[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Alf

So Rosanne thought that a woman looked like the ape in the picture she posted.

Rosanne is quite clearly guilty of commiting a thought crime.

1984 was a warning, not a manual

That's what she gets for buying one of these newfangled smartyphone shoozamawotsits that read your mind and post it on Twitter without any further input I suppose.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That's what she gets for buying one of these newfangled smartyphone shoozamawotsits that read your mind and post it on Twitter without any further input I suppose.

So it's her freedom of speech that was the crime?

Still 1984 whichever way you look at it.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Alf

So it's her freedom of speech that was the crime?

Still 1984 whichever way you look at it.

There hasn't been any crime, her freedom of speech is still intact. But her employers don't want their reputation brought down through association of someone who sends out racist tweets, that's their right. Shouldn't they be entitled to it?

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Alf

So it's her freedom of speech that was the crime?

Still 1984 whichever way you look at it.

I am a strong free speech advocate, but free speech is not the same as consequence-free speech.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Alf

So it's her freedom of speech that was the crime?

Still 1984 whichever way you look at it.

Originally Posted by Jamie89

There hasn't been any crime, her freedom of speech is still intact. But her employers don't want their reputation brought down through association of someone who sends out racist tweets, that's their right. Shouldn't they be entitled to it?

Just as Jamie says alf; the government and law enforcement have no involvement here. She worked for a private production company, airing a show on a privately owned channel, and her employers decided to fire her for what she said, because they felt that she was damaging to their image and would therefore cost them money long term (no matter how successful her own show was).

That's pure unbridled capitalism right there. 1984 is about "Big Government". In this case actually if there WERE laws in place to protect her from her employers, that would represent more government involvement than what there has been here (i.e. None, it was again, a private financial decision)

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

There hasn't been any crime, her freedom of speech is still intact. But her employers don't want their reputation brought down through association of someone who sends out racist tweets, that's their right. Shouldn't they be entitled to it?

Why was it racist? I've seen many people being likened to look like animals, I've never thought it racist. Unless you're saying non White people should be excluded from being the butt of a joke? I find that racist, so what are we going to do about that?

Of course her free speech is not incact, she's been fired from her job for it. I wouldn't want to be fired for that, so I don't agree with Rosanne having it happen to her.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I am a strong free speech advocate, but free speech is not the same as consequence-free speech.

And that's exactly what we have an example of here, a pretty good one really. "Free speech" is shorthand for "expression free from the risk of persecution or prosecution by the authorities". It has never indicated any protection from personal retribution or professional repercussions. That's the double edged sword.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Alf

Of course her free speech is not incact, she's been fired from her job for it. I wouldn't want to be fired for that, so I don't agree with Rosanne having it happen to her.

She was fired by a private company, no involvement from the authorities. That's part of American freedom, too. Freedom to do whatever you want with your company. Why are you so against that when you believe so adamantly in free speech?

You don't have to agree with it, or like it, no one does... It's their company / TV channel and they can do whatever they want with it .

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Alf

Why was it racist? I've seen many people being likened to look like animals, I've never thought it racist. Unless you're saying non White people should be excluded from being the butt of a joke? I find that racist, so what are we going to do about that?

Of course her free speech is not incact, she's been fired from her job for it. I wouldn't want to be fired for that, so I don't agree with Rosanne having it happen to her.

And there is no historical context for likening black people to apes and monkeys?

[Alf]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

And there is no historical context for likening black people to apes and monkeys?

There's historical context for a lot of things, but we don't live in history, we evolved and humour was a big part of evolving. Embrace it.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Alf

Why was it racist? I've seen many people being likened to look like animals, I've never thought it racist. Unless you're saying non White people should be excluded from being the butt of a joke? I find that racist, so what are we going to do about that?

Of course her free speech is not incact, she's been fired from her job for it. I wouldn't want to be fired for that, so I don't agree with Rosanne having it happen to her.

Yeah but it's about context as well though, like Slim said the historical context of comparing black people to apes is just something everyone knows about. She could be ignorant to it I suppose, but I find that incredibly hard to believe. Or she just doesn't care about it, but then her lack of caring doesn't suddenly stop it from being racially offensive. And again, noone is accusing her of committing a crime, freedom of speech is about freedom of speech under the law. When you work for a company you're representing them and they have the right to protect their image. I used to work for a bank and was told I could lose my job if I ever got really drunk on a night out and made a fool of myself in front of people who knew where I worked I wouldn't want to be fired for that, but that's just business, it has nothing to do with law or rights being violated.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

She was fired by a private company, no involvement from the authorities. That's part of American freedom, too. Freedom to do whatever you want with your company. Why are you so against that when you believe so adamantly in free speech?

You don't have to agree with it, or like it, no one does... It's their company / TV channel and they can do whatever they want with it .

They are, but their reasons for firing her are political.

[Maru]

They should continue the show without her if at all possible...

I don't really buy her excuse about the lady appearing to be white... and then by saying that, isn't she in a way saying it's OK to use cultural slurs towards white folk. So it's OK if we're the guinea pigs now for all new cultural slurs, as long as we're not a particular minority? F* that. It was an ugly comment regardless or whoever she "thought" she was delivering it to... and should not have been published.

Also, which is it, Ambien or being guilty of insulting the wrong race?... So Ambien led her to not use correct judgement? I can understand, if her POV, she is convinced of that... but even if we all start to believe her reasoning, that logic is a double-edged sword.

So it can then be said that Roseanne and other folk are subconsciously guilty of associating Planet of the Apes with other people's races... and that apparently people with psych issues can't be trusted to act appropriate in a public venue. That argument not only defeats the point she's trying to make, but also stigmatizes the medicated and the mentally ill for no reason other than to save her own skin... That's where this logic leads. She must know this defense sits over on top of quicksand... or inside a lava pit in Kilhauea... and can only make her look worse.

My point is, when someone digs themselves a hole (i.e. are called out on their behavior) for posting this level of vitriol towards any group of folk... sᴛᴏᴘ. ᴅɪɢɢɪɴɢ.

She should accept the position she put herself in and move on. I can understand her being upset that others who lost their jobs, but it is also a sign that many yet seem to fully grasp the concept of humility in this society... She's only making it worse for her coworkers and ABC, not better. If she truly cared, she would step away from the spotlight and allow any negotiators to occur so the show to picked up someplace else to save their jobs...

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Alf

There's historical context for a lot of things, but we don't live in history, we evolved and humour was a big part of evolving. Embrace it.

We have moved on; calling a woman of colour the child of an ape and the muslim brotherhood is not something that would enter most of our thoughts. That's progress from where we were half a century ago.

Racism is still alive and well, as we've seen from these tweets. It's not really any hardship to me personally to go through my daily life without either likening a black woman to an ape, or finding it humourous to liken a black woman to an ape.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Alf

They are, but their reasons for firing her are political.

The reasons that it would cost them money are political. Their reasons for firing her are financial.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Alf

They are, but their reasons for firing her are political.

While I agree with you, the mainstream media is fighting to remain relevant and so they sort of have to play along with the mob to appear otherwise. Every ounce of negative energy surrounding their brand counts, can mean losing a viewer, can mean losing lucrative sponsors, the decline of retail, could mean also pushing more eyeballs to "replace" broadcast media with streaming media in the online space ... if they were powerful enough, they could probably have taken the hit easily and barely noticed it. However, we're not in those times anymore... there are threats to broadcast coming from all directions. Companies have to respond now when there is negative pressure given the slow decline of brand power (in general) & festering political atmosphere... many of the big companies that are thriving now lean left... so could also be those sponsors calling them up and instructing them to make that move.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The reasons that it would cost them money are political. Their reasons for firing her are financial.

That's fair enough, but I personally don't believe that.

Rosanne is the title character and this show is over without her, not to mention her fans who wouldn't want to watch it without her. So if it's true, then their financial adviser has dropped a bollock.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Alf

That's fair enough, but I personally don't believe that.

Rosanne is the title character and this show is over without her, not to mention her fans who wouldn't want to watch it without her. So if it's true, then their financial adviser has dropped a bollock.

One show - even a show with a huge viewership - isn't enough to risk things like people boycotting the channel en masse, or more likely (and even worse for them), people boycotting the companies that advertise on the channel which will lead to them pulling their ads... And ads are all that matter to commercial channels. Without ad revenue, they're done.

Which is what I'd say about the above as well Maru; I don't think companies are necessarily "left leaning", it's all showmanship, all they really care about at the end of the day is sales and profit and thus they are terrified of boycotts. I mean just look at Starbucks recently... Scrabbling to "not seem like the bad guy" to appease their customers, but not because they actually care about anything that has happened, because they're feeling it in their pocket.

But again, that's the double edged sword... That is the other side of freedom / free speech / the free market. Yes you have the political freedom to say whatever you want, but because everyone ELSE has the same freedom, you can quickly find yourself (or your brand) "cancelled" for it. Faster than ever in the social media generation. And as you say... Broadcast media is an industry that's already under threat, with the best content slowly but surely transitioning to subscription based, streamed media.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

One show - even a show with a huge viewership - isn't enough to risk things like people boycotting the channel en masse, or more likely (and even worse for them), people boycotting the companies that advertise on the channel which will lead to them pulling their ads... And ads are all that matter to commercial channels. Without ad revenue, they're done.

Which is what I'd say about the above as well Maru; I don't think companies are necessarily "left leaning", it's all showmanship, all they really care about at the end of the day is sales and profit and thus they are terrified of boycotts. I mean just look at Starbucks recently... Scrabbling to "not seem like the bad guy" to appease their customers, but not because they actually care about anything that has happened, because they're feeling it in their pocket.

But again, that's the double edged sword... That is the other side of freedom / free speech / the free market. Yes you have the political freedom to say whatever you want, but because everyone ELSE has the same freedom, you can quickly find yourself (or your brand) "cancelled" for it. Faster than ever in the social media generation. And as you say... Broadcast media is an industry that's already under threat, with the best content slowly but surely transitioning to subscription based, streamed media.

I think it's a bit of both. It's about the "way things are being done" more than anything. Companies/Sponsors have to appeal to a younger demographic/workforce, which means creating a company philosophy that adapts to their version of work ethic... I had a job interviews recently that reflected that... they don't expect you to answer the phone. They send an email, give a range of times and then tell you you are "free" to appear. I was told that the newer generations don't like to answer the phones, much less check voice-mail... they are more difficult to get in for interviews.

I agree completely that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences... we all have to co-exist... there will discrepancies naturally, but however minor or major the offense we try to cause others, there will be some form of backlash. Individual responsibility is key here when it comes to utilizing those rights.

I'd argue that suggesting we should give a green light to more of that behavior could lead to advocating something similar to the current form of political correctness... except in this case, it would be more right-leaning... where most right-leaning folk tend to believe that this world by nature will always be have bad people in it... so maybe we should all just learn to accept this regardless, without creating a scene every time someone says something "off-script" from what each consider ideal.

I think we need to get rid of PC altogether, because it for the large part it is a major reason why there has been such a decline in social discourse... we are all responsible for making the media arbitrators of cultural justice and now here we are reaping exactly what we sow.

[Alf]

She's a comedian. She isn't forcing you to laugh. Why try to destroy her living for it?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Maru

I think it's a bit of both. It's about the "way things are being done" more than anything. Companies/Sponsors have to appeal to a younger demographic/workforce, which means creating a company philosophy that adapts to their version of work ethic... I had a job interviews recently that reflected that... they don't expect you to answer the phone. They send an email, give a range of times and then tell you you are "free" to appear. I was told that the newer generations don't like to answer the phones, much less check voice-mail... they are more difficult to get in for interviews.

I agree completely that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences... we all have to co-exist... there will discrepancies naturally, but however minor or major the offense we try to cause others, there will be some form of backlash. Individual responsibility is key here when it comes to utilizing those rights.

I'd argue that suggesting we should give a green light to more of that behavior could lead to advocating something similar to the current form of political correctness... except in this case, it would be more right-leaning... where most right-leaning folk tend to believe that this world by nature will always be have bad people in it... so maybe we should all just learn to accept this regardless, without creating a scene every time someone says something "off-script" from what each consider ideal.

I think we need to get rid of PC altogether, because it for the large part it is a major reason why there has been such a decline in social discourse... we are all responsible for making the media arbitrators of cultural justice and now here we are reaping exactly what we sow.

The thing is though, "PC" isn't necessarily something that is deliberately implemented or enforced... There isn't a valve we can turn to turn it off, it's already interwoven throughout society and self-sustaining in the very ways we're talking about (companies etc. shifting to fit their core customer base, and circularly, then reinforcing those mindsets).

So the answer, paradoxically, is that if you want to "get rid of PC" you have to do so forcibly by REMOVING freedoms, e.g. Creating laws that would - for example - make it illegal for a television studio to fire an actress or cancel her show for something else she has said "in her free time"... Which lessens that company's freedom to self govern and potentially impacts their profit margins. Something like that may even be "unconstitutional"? I'd be lying if I said I have more than a casual knowledge of those founding principles of the US though . But I'm lead to believe that freedom to run one's business as one sees fit is "up there" in terms of US values?

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The thing is though, "PC" isn't necessarily something that is deliberately implemented or enforced... There isn't a valve we can turn to turn it off, it's already interwoven throughout society and self-sustaining in the very ways we're talking about (companies etc. shifting to fit their core customer base, and circularly, then reinforcing those mindsets).

So the answer, paradoxically, is that if you want to "get rid of PC" you have to do so forcibly by REMOVING freedoms, e.g. Creating laws that would - for example - make it illegal for a television studio to fire an actress or cancel her show for something else she has said "in her free time"... Which lessens that company's freedom to self govern and potentially impacts their profit margins. Something like that may even be "unconstitutional"? I'd be lying if I said I have more than a casual knowledge of those founding principles of the US though . But I'm lead to believe that freedom to run one's business as one sees fit is "up there" in terms of US values?

No, what I mean is move our focus back towards individual responsibility and to step away from this concept where our cultural ideals are enforced by a lynch mob every time a cultural "violation" has occurred. That isn't even helping those negative traits to work itself out of the culture... if anything, may have the opposite effect of further distilling the performance of our culture down to the results (or severity) of these cycles... it doesn't even account for what is going on in terms of improvements at the individual level.

"It Takes a Village", sure... but when that village is anti-social, has a low view of the overall world, an even lower regard for ethics and is extremely corrupt... then maybe it is wrong to expect that this is the place where balance will restore itself.

[Maru]

TMZ: ABC 'Roseanne' Reboot Discussions Centered Around Sara Gilbert
http://www.tmz.com/2018/06/01/abc-ta...ert-character/

"Roseanne" may be on the verge of rising from the dead with a second reboot, but this time centered around Sara Gilbert's character ... TMZ has learned.

Sources familiar with the situation tell TMZ ... the powers that be at ABC are exploring the possibility of re-branding the show and focusing on the character Darlene instead of Roseanne.

We're told Sara's been calling cast members to gauge their interest in the event ABC gives the reboot the green light. We're told John Goodman is "very interested."

Our sources say Tom Werner, who produced "Roseanne" through his company Carsey-Werner, is involved in the effort to reboot the show around Sara.

What's more ... ABC is desperately trying to salvage the jobs of those who were affected by its swift decision to cancel the show earlier this week ... especially for the writers and crew.

ABC canceled the show almost immediately after Roseanne tweeted President Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett is the spawn of the "muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes."

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Maru

No, what I mean is move our focus back towards individual responsibility and to step away from this concept where our cultural ideals are enforced by a lynch mob every time a cultural "violation" has occurred. That isn't even helping those negative traits to work itself out of the culture... if anything, may have the opposite effect of further distilling the performance of our culture down to the results (or severity) of these cycles... it doesn't even account for what is going on in terms of improvements at the individual level.

"It Takes a Village", sure... but when that village is anti-social, has a low view of the overall world, an even lower regard for ethics and is extremely corrupt... then maybe it is wrong to expect that this is the place where balance will restore itself.

Yes but if those lynch mobs are entrenched and self-sustaining then HOW do you shift the focus back without enforcing / mandating / legislating against their actions, which are usually based around social movements (such as harassment campaigns or boycotting) rather than anything official.

And if you do then go down that route of enforcement (by like I said, limiting private companies ability to bow to financial pressure applied by the lynch mob) is it not then another removal of freedoms, just from a different angle? Do we selectively advocate the removal of SOME freedoms to protect other more individualistic freedoms?

Again from what I know of the US (and its not extensive by any means) I always get the impression that the people are generally NOT OK with new government rules or legislation, preferring to "pay the price" of allowing businesses full autonomy.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes but if those lynch mobs are entrenched and self-sustaining then HOW do you shift the focus back without enforcing / mandating / legislating against their actions, which are usually based around social movements (such as harassment campaigns or boycotting) rather than anything official.

And if you do then go down that route of enforcement (by like I said, limiting private companies ability to bow to financial pressure applied by the lynch mob) is it not then another removal of freedoms, just from a different angle? Do we selectively advocate the removal of SOME freedoms to protect other more individualistic freedoms?

Again from what I know of the US (and its not extensive by any means) I always get the impression that the people are generally NOT OK with new government rules or legislation, preferring to "pay the price" of allowing businesses full autonomy.

We don't enforce anything. It is something that has be resettled at the individual level. I'm of the mind a lot of the way cultural "messaging" is sampled & spread these days is dated anyway... and over time, people will find other ways to be heard if they feel ignored by the general "collective", and as technology further encroaches on our lives, we will also have to adapt to the changing definition of privacy (edit). Anything, changes like this won't happen overnight.

The media had a large hand in creating those monsters, such as Trump/Hillary, etc. On the other hand, we had a large hand in creating the monster that is the media.

I don't think that the general concept of mainstream media will be around in its current form in the future, but that is just my opinion. I think even social media is gaining a reputation for being too acidic for social discourse. Humanity has yet to fully adapt to the internet and the change of pace of new information... I mean it's well and good we have these tools right now that allows us to tap into all this... but when most people are writing on how things go very wrong, there's very little said about how it goes right. So it would seem that the general media has most of their lost authority on this portion of the topic... and so the ball is in the court of each individual to help resolve this.