View Full Version : 'Roseanne' Ratings Blowout Stuns Hollywood [Update: It's been cancelled]
Wow.
'Roseanne' Ratings Blowout Stuns Hollywood
https://www.dailywire.com/news/28819/roseanne-ratings-blowout-stuns-hollywood-paul-bois
America's favorite mid-western family is back, and their big debut on Tuesday night has rocked Hollywood to its core.
According to Deadline, the "pro-Trump" revival of the hit '90s sit-com "Roseanne," which pulled in a staggering total of 18.2 million viewers this week, has left Hollywood executives stunned, prompting some serious "soul-searching."
"While nostalgia was expected to bring in eyeballs, no one predicted such a huge turnout on premiere night for the blue-collar family sitcom with a Donald Trump-supporting protagonist, especially among the younger demographic," Deadline reports.
The show hit big with its target audience: working-class Americans, performing strong in underserved markets that Hollywood typically shuns.
"No. 1 was Tulsa in Oklahoma, which Trump won with 65.3% of the vote," notes Deadline. "It was followed by Cincinnati, Ohio and Kansas City, Missouri. The only marquee city from a blue state in the Top 10 was Chicago at No. 5 — the area where the series is set."
Unsurprisingly, the beltway did not tune into "Roseanne" in record numbers. In fact, New York did not make the top 20 and Los Angeles did not make the top 30. All of this was to be expected the moment Barr announced that her character would be openly pro-Trump, with a debut episode that skewered snowflake culture, the women's march, and anti-Trump hysteria.
Could the success of "Roseanne" mean a revival of shows that speak to a piece of America that Hollywood shuns? Time will tell. While "Roseanne" certainly gave middle-Americans some of their dignity back on Tuesday night, as Ben Shapiro points out, the show is a far cry from being "conservative." However, if the show's ratings continue on this strong path, this could make ABC and other networks wake up a little bit. Could America see a revival of "Home Improvement," starring Tim Allen, another Trump supporter? Or could another daring comedian give America another show that breaks the left-wing coasts' stranglehold on the culture?
We all remember last year when ABC canceled Allen’s openly conservative sitcom "Last Man Standing" despite strong viewership. Maybe this could be the moment networks like ABC realize that those underserved markets are filled with untapped potential.
'Roseanne' Really Overperformed in Middle America
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/roseanne-performed-middle-america-1098125
'Roseanne' Really Overperformed in Middle America
The ABC comedy's return dominated in all of TV's top markets, but it was highest-rated in....Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Roseanne's return to ABC was a hit across the U.S. on Tuesday night, but, perhaps not so shocking for the comedic treatise on life in a flyover state, New York and Los Angeles were not the markets where the show was the most dominant.
According to Nielsen Media's metered-market ratings, which show tune-in by households in 56 of America's biggest metropolitan areas, Roseanne scored the highest in...Tulsa, Oklahoma. The country's No. 62 market, with just over 500,000 TV-watching households, outperformed the national average by 60 percent with an average 19.0 overnight rating. The market with the highest percentage of TV-watching households tuned into the show was also in the Central Time Zone. An impressive 29 percent of Kansas City's Tuesday TV audience was watching Roseanne.
Across all of Nielsen's metered markets, the show averaged a robust 11.9 rating among households and 20 percent share of the audience. Other overperforming markets include Cincinnati (No. 2), Pittsburgh (No. 4) and Chicago (No. 5). The latter, TV's No. 3 market with nearly 3.5 million TV-watching households, helped Roseanne considerably. (The iconic sitcom is set in Illinois, so read into that what you will.)
Roseanne was pitched as a timely revival, one that put star Roseanne Barr's support for President Donald Trump in the narrative at a time when most scripted TV is decidedly liberal-skewing. Barr and the show's creative team have been keen to emphasize the new run won't keep its focus on politics, but any defense of the current administration, however fleeting in the first of two back-to-back episodes, is a rare broadcast TV ovation to some oft-ignored viewers.
None of that is to say Roseanne brought in its massive 18.1 million viewers and enviable 5.1 rating among adults 18-49 without some help from TV's top two markets. New York narrowly bested the national average for the show with a 12.8 rating among households and a 21 percent share. And in Los Angeles, numbers came in just shy of the national average with a 11.4 rating and an 18 percent share.
Roseanne's thrall in red states was hardly the rule. The show performed worst on ABC's North Carolina affiliate, WXLV, where a mere 9 percent of households tuned in. It narrowly underperformed in a noticeably weak showing in San Francisco.
ABC is clearly keen to get even more viewers to tune into the show. Ahead of likely significant digital and time-shifting lifts, the network announced it will rebroadcast Tuesday's episodes on Sunday night before American Idol.
Roseanne's 10 highest-rated markets
1. Tulsa, Oklahoma
2. Cincinnati, Ohio
3. Kansas City, Missouri
4. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
5. Chicago, Illinois
6. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
7. Detroit, Michigan
8. Buffalo, New York
9. St. Louis, Missouri
10. Indianapolis, Indiana
Roseanne's 10 lowest-rated markets
1. Greensboro, North Carolina
2. San Francisco, California
3. Jacksonville, Florida
4. Miami, Florida
5. New Orleans, Louisiana
6. Providence, Rhode Island
7. Salt Lake City, Utah
8. Memphis, Tennessee
9. San Diego, California
10. Baltimore, Maryland
I'm surprised this was even allowed to air. :laugh: The TV space seems to have become fairly niche and exclusionary... obviously certain markets have more pull than others, and that's always been the case with news, popular media to a degree for a long time. That's one reason I moved to east coast for a while. Mainstream culture itself is so cut off from the central US ... but seriously, these ratings are phenomenal. I had no idea the show was even coming back... I'd kind of written off TV in more than some respects...
Also Home Improvement :love: I've been on a DIY/wood working kick... I would love for a show like it to return to TV, but with a whole new cast/backstory/drama...
montblanc
29-03-2018, 06:10 PM
wtf how did it get so much
Marsh.
29-03-2018, 06:11 PM
I've never watched it but there's something about the woman I can't stand. Her voice is awful. [emoji23]
Love Laurie Metcalfe though.
wtf how did it get so much
I don't even think The Bachelor gets anywhere near those views...
Sitting through mediocre sitcoms to own the libs!
Sitting through mediocre sitcoms to own the libs!You know nothing!
You know nothing!
You tell 'em, brah :clap1:
reece(:
30-03-2018, 01:15 AM
Did anyone see Roseanne dragging Wendy?
Nicky91
30-03-2018, 07:26 AM
wow slay Roseanne :clap1:
arista
30-03-2018, 08:17 AM
wtf how did it get so much
18Million
Trump shouted.
Folks remember her old series
CNN HD just showed 2 clips from the ABC show
having one Left Wing Lady Character , friend, in it
is the key.
Tom4784
30-03-2018, 11:28 AM
The Trump thing kills it for me tbh, her character's meant to be progressive but having her be a Trump supporter is quite irreconcilable with that given how much mileage he gets from endorsing hatred. From what I remember of the original series, she was political but not very partisan in her issues. I think drawing a line in her political beliefs either way ruins the character.
user104658
30-03-2018, 11:37 AM
BREAKING NEWS: A recent power surge in Washington DC caused a power plant to almost overload. The incident has been investigated, with the surge being traced to The White House. Upon inspection, 17 million televisions were discovered in a large underground bunker.
Gstar
30-03-2018, 12:46 PM
Did anyone see Roseanne dragging Wendy?
The local whites wouldn’t know but yes, it was brutal :skull:
Niamh.
30-03-2018, 12:49 PM
BREAKING NEWS: A recent power surge in Washington DC caused a power plant to almost overload. The incident has been investigated, with the surge being traced to The White House. Upon inspection, 17 million televisions were discovered in a large underground bunker.
:fan:
I used to love Rosanne back in the day. I must give the new one a watch
Crimson Dynamo
30-03-2018, 01:38 PM
Here for the fumes from the various "communities" and East coast
:joker:
user104658
30-03-2018, 02:18 PM
I do always find US viewership weird. I mean... 18m is huge in the US, but its only 5.5% of the population. Meanwhile in the UK a bog standard midweek episode of Eastenders still hits 6m (9% of population) and big episodes hit 11m (16% of population).
In fact, 5.5% of UK population is only 3.5 million viewers which would be considered pretty dire for a big season premier.
I guess it's the difference between big "free telly" shows and cable?
Anyways, just something that's baffled me for a while, like other US shows getting 4 million and that being considered fine, when in a country with 325 million people it actually seems kind of awful :joker:.
Kizzy
30-03-2018, 02:22 PM
Roseanne as trump propaganda?... * childhood ruined
Marsh.
30-03-2018, 03:03 PM
I do always find US viewership weird. I mean... 18m is huge in the US, but its only 5.5% of the population. Meanwhile in the UK a bog standard midweek episode of Eastenders still hits 6m (9% of population) and big episodes hit 11m (16% of population).
In fact, 5.5% of UK population is only 3.5 million viewers which would be considered pretty dire for a big season premier.
I guess it's the difference between big "free telly" shows and cable?
Anyways, just something that's baffled me for a while, like other US shows getting 4 million and that being considered fine, when in a country with 325 million people it actually seems kind of awful :joker:.I suppose it depends what percentage of the population are watching television at the time.
reece(:
30-03-2018, 03:33 PM
The local whites wouldn’t know but yes, it was brutal :skull:
Wendy's reaction ff
Season 2 already ordered by ABC.
I suppose it depends what percentage of the population are watching television at the time.
Most people here have cable, so I think it's more to do with the fact we have a lot of options for TV so not restricted to just one show. For example, locally we have 30 OTA (over the air) channels on broadcast (including Spanish language). After searching stats, supposedly only 24% are "cord-cutters". So 19million is actually fairly impressive, when we consider that most people have cable packages with a lot of different choices. I'd say the average cable package is anywhere from 100-200 channels. And most people get a basic+extended-esk option and some people sub to "premium" channels like HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc. So yeah, plenty to compete for people's eyeballs.
I think I read some statistic that said Americans generally watch about 5 hours of TV everyday. Which sounds about right.
And actually with one day of DVR counted, 21.9 million viewers and 6.2 rating... pretty impressive.
Marsh.
31-03-2018, 04:50 PM
Most people here have cable, so I think it's more to do with the fact we have a lot of options for TV so not restricted to just one show. For example, locally we have 30 OTA (over the air) channels on broadcast (including Spanish language). After searching stats, supposedly only 24% are "cord-cutters". So 19million is actually fairly impressive, when we consider that most people have cable packages with a lot of different choices. I'd say the average cable package is anywhere from 100-200 channels. And most people get a basic+extended-esk option and some people sub to "premium" channels like HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc. So yeah, plenty to compete for people's eyeballs.
I think I read some statistic that said Americans generally watch about 5 hours of TV everyday. Which sounds about right.Oh I know. There's hundreds of TV channels but I'm saying, depends how much of the population is watching tv at any one time for the execs to say whether a certain percentage was a good result or a bad one.
Kizzy
31-03-2018, 05:26 PM
Beeep! mom that didn't go through... They're making me work as a checkout girl and my starting salary is bacon!
Ok I officially love it, the trump thing is forgiven :laugh:
arista
03-04-2018, 09:53 AM
The latest numbers have gone up
to 25million viewers for the Hit show.
ref : FoxNewsHD
online only for UK, at this time.
Jamie89
12-04-2018, 06:42 PM
It's brilliant tbh, only seen the opening 2 eps but I'd go as far as saying it's funnier than the Will and Grace revival. Laurie Metcalf especially is a scream :love:
Mokka
12-04-2018, 06:45 PM
It's brilliant tbh, only seen the opening 2 eps but I'd go as far as saying it's funnier than the Will and Grace revival. Laurie Metcalf especially is a scream :love:
Ditto
James
29-05-2018, 06:12 PM
They've cancelled it because of her Twitter post.
ABC drops Roseanne show after racist tweet
2 minutes ago
ABC television network has cancelled comedian Roseanne Barr's show after she posted a racist tweet comparing a former Obama adviser to an ape.
ABC said: "Roseanne's Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values and we have decided to cancel her show."
Barr's tweet said Valerie Jarrett was the child of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Planet of the Apes film.
She deleted the post and apologised but could not contain the backlash.
"I apologise to Valerie Jarrett and to all Americans," Ms Barr wrote, after follow-up posts in which she defended her remarks as a "joke".
"I am truly sorry for making a bad joke about her politics and her looks. I should have known better. Forgive me-my joke was in bad taste."
Ms Barr's cast mate Sara Gilbert posted on Twitter that the cancellation was "incredibly sad and difficult".
Skip Twitter post by @THEsaragilbert
This is incredibly sad and difficult for all of us, as we’ve created a show that we believe in, are proud of, and that audiences love— one that is separate and apart from the opinions and words of one cast member.
— sara gilbert (@THEsaragilbert) May 29, 2018
Report
End of Twitter post by @THEsaragilbert
"We've created a show that we believe in," Ms Gilbert said in the tweet. "One that is separate and apart from the opinions and words of one cast member."
Following Ms Barr's tweet, one of Roseanne's consulting producers, Wanda Sykes, said she would not be returning to the show.
Skip Twitter post by @iamwandasykes
I will not be returning to @RoseanneOnABC.
— Wanda Sykes (@iamwandasykes) May 29, 2018
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44294632
(I updated the thread title.)
GiRTh
29-05-2018, 06:14 PM
1001525672899117056That happened fast.
GiRTh
29-05-2018, 06:15 PM
Oops didn't realise James was already on it. Can we merge the threads please
montblanc
29-05-2018, 06:16 PM
mess
Marsh.
29-05-2018, 06:16 PM
Bloody hell?
Like ending this season early or just not getting their second?
:omgno:
reece(:
29-05-2018, 06:16 PM
Welp, poor the rest of the cast.
Greg!
29-05-2018, 06:16 PM
It's what she DESERVES.
Marsh.
29-05-2018, 06:16 PM
It's gonna end up on Netflix or summat.
James
29-05-2018, 06:18 PM
Oops didn't realise James was already on it. Can we merge the threads please
Have merged.
Not true
Season 2 is on its way.
Some Staff writers have left
thats the REAL STORY
I'm not sure which part of "we have decided to cancel her show" you're not getting
Anyway, good riddance to racist garbage who accuses political figures of being involved in "Jewish conspiracies", tells others to kill themselves and compares school shooting survivors to Nazis, who should never have been given this kind of a platform in the first place
arista
29-05-2018, 06:22 PM
I'm not sure which part of "we have decided to cancel her show" you're not getting
Anyway, good riddance to racist garbage who accuses political figures of being involved in "Jewish conspiracies", tells others to kill themselves and compares school shooting survivors to Nazis, who should never have been given this kind of a platform in the first place
No I deleted it
It has been cancelled
some of my Live feed is on delay
Smithy
29-05-2018, 06:22 PM
Ha! Suffer bitch!
It's gonna end up on Netflix or summat.
The only way it'll return is if Fox decide to air it alongside Last Man Standing on a special Racism Night, but afaik it'd just be Roseanne by herself because most of the cast and crew are rightly ashamed to be associated with her
arista
29-05-2018, 06:24 PM
She Buggered it with
her wrong tweets
She has left twitter now
Marsh.
29-05-2018, 06:25 PM
What did she say? :worry:
Oaker
29-05-2018, 06:25 PM
lmao :clap1: racism lost :clap1:
reece(:
29-05-2018, 06:26 PM
Laurie Metcalf deserves her spinoff!
Greg!
29-05-2018, 06:27 PM
What did she say? :worry:
Said a black woman looked like an ape :skull:
What did she say? :worry:
What didn't she say?
(in this particular case, it was calling an African-American former Obama aide an ape)
Laurie Metcalf deserves her spinoff!
Tea
reece(:
29-05-2018, 06:28 PM
Said a black woman looked like an ape :skull:
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2444613259/ofr3y526211p8e4hoxqk.jpeg
arista
29-05-2018, 06:29 PM
Season 2 already ordered by ABC.
Yes it was
Sadly her recent tweets
Buggered up her ABC contract.
She should have not got Angry on twitter
ABC now gets credit
for pulling her show
Greg!
29-05-2018, 06:30 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2444613259/ofr3y526211p8e4hoxqk.jpeg
bcbbsbjxajnnjx BYE
Wow, how did she really think that would go. I don't know what her views are really, but a lot of her jokes are often low blows and very crass. Reminds me of Joan Rivers.
arista
29-05-2018, 06:36 PM
Wow, how did she really think that would go. I don't know what her views are really, but a lot of her jokes are often low blows and very crass. Reminds me of Joan Rivers.
She was doing well
loads got jobs.
getting angry on Twitter
was her Feck Up/
ABC/Disney had no choice with CNN LIVE shouting at them etc.
arista
29-05-2018, 06:53 PM
What did she say? :worry:
She called George Soros
a Nazi.
And Racist Tweets on Islam
Attacks on Obama
She later removed her tweets
Said Sorry.
But by then CNN and CNBC Live
were shouting at ABC.
She said some black bloke looked like a gorilla...
arista
29-05-2018, 07:15 PM
She said some black bloke looked like a gorilla...
She was probably Drunk.
Only Tweet when you are not Drunk or Angry
Alternatively, she wasn't drunk, she's just racist, so stop trying to make excuses for her
arista
29-05-2018, 07:20 PM
Alternatively, she wasn't drunk, she's just racist, so stop trying to make excuses for her
Sure.
She may not have been Drunk.
Her Agency has just Dropped her (ref:FoxNews online live)
Roseane has bipolar and other mental issues iirc, but she still did this to herself. Her mistake was being on Twitter in the first place I think. She just got her cast and crew essentially fired/underemployed...
arista
29-05-2018, 07:57 PM
Roseane has bipolar and other mental issues iirc, but she still did this to herself. Her mistake was being on Twitter in the first place I think. She just got her cast and crew essentially fired/underemployed...
Yes someone needed
to take Control of her Twitter
LaLaLand
29-05-2018, 08:24 PM
Roseanne is a monster.
user104658
29-05-2018, 09:19 PM
See... this is what happens when people start peddling the idea that "free speech" means that you can say literally whatever you want without consequences.
Protection of free speech in legal terms doesn't mean that, if you work for a private company you can't be fired :shrug: (which Rosanne essentially did, as her employment was reliant on her show being aired by a television channel owned by a private entity)
Amy Jade
29-05-2018, 09:21 PM
I don't feel bad for her but I do for the innocent cast and crew who are now out of a job because of one ignorant woman.
See... this is what happens when people start peddling the idea that "free speech" means that you can say literally whatever you want without consequences.
Protection of free speech in legal terms doesn't mean that, if you work for a private company you can't be fired :shrug: (which Rosanne essentially did, as her employment was reliant on her show being aired by a television channel owned by a private entity)
While I think what you say is a partial answer, I also believe that celebs get used to a lifestyle where they believe they can do no wrong and that the world is waiting on them giving their take on any subject you care to mention. It's only when they open their mouths that they realise they are not in step with the rest of society.
user104658
29-05-2018, 11:58 PM
As a side note... the thread title for this is now hilarious :hehe:
"'Roseanne' Ratings Blowout Stuns Hollywood [Update: It's been cancelled]"
ABC's loss. Some other network will gain by taking her on.
Tom4784
30-05-2018, 02:31 AM
ABC's loss. Some other network will gain by taking her on.
Nobody's gonna touch her, even her agent has dropped her now.
GiRTh
30-05-2018, 02:47 AM
She's done. Strange choice for a reboot in the first place. They knew what her opinions were when they decided on the reboot.
1001647345925173248
This is interesting though?
She's done. Strange choice for a reboot in the first place. They knew what her opinions were when they decided on the reboot.
1001647345925173248
This is interesting though?
I would've said oompa loompa :laugh:
reece(:
30-05-2018, 03:39 AM
Her retweets are a mess at the moment
ABC's loss. Some other network will gain by taking her on.
Maybe Alf, after some time has passed. A bad joke is maybe not the worst thing she could've done, whatever we think of the joke... so she could recover I think if she rehabs her image substantially, and especially if the climate around that calms down. Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite and he's still employed... Kathy Griffin... she literally took a picture of a Trump beheading, then apologized, then un-apologized, then re-apologized?... and then back to pleading innocence... I don't remember anymore, she's whackadoo... and now she is completely indignant about her "joke" gone bad, and that it was more about Trump&co trying to intimidate her than here trying to orchestrate an ill-advised attention seeking social media campaign...
I actually think this decision will adversely affect ABC... the constant boycotts, the cancellations, the constant crisises... it's all adds up after a while and creates fatigue for the viewer. Then they may wonder what is the point of broadcast media if they don't fully back their own programming... much less the "flaws" of the people they employ. Aren't we all flawed? Don't we all have skeletons in our closets? No sympathy for her really because it was her call, her joke to mess up... but I think that something doesn't add up here when companies are not willing to back their controversial hires... sort of how the media blame Middle America for Trump's rise... well, nobody told you to saturate TV coverage with his face... they helped create that monster too, but nooo it's neo-Nazis, rural Americans, Russia etc...
If all it takes is a tweet now for things to be pulled, no room for resolution? No room for forgiveness? I don't think this was a small flub, even for her... but people have been fried for less. Then what does this say about how the media looks at itself?... not a very optimistic view. Sometimes they don't drop, but they are not genuine about it... hold people accountable, hold them to the fire... Bill Maher got held to the fire on his own show, for racist jokes he made... and he's still employed by HBO.
I think it's become less about entertainment and more about following with the "status quo", i.e. pop culture, while trying to also get away with pulling sh** moves, attention seeking decisions, in order to preserve ratings...
They knew who they hired when they rebooted the show, so I think this move is very disingenuous... but that's the pattern, make a non-dumb, obviously aware and self-evident decision because they knew exactly what they were doing (tapping into a market that is ripe for tapping), claim an oops later on and then clean up the bloodstains with political Pinesol... oh and then pretend the roles have been reversed here... "Our company really had no idea... really, I swearz... how could they..." etc... a bit fastuous.
Her retweets are a mess at the moment
Retweets are constantly a mess. :laugh: I left Twitter several months ago. It's like a grime-y bus stop for Trolls and other folk who live off the fumes of incoherent tweet-factories & ranting talking heads who pander to the intellectually unrequited. (Finally, someone who agrees with me!...)
Mokka
30-05-2018, 05:34 AM
I'm laughing because I just spent the last hour and a half having all these same arguments with my boyfriend and son... and then came on here to see it repeated. I'm out of words for this one... but there are a lot of valid points on both sides being put forth in this thread... I liked TS's free speech post the best though.
arista
30-05-2018, 06:17 AM
She's done. Strange choice for a reboot in the first place. They knew what her opinions were when they decided on the reboot.
1001647345925173248
This is interesting though?
Yes but he has had these threats for a long time.
His show gets a lots of viewers
even us on SkyAtlanticHD
late night Sundays. (his HBO Friday show)
He is back in a week.
Mystic Mock
30-05-2018, 06:42 AM
Roseane has bipolar and other mental issues iirc, but she still did this to herself. Her mistake was being on Twitter in the first place I think. She just got her cast and crew essentially fired/underemployed...
The BIB is what bothers me the most, I honestly don't care what opinion she wants to spout as I don't watch the show anyway, but I do feel sorry for alot of the actors who probably needed Roseanne to make money, and she essentially lost them their jobs.
Crimson Dynamo
30-05-2018, 06:50 AM
probably the drink and sleeping pills combined with twitter. I doubt she was being racist but just wanted to be mean. Give it a year to die down and then away we go again
Mystic Mock
30-05-2018, 06:52 AM
I do always find US viewership weird. I mean... 18m is huge in the US, but its only 5.5% of the population. Meanwhile in the UK a bog standard midweek episode of Eastenders still hits 6m (9% of population) and big episodes hit 11m (16% of population).
In fact, 5.5% of UK population is only 3.5 million viewers which would be considered pretty dire for a big season premier.
I guess it's the difference between big "free telly" shows and cable?
Anyways, just something that's baffled me for a while, like other US shows getting 4 million and that being considered fine, when in a country with 325 million people it actually seems kind of awful :joker:.
Tbf America creates way more shows than the UK does, plus it has more channels than we do, that's why it's alot easier to get by with 4 million viewers on certain channels in the US.
Tbh with Roseanne though I don't think that it could get much higher than it achieved as I don't see many Trump haters watching the programme which is the majority of America.
Source: https://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idINKCN1IV11P
Roseanne Barr blames sleep aid Ambien for racist tweet
(Reuters) - U.S. comedian Roseanne Barr said she was tired of "being attacked and belittled" and blamed sleep aid Ambien for her tweet that compared a black former Obama administration official to an ape, a racist remark that sparked a wave of outrage.
Barr said in a series of Tweets on Tuesday and early on Wednesday that what she did was "unforgiveable" when she posted on Twitter that if the Islamist political movement "muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby = vj," referring to Valerie Jarrett, a former aide to President Barack Obama.
"It was 2 in the morning and I was Ambien tweeting-it was memorial day too-i went 2 far & do not want it defended-it was egregious Indefensible," she wrote. "I made a mistake I wish I hadn't but...don't defend it please."
In other Tweets, Barr said that she was tired of "being attacked and belittled more than other comedians who have said worse" and asked for people not to boycott ABC, saying that the network has the right to "do what they wish."
Walt Disney Co's ABC network on Tuesday canceled her popular U.S. television comedy "Roseanne" after her tweet.
Barr, 65, then apologized "for making a bad joke" about Jarrett, who is black and was born in Iran to American parents.
"Don't feel sorry for me, guys!!," Barr said in a Tweet late on Tuesday. "I just want to apologize to the hundreds of people, and wonderful writers (all liberal) and talented actors who lost their jobs on my show due to my stupid tweet."
Jarrett, 61, said on Tuesday that Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger called her before ABC announced the show's cancellation.
Hollywood talent agency ICM said in a statement on Tuesday it will no longer represent Barr. Several networks said it was removing reruns of her show. Hulu said episodes of the new show would no longer be available on its streaming service.
The original "Roseanne" ran from 1988 to 1997, featuring a blue-collar family, the Conners, with overweight parents struggling to get by. It was praised for its realistic portrayal of working-class life.
The current "Roseanne" was ABC's biggest hit of the 2017-2018 season, drawing an average 18.7 million viewers, second only to CBS sitcom "The Big Bang Theory," according to Nielsen data through May 20.
Niamh.
30-05-2018, 10:13 AM
Bloody hell, that tweet :skull:
Bloody hell, that tweet :skull:
even more glorious was Trump praising her for it :skull:
Livia
30-05-2018, 10:33 AM
Rosanne Barr turns out to be a big old racist and a really nasty, small minded person.
Who knew.......
user104658
30-05-2018, 11:10 AM
I hate it when people blame drugs (medication or otherwise) or alcohol for things they have said. These things don't CHANGE someone's thoughts or opinions! The best that can be claimed is that they lower inhibitions, remove their ability to foresee consequences, and so someone might say something that they would otherwise have held back. It's not that they wouldn't have the same thought or WANT to say the same things stone cold sober. Blaming sleep meds is ridiculous.
Also Disney is very sensitive about being seen as in any way supporting any sort of racism (and for good reason)... it's sort of amazing that she had a show on ABC in the first place, unless they thought of it as a satire / parody :think:.
Cherie
30-05-2018, 11:12 AM
I heard this morning that her children had taken her twitter account away from her previously :omgno:
arista
30-05-2018, 11:16 AM
I heard this morning that her children had taken her twitter account away from her previously :omgno:
Yes thats true
Her bi polar state is up and down
From CNN Talk HD their USA Showbiz man Brian Seltzer:
ABC/Disney may get the 200 workers into another show
without Rosanne there......................................
The Slim Reaper
30-05-2018, 11:27 AM
She wrote something similar about Susan Rice in 2013, so this excuse is a load of bollocks.
Amy Jade
30-05-2018, 12:51 PM
While I do think she deserves backlash and the comment was absoloutely moronic the people acting with such outrage on twitter are mostly hypocrites, one TV host who has blasted Roseanne posted a tweet about hoping Trump Towers got blown up and Trump died.
I think a lot of people who hate Trump are simply loving that she has messed up.
Livia
30-05-2018, 12:52 PM
I heard this morning that her children had taken her twitter account away from her previously :omgno:
Can someone please tell Trump's kids?
Crimson Dynamo
30-05-2018, 01:43 PM
While I do think she deserves backlash and the comment was absoloutely moronic the people acting with such outrage on twitter are mostly hypocrites, one TV host who has blasted Roseanne posted a tweet about hoping Trump Towers got blown up and Trump died.
I think a lot of people who hate Trump are simply loving that she has messed up.
+1
Tom4784
30-05-2018, 01:59 PM
Roseanne's a twat but I feel bad for all the people that are out of the job because of her. I'd have just fired her and relaunched the show without her.
arista
30-05-2018, 02:09 PM
Roseanne's a twat but I feel bad for all the people that are out of the job because of her. I'd have just fired her and relaunched the show without her.
That is still possible, time will tell,
as ABC/Disney want 18million viewers , again
The Slim Reaper
30-05-2018, 02:12 PM
While I do think she deserves backlash and the comment was absoloutely moronic the people acting with such outrage on twitter are mostly hypocrites, one TV host who has blasted Roseanne posted a tweet about hoping Trump Towers got blown up and Trump died.
I think a lot of people who hate Trump are simply loving that she has messed up.
Who's the TV host, and do you have the quote?
arista
30-05-2018, 02:12 PM
Can someone please tell Trump's kids?
No as one son, is already,
talking about her backlash being wrong.
Cherie
30-05-2018, 02:13 PM
While I do think she deserves backlash and the comment was absoloutely moronic the people acting with such outrage on twitter are mostly hypocrites, one TV host who has blasted Roseanne posted a tweet about hoping Trump Towers got blown up and Trump died.
I think a lot of people who hate Trump are simply loving that she has messed up.
Yep
kirklancaster
30-05-2018, 02:54 PM
While I do think she deserves backlash and the comment was absoloutely moronic the people acting with such outrage on twitter are mostly hypocrites, one TV host who has blasted Roseanne posted a tweet about hoping Trump Towers got blown up and Trump died.
I think a lot of people who hate Trump are simply loving that she has messed up.
Absolutely BANG ON.
Tom4784
30-05-2018, 02:59 PM
She's having a meltdown on Twitter apparently, saying that her co-workers have thrown her under the bus instead of acknowledging that her actions are her own.
Tom4784
30-05-2018, 03:01 PM
While I do think she deserves backlash and the comment was absoloutely moronic the people acting with such outrage on twitter are mostly hypocrites, one TV host who has blasted Roseanne posted a tweet about hoping Trump Towers got blown up and Trump died.
I think a lot of people who hate Trump are simply loving that she has messed up.
It's only hypocritical if everyone that's against Roseanne in this situation is unopposed to this example you're speaking of.
I don't think you can use one case that most people would be opposed to anyway to pass judgement on people that find Roseanne's comments unacceptable.
GiRTh
30-05-2018, 04:14 PM
1001848460881035265
Great response from Donny. Doesn't mention the comment or the staff now without a job, instead he makes it about himself.:joker:
smudgie
30-05-2018, 04:25 PM
Nasty mess of a woman.
Hopefully they can kill her off and the rest of the cast can carry on.
Crimson Dynamo
30-05-2018, 04:29 PM
Drag that hypocrisy Donald
MAGA
While I do think she deserves backlash and the comment was absoloutely moronic the people acting with such outrage on twitter are mostly hypocrites, one TV host who has blasted Roseanne posted a tweet about hoping Trump Towers got blown up and Trump died.
I think a lot of people who hate Trump are simply loving that she has messed up.
Eez true :love:
kirklancaster
30-05-2018, 04:33 PM
Drag that hypocrisy Donald
MAGA
It is hypocrisy. Trump is correct.
Greg!
30-05-2018, 04:51 PM
It's not hypocrisy because we are talking about a RACIST COMMENT. Jesus wept
I don't think that it's "bad" persay Roseanne said she /personally/ blames her medication... she had to give some kind of context behind the lack of consideration behind her behavior. Did the medication form the words that came from her mouth? No... but it played a part in her common sense maybe going out the window... so for her, was some measure of fault.
I know very little about her. But I'd heard some crazy things... I think I remember watching some other stuff where she said pretty vulgar language that turned me off... but this was so long ago... so I'm not surprised she would vomit at the mouth. Knowing her history and her mental problems. Some people are just like that when they are on the nastier end of that mood shift...
And actually, bipolar folk... they are prone to saying the worst things... but yeah, not an excuse. She needed to have given her Twitter to a third party... just like people who have mental health issues are responsible for keeping up with their medication. It's not ABC's fault she messed up and not on them to make it right... and she is right, they're entitled to do whatever they so choose... it's their brand. She can recover from this of course and get a job someplace else... it's not like she will be unemployable and on the street.
GiRTh
30-05-2018, 05:59 PM
1001824999496404992
The makers of Ambien have responded.
who even is this old dusty melania trump looking hag?
armand.kay
30-05-2018, 06:16 PM
It's a shame that people have now lost work because of her behaviour but her and her show can rot
It's a shame that people have now lost work because of her behaviour but her and her show can rot
And her fanbase really... I don't think it was a bad show. (Though I didn't really watch it myself)...
GiRTh
31-05-2018, 06:11 PM
1002224461154791429m
It will be very interesting to see if Bee apologises - I doubt it- so lets see if she keeps her show.
Amy Jade
31-05-2018, 06:18 PM
Who's the TV host, and do you have the quote?
Someone off The View. Forgot her name but she works with Sara Gilbert on the show.
GiRTh
31-05-2018, 06:32 PM
Someone off The View. Forgot her name but she works with Sara Gilbert on the show.Joy Behar hates Trump but I would be stunned if she made such a comment.
arista
31-05-2018, 06:34 PM
1002224461154791429m
It will be very interesting to see if Bee apologises - I doubt it- so lets see if she keeps her show.
Yes.
Double Standards
FACT
Shaun
31-05-2018, 06:36 PM
Yes.
Double Standards
FACT
In what world is feckless **** a racial slur?
arista
31-05-2018, 06:36 PM
It's a shame that people have now lost work because of her behaviour but her and her show can rot
For now.
But another show , without her, can start
Writers can be creative and clever.
arista
31-05-2018, 06:38 PM
In what world is feckless **** a racial slur?
Yes
but ,no need do it.
She may think
it will get a few more viewers?
GiRTh
31-05-2018, 06:40 PM
Yes.
Double Standards
FACTNot really cuz its just an insult on the person and not comparing her to an animal.
arista
31-05-2018, 06:41 PM
Not really cuz its just an insult on the person and not comparing her to an animal.
Yes but it crossed a line.
OK at the President
we expect that.
GiRTh
31-05-2018, 06:42 PM
Update: Bee has apologised. I wish she hadn't TBH
arista
31-05-2018, 06:42 PM
Update: Bee has apologised. I wish she hadn't TBH
Her Producer
would inform her to , though
GiRTh
31-05-2018, 06:47 PM
Yes but it crossed a line.
OK at the President
we expect that.
Don't accept that either. Ivanka works in the White House and is an official White House aide. Who was it opening the embassy in Jerusalem?
arista
31-05-2018, 06:47 PM
1001824999496404992
The makers of Ambien have responded.
Its USA of course they would.
Roseanne being Bi Polar
does not help.
Of Course, that's not a excuse for
what she said.
arista
31-05-2018, 06:49 PM
Don't accept that either. Ivanka works in the White House and is an official White House aide. Who was it opening the embassy in Jerusalem?
Not like she could say no to that.
GiRTh
31-05-2018, 06:55 PM
Not like she could say no to that.If she wants to be seen as untouchable then she needs to take more of a back seat. Rudy Giuliani said something interesting the other week on his first round of disastrous media appearances. He said the American people would turn against Robert Mueller if he started digging into Ivankas affairs. I think hes onto something but I think its is Donnie who will freak out if Mueller goes after Ivanka. He pretty much lost his sh&t over the Michael Cohen raid so what would he do if it was Ivanka :think:
arista
31-05-2018, 07:14 PM
Yes Girth
it changes very fast
Valid Points by you.
GiRTh
31-05-2018, 07:32 PM
Thank you for acknowledging the points were valid. :thumbs:
We know Mueller has interviewed Eric, Don Jr and Kushner but we don't think he's got round to Ivanka yet. So cable news says anyway; :shrug:
Jamie89
01-06-2018, 06:16 PM
Apparently there's interest in continuing the show without her (or a spin off), which I really hope happens. It's a great cast and they can easily carry it. Jackie is the star anyway.
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
user104658
01-06-2018, 06:30 PM
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 manualThat'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.
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
01-06-2018, 06:36 PM
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
01-06-2018, 06:38 PM
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.
user104658
01-06-2018, 06:43 PM
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?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)
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.
user104658
01-06-2018, 06:47 PM
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.
user104658
01-06-2018, 06:49 PM
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 :shrug:.
The Slim Reaper
01-06-2018, 06:49 PM
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?
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
01-06-2018, 06:55 PM
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 :laugh: 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.
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 :shrug:.They are, but their reasons for firing her are political.
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
01-06-2018, 07:02 PM
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.
user104658
01-06-2018, 07:10 PM
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.
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.
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.
user104658
01-06-2018, 07:36 PM
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.
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.
She's a comedian. She isn't forcing you to laugh. Why try to destroy her living for it?
user104658
01-06-2018, 08:17 PM
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 :joker:. 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?
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 :joker:. 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.
TMZ: ABC 'Roseanne' Reboot Discussions Centered Around Sara Gilbert
http://www.tmz.com/2018/06/01/abc-talking-roseanne-reboot-centered-sara-gilbert-character/
https://images.tmz.com/2018/06/01/0601-roseanne-cast-x-abc-3.jpg
"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."
user104658
01-06-2018, 09:14 PM
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.
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.
user104658
01-06-2018, 10:16 PM
So the idea then is that, given enough time, people will naturally self-regulate on an individual level to an equilibrium and its just a waiting game? Definitely an interesting concept, but I think it's beyond my faith in most of humanity to think that will ever realistically happen :hehe:.
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.
Alf you seem to be a bright lad so I refuse to belive that you don't get referining to a black person as an ape is racist......even now amongst us Afrikaaners..we refer to them as Baboons,monkeys,...and Kaffirs.(when I say we I mean it's some of my people not me)
To express shock horror and some being critized for reffering to black people as apes is either niave or something else...really hope you are naive
So the idea then is that, given enough time, people will naturally self-regulate on an individual level to an equilibrium and its just a waiting game? Definitely an interesting concept, but I think it's beyond my faith in most of humanity to think that will ever realistically happen :hehe:.
I never said anything about equilibrium. There is no such thing. It's more like we would find ways to adapt as a culture as a result of adjusting to these new "social" pressures and we progress individually as a result, and subsequently cultural evolution would likely follow. It's abstract, so hard to "track", but we have done it for thousands of years and is how we've managed to get this far as we have achieved so much. I think the current "revolution" in the media right now is a bit faux... it's not so easy to pick apart as simply videos of angry college students/protesters. If it were that simple, then we could get a pulse on other things... maybe even read people's minds... but no, we're bad mind readers.
What is PC if not for relying on people's ability to self-regulate? That's why it doesn't really work. On the other hand, if there was very little coercion necessary to get people to walk that line so to speak, then it probably would work too well. I think that's what most people envision when they say things like "PC gone mad"...
Either way, we're far away from the OP now... so best to leave it there.
Alf you seem to be a bright lad so I refuse to belive that you don't get referining to a black person as an ape is racist......even now amongst us Afrikaaners..we refer to them as Baboons,monkeys,...and Kaffirs.(when I say we I mean it's some of my people not me)
To express shock horror and some being critized for reffering to black people as apes is either niave or something else...really hope you are naiveDarwin referred to all of us as apes, I don't think that was racist.
Rosanne didn't refer to the woman as an ape, she thought she was a lookalike of that perticular ape in the picture she posted.
I've just googled the words "people who look like animals" pictures that came up included both White and Black people that look like animals, and I'm fairly certain the World didn't end because of this.
She's a comedian and what she did was in no way meant with racist intent in my opinion.
Marsh.
01-06-2018, 11:20 PM
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.
Yes it is. She was well within her rights to say what she did... so she did.
ABC were well within their rights to say they don't wish to work with and associate their business with such views and ended their collaboration.
That's how it works.
Free speech isn't a right to say something offensive and nobody else has the right to respond or have their own opinion and view on what's been said.
But... you knew that. :thumbs:
Yes it is. She was well within her rights to say what she did... so she did.
ABC were well within their rights to say they don't wish to work with and associate their business with such views and ended their collaboration.
That's how it works.
Free speech isn't a right to say something offensive and nobody else has the right to respond or have their own opinion and view on what's been said.
But... you knew that. :thumbs:It's like if you posted a picture of Snoop dog next to a picture of a Dobermann, and then your boss got in touch with you and said "sorry mate, we're gonna have to fire you fom your job, take away your living". That is the equivalent of what has happened to Rosanne, in reality.
Marsh.
02-06-2018, 12:00 AM
It's like if you posted a picture of Snoop dog next to a picture of a Dobermann, and then your boss got in touch with you and said "sorry mate, we're gonna have to fire you fom your job, take away your living". That is the equivalent of what has happened to Rosanne, in reality.
No, Roseanne is an outspoken racist. More fool her if she felt her bosses would be happy with one of the faces of their company being racist on a very public platform.
But... you knew that.
No, Roseanne is an outspoken racist. More fool her if she felt her bosses would be happy with one of the faces of their company being racist on a very public platform.
But... you knew that.What I do know is that you don't seem to be on the side of the worker, but are prepared to fight the corner for the monopolies and champion them when they make people unemployed for pathetic political reasons.
Marsh.
02-06-2018, 12:17 AM
What I do know is that you don't seem to be on the side of the worker, but are prepared to fight the corner for the monopolies and champion them when they make people unemployed for pathetic political reasons.
Yes, Roseanne is like a factory worker, and her boss is the big evil corporate machine.
Back in the real world.... Roseanne is the multi-millionaire executive producer and leading actress of a globally famous sitcom so far from the penniless, blameless and sh*t upon victim you try to portray. A collaboration has been severed, a single mother hasn't just been sacked from her minimum wage job.
But.... you knew that.
Yes, Roseanne is like a factory worker, and her boss is the big evil corporate machine.
Back in the real world.... Roseanne is the multi-millionaire executive producer and leading actress of a globally famous sitcom so far from the penniless, blameless and sh*t upon victim you try to portray. A collaboration has been severed, a single mother hasn't just been sacked from her minimum wage job.
But.... you knew that.So if a single mother factory worker had been fired for doing exactly what Rosanne did. would she be a victim?
Is Rosanne not allowed to be a victim because she's done well for herself in her career?
Marsh.
02-06-2018, 12:31 AM
So if a single mother factory worker had been fired for doing exactly what Rosanne did. would she be a victim?
Is Rosanne not allowed to be a victim because she's done well for herself in her career?
Not what I said, you implied we should be sympathising with Roseanne because she's the bottom line worker being treated like dirt by the corporate machine.
But, regardless of her actually being the one at fault, it isn't the case at all.
Not what I said, you implied we should be sympathising with Roseanne because she's the bottom line worker being treated like dirt by the corporate machine.
But, regardless of her actually being the one at fault, it isn't the case at all.You forget to say "But.....you knew that"
Marsh.
02-06-2018, 12:44 AM
You forget to say "But.....you knew that"
Because... you knew that.
Whats the skinny black haired daughter doing these days?
Marsh.
02-06-2018, 01:36 AM
Whats the skinny black haired daughter doing these days?
Still acting, presenting and writing by the look of it.
Darwin referred to all of us as apes, I don't think that was racist.
Rosanne didn't refer to the woman as an ape, she thought she was a lookalike of that perticular ape in the picture she posted.
I've just googled the words "people who look like animals" pictures that came up included both White and Black people that look like animals, and I'm fairly certain the World didn't end because of this.
She's a comedian and what she did was in no way meant with racist intent in my opinion.
darwin was referring to evolution ...FFs lets be real here..Roseanne Barr was not refering to evolution...She is comparing black people to Ape's...that is a well racist slur against black people no matter what part of the globe you come from
You mentioned earlier that you don't see being compared to an an animal is racist....As a 45yr old woman you can call me a pig...cow which I would take as an attempt to insult me..or even call me a feckless ****...all personal insult's ..not racial....Also Alf she has form in this behaviour...She has said that the Irish are Anti smite and should give Ireland back to the British...
I really think she is a troubled woman and hope she has at least a few good people around her
Posting this for Alf
Who Cares If Democrats Call You Racist?
https://i.imgur.com/58Ir63R.png
Two things can be true at once. Roseanne’s now infamous Valerie Jarrett joke was in poor taste, mean, and unfunny — hence her immediate and repeated apologies. Also, the popular furor to fire her along with the hundreds of crewmembers, actors, directors, and producers who worked for her is mostly motivated by the Left’s hysterical contempt for anyone even vaguely supportive of President Trump. How else to explain the sudden cancellation of Tim Allen’s hit, conservative show Last Man Standing or MSNBC’s continued employment of Joy Reid, who used her blog to spread offensive accusations about whole groups of people, including the smear that gay men categorically prey on young teenage boys?
I tweeted this simple observation in the wake of Roseann’e firing, which was too much for some conservatives. They warned me that anything but a loud and uniform condemnation of Roseanne Barr would give Democrats the opportunity to call conservatives racist — as if Democrat activists haven't already belched that smear at every Republican candidate in modern political history.
But I don’t judge people categorically for their race, and I don’t advocate discrimination against anyone categorically for their race. If you can say the same, then congratulations: you’re not a racist. So who cares how Democrats try unjustly to discredit you? Democrats — the party of slavery, Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan, black disarmament, among myriad other anti-black policies — have precisely zero moral credibility on racial issues against Republicans, whose party was founded explicitly to free the Democrats' slaves. Planned Parenthood as credibly accuses Santa Claus of child abuse as Democrats accuse Republicans of racism.
Roseanne deserves to be chided for her bad joke, and she was right to apologize. But which is more likely: the eccentric, admittedly mentally unstable pop culture figure we’ve all known for decades told a crude, rude, unfunny joke; or that Roseanne Barr is suddenly a white supremacist? No conservative needs to defend Roseanne; she’s a thick-skinned showbiz veteran who can defend herself. But neither should conservatives rush to condemn her in the pathetic, grandiose, desperate hope of winning the radical Left’s approval.
The economy is booming, the bureaucracy is poised to shrink, federal judges are respecting our laws and Constitution, illegal aliens are being denied entry into the United States, President Trump is resisting extralegal attempts to overturn the 2016 election, and so Democrats are furious. The only tool they have left is to feign hysterical indignation over tweets on news cycle after news cycle. Conservatives shouldn’t take the bait. We owe the party of slavery no explanation, and we shouldn’t covet its partisans’ approval.
Source: https://www.dailywire.com/news/31344/who-cares-if-democrats-call-you-racist-michael-j-knowles
Hmm.. didn't know Roseanne used to be a socialist? :laugh: I don't agree with all of Maher's opinions, but I do like that he added a little bit extra context there to her political activities... and he is actually funny, compared to other comedians/hosts.
66dTtqLFDtE
Also, they called for his head too as GiRTH posted?...
Both sides (left/right) have gone after Maher in the past, so he is no stranger to PC controversy himself and threats by the mob to have his show pulled... so he has reason to sympathize with her I think.
I still remember when he made the house n***ers joke on his show and then I think the next week after the backlash, they had him sit down some Black dude while they went through all the motions to correct/admonish him... all for the cameras of course.
Bill Maher has been a public racist for a long time. Here are the receipts.
https://thinkprogress.org/bill-maher-racist-history-b1d9c74283cd/
Posting this for Alf
Source: https://www.dailywire.com/news/31344/who-cares-if-democrats-call-you-racist-michael-j-knowles
it's not what you would call a balanced article though is it :laugh: It's coming from a place of deep resentment
it's not what you would call a balanced article though is it :laugh: It's coming from a place of deep resentment
Both sides are often coming from a place of deep resentment, so this is about as balanced as it can get I think... :laugh:
Hmm.. didn't know Roseanne used to be a socialist? :laugh: I don't agree with all of Maher's opinions, but I do like that he added a little bit extra context there to her political activities... and he is actually funny, compared to other comedians/hosts.
66dTtqLFDtE
Also, they called for his head too as GiRTH posted?...
Both sides (left/right) have gone after Maher in the past, so he is no stranger to PC controversy himself and threats by the mob to have his show pulled... so he has reason to sympathize with her I think.
I still remember when he made the house n***ers joke on his show and then I think the next week after the backlash, they had him sit down some Black dude while they went through all the motions to correct/admonish him... all for the cameras of course.
Bill Maher has been a public racist for a long time. Here are the receipts.
https://thinkprogress.org/bill-maher-racist-history-b1d9c74283cd/
There is something about Maher that I really don't like at all. I think he is a very disingenuous person
Brillopad
02-06-2018, 07:28 AM
Posting this for Alf
Source: https://www.dailywire.com/news/31344/who-cares-if-democrats-call-you-racist-michael-j-knowles
Excellent article and very true. It has puzzled me for a while now why so many are trying so hard to appease the loony left. Who cares what such an agenda-driven bunch of radicals think anyway! It all feels like some kind of fear-fuelled pied-piper effect. People need to grow a backbone.
Excellent article and very true. It has puzzled me for a while now why so many are trying so hard to appease the loony left. Who cares what such an agenda-driven bunch of radicals think anyway! It all feels like some kind of fear-fuelled pied-piper effect. People need to grow a backbone.
No agenda here.....folks move on!!!!
on a serious note because Xnephobia is a massive prolem now In Sa ...more so than racism,,,,,bearing in mind that China now owns South africa....feck even consider the worlds views on South Africa is that it's OK to refuse permission to the DAli Lama the fecking Dali lama is refuseed entry to SA because the rotten ANC Sleep nicely with who pays the most
They want to take land that never belonged to them in the first place....They are burning out scholls because they say ANC promised no school fee's...FFS that's like cutting off your feet to protest for a new pair of shoes..
Why not protest against the ANC componds ...they are the ones who made theses promises....now sadly the hospital staff in Jbourg are turring patients away..trowing them out..ransasking hospital records...because they want more money....Take it up with your Bloody corrupt ANC
OK rant over
Crimson Dynamo
02-06-2018, 09:53 AM
Yes it is. She was well within her rights to say what she did... so she did.
ABC were well within their rights to say they don't wish to work with and associate their business with such views and ended their collaboration.
That's how it works.
Free speech isn't a right to say something offensive and nobody else has the right to respond or have their own opinion and view on what's been said.
But... you knew that. :thumbs:
No, Roseanne is an outspoken racist. More fool her if she felt her bosses would be happy with one of the faces of their company being racist on a very public platform.
But... you knew that.
Yes, Roseanne is like a factory worker, and her boss is the big evil corporate machine.
Back in the real world.... Roseanne is the multi-millionaire executive producer and leading actress of a globally famous sitcom so far from the penniless, blameless and sh*t upon victim you try to portray. A collaboration has been severed, a single mother hasn't just been sacked from her minimum wage job.
But.... you knew that.
Because... you knew that.
i see members are able to read minds again?
its called "trying to shut down an opinion and its lazy
(i could have ended by saying "but then again you both knew that" but why would i be so presumptuous? )
user104658
02-06-2018, 10:39 AM
Both sides are often coming from a place of deep resentment, so this is about as balanced as it can get I think... [emoji23]He refers to the Democrats as "the party of slavery", it's not reeeaaally "as balanced as it gets" is it? :joker:
I do still get what he's (half) saying and what you've been getting at too Maru; people should stop pandering to the more extreme aspects of both sides of the debate (I say he half goes there, because he would clearly like to pretend that the extremism and hysterics is only on one side, which is nonsense). We SHOULD stop trying to appease both the "Everyone and everything is offensive and should be banned" side, AND the "pfft nothing is offensive (unless I personally am offended by it) what nonsense PC gone mmmmmeeerrrddd" side.
Where I'm still stuck is in the gulf between "we should" and "how do we". The sad fact is, there are a significant number of people who simply ENJOY tribalism and having "their team", with no significant difference at all between the side other than the content of the ranting.
Its like the football (soccer to our American friends) hooligans who go to games for the fight afterwards... They don't really care about the outcome of the game itself. They're not even really watching it.
Marsh.
02-06-2018, 02:23 PM
i see members are able to read minds again?
its called "trying to shut down an opinion and its lazy
(i could have ended by saying "but then again you both knew that" but why would i be so presumptuous? )
He says things like "Roseanne the worker treated badly by the corporation", which is a ridiculous notion even if you have never even watched Roseanne.
He also suggests free speech is a freedom to be offensive, but that free speech doesn't extend to others and their thoughts on those opinions.
That isn't his opinion, it's simply incorrect and ignorant of the actual facts.
He refers to the Democrats as "the party of slavery", it's not reeeaaally "as balanced as it gets" is it? :joker:
Well, that's actually true historically speaking... which is what he is referring to I think:
Yes, Democrats Supported Slavery, But That Misses the Point
https://www.mediaite.com/online/yes-democrats-supported-slavery-but-that-misses-the-point/
The Democrats will tar and feather the opposition to make it seem like the Republicans are guilty of all sorts of tyranny and bigotry. I think it's a pretty easy fight for them because they've managed to do this so successfully that they're now "synonymous" with bigotry... so should conservatives just sit there and take hit piece after hit piece, and not fight back? Because it might "look bad"...
...Is the entire point of the whole article. Those forces eventually have to be matched in kind somehow. Part of the reason for Trump's win is that he was willing to get down in the dirt with those same people who assumed (like Hillary) to be the know-it-alls for what is best for all folk, not just Democrats.
If the Dems are connecting all sorts of evils to the Republican party shy of naming their entire base members of the Nazi party, then they too must own their history... since "400 years of slavery" is often used in rhetoric as a reason to enable and incite the mob to bully and use racial & sexist smears against white folk who don't agree with a party's ideology... fighting back is the most balanced approach in that view. It is reciprocal and acting in kind to the types of attacks and arguments that have been thrown at those particular voters on a continuous basis, despite Trump.
The other reason I posted was because this article agrees with Alf, Roseanne being cancelled had to do 100% with politics, not anything to do with financial. I don't agree 100% with this view, just because I think given the state of broadcast media and the advent of the internet and capitalism, it's complicated to say that whole puzzle is politically motivated. There has to be some kind of financial incentive... but I'm open-minded to other ways of viewing the situation, and so I think it's helpful to share articles that portray another read on the situation.
Anyway I just wanted to point that out, because it is helpful to research other points of view that are in contrast to our own... and I've learned a lot from doing such research myself. May not agree with Alf on everything, but he forces me to think and I have always enjoyed that kind of challenge.
I do still get what he's (half) saying and what you've been getting at too Maru; people should stop pandering to the more extreme aspects of both sides of the debate (I say he half goes there, because he would clearly like to pretend that the extremism and hysterics is only on one side, which is nonsense). We SHOULD stop trying to appease both the "Everyone and everything is offensive and should be banned" side, AND the "pfft nothing is offensive (unless I personally am offended by it) what nonsense PC gone mmmmmeeerrrddd" side.
Where I'm still stuck is in the gulf between "we should" and "how do we". The sad fact is, there are a significant number of people who simply ENJOY tribalism and having "their team", with no significant difference at all between the side other than the content of the ranting.
Its like the football (soccer to our American friends) hooligans who go to games for the fight afterwards... They don't really care about the outcome of the game itself. They're not even really watching it.
This is true, and I don't think that even if the cultural upheaval settles down so to speak, that that will really change. There will always be a market for those ideas and people who make money to pander to those ideologies. Probably that market will remain here to stay for a good long while.
That's not necessarily a bad as I think it is helpful when the extremes are in front of us... that we know where going so far takes us, their results, what we can expect.
When I went to see Jordan Peterson this week. Anyway he went into this long thing about how we do tend to know as a society when the right goes too far (we think)... but we don't tend to know when the left has gone too far.
On the right, because the moderate-right know where that limit is, it's easier for them to help curtail that within their own group... but on the left, the moderate-left doesn't have the same developed eye for what it's own extremism would look like... so it's very difficult for it to police itself per say... I agree with him that if we can figure out what that is put simply enough that we can detect, then probably as a society, it would be much easier to read these flags and to do something about it...
No agenda here.....folks move on!!!!
on a serious note because Xnephobia is a massive prolem now In Sa ...more so than racism,,,,,bearing in mind that China now owns South africa....feck even consider the worlds views on South Africa is that it's OK to refuse permission to the DAli Lama the fecking Dali lama is refuseed entry to SA because the rotten ANC Sleep nicely with who pays the most
They want to take land that never belonged to them in the first place....They are burning out scholls because they say ANC promised no school fee's...FFS that's like cutting off your feet to protest for a new pair of shoes..
Why not protest against the ANC componds ...they are the ones who made theses promises....now sadly the hospital staff in Jbourg are turring patients away..trowing them out..ransasking hospital records...because they want more money....Take it up with your Bloody corrupt ANC
OK rant over
That sounds worse than anything that is going on here in the States... hopefully you are safe where you are, lime
He says things like "Roseanne the worker treated badly by the corporation", which is a ridiculous notion even if you have never even watched Roseanne.
He also suggests free speech is a freedom to be offensive, but that free speech doesn't extend to others and their thoughts on those opinions.
That isn't his opinion, it's simply incorrect and ignorant of the actual facts.No! what I'm saying is, if they can do it to Roseanne, then they can do it to anyone, even you and me.
If you say something in your own free time, that they personally don't agree with, then they can just take away your living.
If you're happy with that, then that's fine, but I wouldn't want that to happen to me, so I'll defend Roseanne here.
Marsh.
02-06-2018, 05:01 PM
No! what I'm saying is, if they can do it to Roseanne, then they can do it to anyone, even you and me.
If you say something in your own free time, that they personally don't agree with, then they can just take away your living.
If you're happy with that, then that's fine, but I wouldn't want that to happen to me, so I'll defend Roseanne here.
It's not her own free time. It's in a public arena, and she is the "face" of ABC whilst in contract with them, so what she does on a public stage absolutely involves them.
So, not quite being sacked due to something you've said to your husband at home whilst watching TV.
It's not her own free time. It's in a public arena, and she is the "face" of ABC whilst in contract with them, so what she does on a public stage absolutely involves them.
So, not quite being sacked due to something you've said to your husband at home whilst watching TV.So if we want to use social media, we must accept Orwellian rules against us as part of the deal?
user104658
02-06-2018, 05:24 PM
No! what I'm saying is, if they can do it to Roseanne, then they can do it to anyone, even you and me.
If you say something in your own free time, that they personally don't agree with, then they can just take away your living.
If you're happy with that, then that's fine, but I wouldn't want that to happen to me, so I'll defend Roseanne here.
So if we want to use social media, we must accept Orwellian rules against us as part of the deal?
Who are "they" though, Alf. For it to be Orwellian you'd have to be talking about the government, and again, it isn't the government - it's the companies these people work for... private companies... who in a free market economy can hire & fire whoever they want to hire & fire. The only way around it is to have the government implement laws where they tell private business owners who they can and can't hire & fire - MORE government control over private enterprise... which IS Orwellian.
Who are "they" though, Alf. For it to be Orwellian you'd have to be talking about the government, and again, it isn't the government - it's the companies these people work for... private companies... who in a free market economy can hire & fire whoever they want to hire & fire. The only way around it is to have the government implement laws where they tell private business owners who they can and can't hire & fire - MORE government control over private enterprise... which IS Orwellian.My argument is that it's wrong to take away a persons living off them for their thoughts. Life is hard enough as it is.
Roseanne thought that the lady looked like a character from "Planet of the Apes" and as a comedian she made a joke about it. They fired her for her thoughts.
user104658
02-06-2018, 05:36 PM
My argument is that it's wrong to take away a persons living off them for their thoughts. Life is hard enough as it is.
Roseanne thought that the lady looked like a character from "Planet of the Apes" and as a comedian she made a joke about it. They fired her for her thoughts.
No they fired her for saying it in public / publishing it, not for thinking it. If they could somehow read her mind and fired her for thinking it I would agree that it's wrong. If she had said it in a private conversation at home or to a friend and someone had overheard then I would agree it's wrong. But she published it to thousands (millions?) of followers on Twitter and that makes it a different situation for her employer.
For example... if I said something racist to my wife at home (not that I would :hee: but if I did) then I would have an expectation of privacy and that even if it was somehow recorded or something and my employer heard it, it would be none of their business. BUT... If I went into town, even on my day off, and stood near my place of employment shouting racist jokes... then yes, I would probably expect to face some disciplinary action.
Northern Monkey
02-06-2018, 05:50 PM
Joe Rogan knows her and spoke on the phone with her about it.
He talks about what she said here.
GhxV90u-xME
No they fired her for saying it in public / publishing it, not for thinking it. If they could somehow read her mind and fired her for thinking it I would agree that it's wrong. If she had said it in a private conversation at home or to a friend and someone had overheard then I would agree it's wrong. But she published it to thousands (millions?) of followers on Twitter and that makes it a different situation for her employer.
For example... if I said something racist to my wife at home (not that I would :hee: but if I did) then I would have an expectation of privacy and that even if it was somehow recorded or something and my employer heard it, it would be none of their business. BUT... If I went into town, even on my day off, and stood near my place of employment shouting racist jokes... then yes, I would probably expect to face some disciplinary action.But were does that end?
Within a couple days, people have been calling for Bill Maher, Jimmy Kimmel and Samantha Bee to be fired, for things that they have said that people have found offensive, and now that will continue. And let's be honest, they've got a point. Bill Maher said something along the lines of Trumps mother had sex with an orang-utan to produce Donald, he said that in while at work. So going by company policy, he should have been fired immedietly, shouldn't he?
Maher is anti Trump and Barr is pro Trump and that's the difference, they're not equal.
Vicky.
02-06-2018, 05:56 PM
Maher was fired from ABC though wasn't he? :suspect:
Had never heard of him, but many on twitter seem to be saying that he was.
Northern Monkey
02-06-2018, 06:08 PM
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)
Yeah this is true.Even if it wasn’t racist as she says.If it even appears as if it could be then it can harm the TV company.
Same with the NFL handing out fines to players protesting the national anthem.
If it’s damaging the company image and losing them money in the long run then they’re gonna act.Like you say the US is’nt a communist society and is a free market.
People in the public eye,Specially older people are still getting used to social media and don’t realise that they’re representing the business they work for.
Not to mention the medication and alcohol in her at the time.
I think she probably needs to get off Twitter if her judgement gets that impaired.
arista
02-06-2018, 06:11 PM
Maher was fired from ABC though wasn't he? :suspect:
Had never heard of him, but many on twitter seem to be saying that he was.
Yes he was.
Now he safe on HBO
his Show is also on our SkyAtlanticHD
user104658
02-06-2018, 06:16 PM
But were does that end?
Within a couple days, people have been calling for Bill Maher, Jimmy Kimmel and Samantha Bee to be fired, for things that they have said that people have found offensive, and now that will continue. And let's be honest, they've got a point. Bill Maher said something along the lines of Trumps mother had sex with an orang-utan to produce Donald, he said that in while at work. So going by company policy, he should have been fired immedietly, shouldn't he?
Maher is anti Trump and Barr is pro Trump and that's the difference, they're not equal.I'm not going to disagree that there seems to be an imbalance, and a pretty big one, but again all I can really say is that it doesn't actually matter in terms of what I'm talking about... Because again, it's not a government / society decision. In Rosanne's case, and every other case, it's quite simply up to the employer if they want to keep that person on or not. If they think keeping them on will cost them in the long run they'll get rid of them, if they think they're still profitable they'll keep them. These companies are not in the ethics business, no matter how much the pretend to be... Their staff and "stars" are trading commodities and assets. That's it.
You know how the horses work surely Alf? In this situation... Rosanne was a prize racehorse for ABC with her show - but when she made that tweet, she "broke her leg". She's no longer valuable to them so she's off to the glue factory :shrug:.
It IS harsh and it's not really morally right at all if you think about it, but the only answer is for the US government to take some control away from private companies and dictate what is and isn't a fireable offense. There are much more robust employment laws in other countries for example. But the US people just do not seem to want that... They value their economic freedoms very highly... And won't sign off on the government being able to meddle too much in private business decisions.
I'm not going to disagree that there seems to be an imbalance, and a pretty big one, but again all I can really say is that it doesn't actually matter in terms of what I'm talking about... Because again, it's not a government / society decision. In Rosanne's case, and every other case, it's quite simply up to the employer if they want to keep that person on or not. If they think keeping them on will cost them in the long run they'll get rid of them, if they think they're still profitable they'll keep them. These companies are not in the ethics business, no matter how much the pretend to be... Their staff and "stars" are trading commodities and assets. That's it.
You know how the horses work surely Alf? In this situation... Rosanne was a prize racehorse for ABC with her show - but when she made that tweet, she "broke her leg". She's no longer valuable to them so she's off to the glue factory :shrug:.
It IS harsh and it's not really morally right at all if you think about it, but the only answer is for the US government to take some control away from private companies and dictate what is and isn't a direable offense. There are much more robust employment laws in other countries for example. But the US people just do not seem to want that... They value their economic freedoms very highly... And won't sign off on the government being able to meddle too much in private business decisions.But when these company's all have the same political agenda, it could be argued that it is. I think it is fair to say that these TV networks are the propaganda wing for their political agenda.
Marsh.
02-06-2018, 06:28 PM
My argument is that it's wrong to take away a persons living off them for their thoughts.
No it isn't. It's ending a collaboration with an artist because they're bringing the brand bad publicity.
She's a self employed actress, producer and writer and a network have cancelled their contract with her for good reason. That's on her.
Marsh.
02-06-2018, 06:31 PM
So if we want to use social media, we must accept Orwellian rules against us as part of the deal?
What's Orwellian about it?
Who's "they" and who's forcing any rules on you or anyone else who use social media?
Roseanne knew the terms and conditions of her multi-million dollar contract, not to mention is old enough to know that racism is unacceptable in modern society.
A globally recognised company that relies on image and reputation isn't going to keep a face on their channel who is being openly racist on a public stage.
So, that's on her. Not this imaginary scenario you've dreamt up.
I'd say it's more Orwellian to suggest Roseanne should be free to be as racist as she pleases and nobody else has any right to respond to that as they see fit.
No it isn't. It's ending a collaboration with an artist because they're bringing the brand bad publicity.
She's a self employed actress, producer and writer and a network have cancelled their contract with her for good reason. That's on her.Isn't any publicity good publicity? Publicity being the key word there.
They fired her for her politics.
Marsh.
02-06-2018, 06:35 PM
I'm not going to disagree that there seems to be an imbalance, and a pretty big one, but again all I can really say is that it doesn't actually matter in terms of what I'm talking about... Because again, it's not a government / society decision. In Rosanne's case, and every other case, it's quite simply up to the employer if they want to keep that person on or not. If they think keeping them on will cost them in the long run they'll get rid of them, if they think they're still profitable they'll keep them. These companies are not in the ethics business, no matter how much the pretend to be... Their staff and "stars" are trading commodities and assets. That's it.
You know how the horses work surely Alf? In this situation... Rosanne was a prize racehorse for ABC with her show - but when she made that tweet, she "broke her leg". She's no longer valuable to them so she's off to the glue factory :shrug:.
It IS harsh and it's not really morally right at all if you think about it, but the only answer is for the US government to take some control away from private companies and dictate what is and isn't a fireable offense. There are much more robust employment laws in other countries for example. But the US people just do not seem to want that... They value their economic freedoms very highly... And won't sign off on the government being able to meddle too much in private business decisions.
Tbh, it's not even an American thing. It's an entertainment industry thing. It works completely differently. Roseanne is more self employed and the company hire her services as an actress/producer/writer etc.
It's much easier to cease using hired help.
Marsh.
02-06-2018, 06:36 PM
Isn't any publicity good publicity? Publicity being the key word there.
They fired her for her politics.
No. Racism aint going to bring anything good.
If she was fired for her politics, her programme would never have made it to air in the first place.
No. Racism aint going to bring anything good.Why is Jimmy Kimmel still employed then? People have complained about him using Blackface, and he refused to apologies for it.
He's good at bashing Trump though, so that might be a reason, you think?
Marsh.
02-06-2018, 06:41 PM
Why is Jimmy Kimmel still employed then? People have complained about him using Blackface, and he refused to apologies for it.
He's good at bashing Trump though, so that might be a reason, you think?
I don't know anything about that so I can't comment.
But she's been a big Trump supporter for years and even incorporated that into her sitcom, which they happily revived for her and renewed for another season after just 1 or 2 episodes had aired. So, to suggest she's now being fired for that is actually kind of laughable.
I don't know anything about that so I can't comment.
But she's been a big Trump supporter for years and even incorporated that into her sitcom, which they happily revived for her and renewed for another season after just 1 or 2 episodes had aired. So, to suggest she's now being fired for that is actually kind of laughable.Seeing as she's now been publically flogged, that could have just been a profitable ploy.
They gain a successful show to boost their ratings, and as soon as Roseanne says something a bit risqué, we can pin a racist label on her. "Look everyone, Trump supporters are all racist" It's win win.
Marsh.
02-06-2018, 06:53 PM
Seeing as she's now been publically flogged, that could have just been a profitable ploy.
They gain a successful show to boost their ratings, and as soon as Roseanne says something a bit risqué, we can pin a racist label on her. "Look everyone, Trump supporters are all racist" It's win win.
That makes no sense. But you do you.
Joe Rogan knows her and spoke on the phone with her about it.
He talks about what she said here.
GhxV90u-xME
Huh.. Kevin Smith is on this? Will have to listen to this later. I don't really watch much Joe Rogan, but depending on who he interviews, I may watch his show.
I've heard a lot of bad things about Ambien in general, particularly from family members. A few of my doctors have tried to put me on it a few times for insomnia and I always say no... I was on another medication that caused severe memory loss and other problems. I couldn't drive for a year, as I would just "zone out" and potentially could weave into oncoming traffic... but that isn't something you only just notice after a bad tweet.. if the effects are that severe, then it's maybe a bad idea to keep that within fingertips if they're a person who is prone to word vomit... which is possible for her if her bipolar is severe enough... but being that she is a celebrity, she has to take extra steps given celebrity is always going to be held to a ridiculous standard regardless... I don't know if that is "political" per say as that has always been true. So it's not really her company's fault if she acts in such a way that damages the brand... though I agree with the video, they called it very quickly. They may have already been witness to her state in other ways if you know what i mean and they only that deemed acceptable enough to tolerate for their brand as long as it stayed private and with the crew... after all, this is Hollywood... sexual harassment, drug addiction and mental illness on set?... that's part of the norm probably... it's also possible they were on the edge of making this call other past grievances on social media... I know there's a list of things she's said in the past and they may have briefed her to remain behind a certain line or risk these types of consequences... she may have disregarded those prior PR instructions in their mind about not to pushing the envelope and they may have felt their hands were tied once she crossed the line...
Seeing as she's now been publically flogged, that could have just been a profitable ploy.
They gain a successful show to boost their ratings, and as soon as Roseanne says something a bit risqué, we can pin a racist label on her. "Look everyone, Trump supporters are all racist" It's win win.
I don't know that they even thought her show would be successful even... maybe some initial high ratings due to nostalgia, but a drop off after a point.
Source: http://www.tmz.com/2018/06/09/roseanne-reboot-major-problem-hang-up/?adid=hero1
'Roseanne' Reboot There's One Big Hang-Up ... Roseanne!!!
https://i.imgur.com/fA1KqCS.jpg
ABC is still all-in on moving forward with a second "Roseanne" reboot -- this one revolving around Sara Gilbert's character -- but there's a major issue to resolve ... ownership.
Sources close to the production tell TMZ ... because Roseanne Barr created the show with the original executive producers, she has a financial stake in it and its characters. It's unclear which specific ones she created, but we're told the network is doing its due diligence to avoid a lawsuit.
It's very possible, we're told, that Roseanne could put her foot down and say there will be no revamped reboot unless she gets a piece of the pie. However, if she's making dough off the new version, it defeats the purpose of canceling the show after her racist comment.
We broke the story ... ABC execs kicked negotiations into high gear earlier this week in hopes of announcing the new show ASAP, but now we know -- there's more work to do
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.