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.

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-...ses-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.

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...

That sounds worse than anything that is going on here in the States... hopefully you are safe where you are, lime

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.

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.

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.

Joe Rogan knows her and spoke on the phone with her about it.
He talks about what she said here.

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.

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.

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.

Yes he was.

Now he safe on HBO
his Show is also on our SkyAtlanticHD

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.

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.

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.

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.

Isn't any publicity good publicity? Publicity being the key word there.

They fired her for her politics.

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.

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.

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.

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.