s remarks.

The controversy began when Goldberg, responding to a discussion about human rights abuses in Iran, suggested that Black Americans in 2025 still face oppression comparable to that of women living under the Iranian regime.

She stated, “Not if you’re Black,” when another panelist argued that life in the United States is fundamentally different from life in Iran.

Goldberg referenced America’s history of racial violence, including lynchings and other acts of brutality, as evidence that the country’s problems are ongoing and severe.

Her comments were met with immediate pushback from co-hosts and, later, from a much wider audience.

The panel’s disagreement was palpable, with one member pointing out that, despite America’s troubled past, the present-day realities for minorities in the U.S.are not comparable to the systematic and violent oppression faced by women in Iran—including public executions and brutal enforcement of morality laws.

Fox News’ “Gutfeld!” picked up the segment, with host Greg Gutfeld, Tyrus, and others providing a mix of satire and serious critique.

Gutfeld opened the discussion by mocking Goldberg’s logic and delivery, joking about her gestures and the seemingly absurd nature of her comparison.

The panelists quickly zeroed in on what they saw as the core issue: the conflation of subjective feelings with objective reality.

One panelist argued, “She said how it feels to be a Black person… as compared to the objective reality of living in Iran.

Feelings are more important than objective reality right now, and that is a pathological state.

We must get back to objective reality because feelings are just that.

It doesn’t matter what you’re feeling… it doesn’t define reality.”

This sentiment was echoed throughout the discussion, with panelists expressing concern that the current social climate prioritizes personal feelings over facts.

They argued that, while feelings are valid and important, they should not be used to override or obscure the stark differences between living in a liberal democracy and an authoritarian theocracy.

Tyrus, a regular contributor to “Gutfeld!” and a prominent Black conservative voice, offered a pointed critique of Goldberg’s comments.

He highlighted the irony of Goldberg, a wealthy and influential Black woman, using her platform to claim that America is as oppressive as Iran for Black people.

“It is only in America that a Black person can sit on a TV show getting paid millions and millions of dollars to have the floor and can interrupt people… In Iran, her interrupting and speaking in public would have led to a stoning,” Tyrus stated.

He emphasized the opportunities available in the United States, regardless of race, and criticized Goldberg for playing “the Black card” in a context where it did not apply.

Tyrus concluded with a call for personal responsibility and gratitude for the freedoms afforded in America: “The beauty about this country is that there is always an opportunity to better yourself. So shame on you. Play the Black card somewhere else because this… doesn’t work here in America.”

The segment also touched on a broader cultural debate about the role of emotions in shaping public discourse.

The panelists lamented what they saw as a trend towards prioritizing subjective experience over shared reality.

They argued that this shift undermines honest conversations about progress and the real challenges that remain.

One panelist summed it up: “Feelings have been superseding reality.

We have moved into a state where discharge of emotions becomes the goal rather than changing things for the better for people.

” The panel’s consensus was clear: while America is far from perfect, its flaws should not be exaggerated to the point of equating them with the horrors faced by people in countries like Iran.

The panelists also took issue with some of Goldberg’s factual assertions.

One commentator pointed out that, contrary to Goldberg’s claim, Iran does not throw gay people off buildings; instead, the regime forces gender reassignment surgeries as a way to erase homosexuality.

The discussion veered into satire as they poked fun at Goldberg’s stage name and persona, but the underlying message remained serious: accuracy and context matter, especially when discussing issues as grave as human rights abuses.

The segment ended with a reflection on the influence of media personalities like Goldberg.

“There’s something kind of sad when a large portion of America’s middle-aged women take their cues from someone that will name themselves after a toy that makes gas,” one panelist remarked, referencing Goldberg’s stage name.

Gutfeld closed the discussion by acknowledging the complexity of such debates and the responsibility of media figures to foster informed, nuanced conversations.

He quipped, “No one watches The View, they watch you watch The View!” highlighting the meta-nature of media commentary and the importance of critical engagement with what we see on television.

Whoopi Goldberg’s comments on “The View” sparked a necessary, if heated, conversation about the realities of race, oppression, and progress in America.

While her remarks were widely criticized for lacking nuance and perspective, the debate they ignited serves as a reminder of the importance of distinguishing between personal feelings and objective reality.

As Tyrus and the “Gutfeld!” panel emphasized, acknowledging America’s flaws is crucial—but so is recognizing its unique opportunities and freedoms.

In an era where emotions often drive headlines and social media discourse, this controversy is a call to return to facts, context, and honest debate.

Only then can we hope to address real injustices—both at home and abroad—without diminishing the unique challenges faced by people in vastly different circumstances.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.