The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Greg Davidson on May 30, 2018, 01:20:44 AM

Title: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Greg Davidson on May 30, 2018, 01:20:44 AM
This happened today by ABC in response to a tweet she made that used racially charged language about a female African American (Valerie Jarrett) who worked in the Obama Administration. I think Roseanne Barr has every right to make any kind of comments, even racist ones. There absolutely should not be any law made that would impede her ability to make such comments.

I also think that those working on this show have the right to resign in protest, and ABC/Disney has the right to cancel the show, which they did.

I personally suspect that this will get picked up as the first sitcom on Fox News or by some other network (HBO has a much wider range of speech in its programs, and I find somethings there pretty offensive even when they are ostensibly attacks from the left on the right - for example, Bill Maher). And this cancellation will probably strongly motivate those fighting culture wars from he right to support the show, guaranteeing a very large audience which = $$$)


PS: I did find amusing the idea to recast the lead of the new Roseanne, using Wanda Sykes (an African American comic who was some kind of producer on the show and who resigned after Roseanne Barr's comments) - the joke being that they recast the daughter Becky in the middle of the first run of the series, they both pointed at the change in casting and ignored it.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on May 30, 2018, 09:40:36 AM
That would be interesting, although since Sara Gilbert was the first to recoil from the statement and denounce it on Twitter I'm not certain she'd even want to continue with the show with Roseanne in the lead. They had also just lost some of the key writing staff, so not sure how feasible it would be to continue.

You'd think by now that celebrity managers would have a tighter control over what their clients do on social media. I almost wonder whether a gaff like this could result in a lawsuit against Roseanne for loss of income.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on May 30, 2018, 10:03:37 AM
Credit to Rosanne for admitting fault, because she could have claimed she was a victim of a deep state hack and 30% would believe it. I wonder if maybe she just wasn't having fun in a show with liberal themes and nuked it. Just read now that she's blaming ambien. So, that explains why you didn't have a filter, but not why you found it acceptable to think of a human as an ape, but don't forget the other part which I think is worse about being part of the Muslim brotherhood.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: yossarian22c on May 30, 2018, 10:10:20 AM
That would be interesting, although since Sara Gilbert was the first to recoil from the statement and denounce it on Twitter I'm not certain she'd even want to continue with the show with Roseanne in the lead. ...

I think the idea Greg was getting at was for Roseanne (herself) to be replaced by Wanda Sykes.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Greg Davidson on May 30, 2018, 10:21:55 AM
yossarian22c, yes, I remember in the original when they changed out actresses playing the role of the daughter Becky, they did so by having the family around the kitchen table talking about the one previous time to that a prime time show had swapped actors. They were all discussing whether they preferred the first "Darrin" on the show Bewitched or the second one, and everyone in the Connor family says  that they preferred the first actor until they get to the last family member, which in this shot was the new actress playing Becky. And she disagrees and says that the second Darrin was so much better. And  that's the only reference they made to the fact that suddenly the eldest daughter was being played by a different actress
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on May 30, 2018, 11:41:55 AM
Quote
Sanofi, the maker of Ambien, responded with a statement full of shade: "While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication."

Well played, Sanofi, well played.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on May 30, 2018, 04:25:30 PM
This happened today by ABC in response to a tweet she made that used racially charged language about a female African American (Valerie Jarrett) who worked in the Obama Administration. I think Roseanne Barr has every right to make any kind of comments, even racist ones. There absolutely should not be any law made that would impede her ability to make such comments.

I also think that those working on this show have the right to resign in protest, and ABC/Disney has the right to cancel the show, which they did.

I personally suspect that this will get picked up as the first sitcom on Fox News or by some other network (HBO has a much wider range of speech in its programs, and I find somethings there pretty offensive even when they are ostensibly attacks from the left on the right - for example, Bill Maher). And this cancellation will probably strongly motivate those fighting culture wars from he right to support the show, guaranteeing a very large audience which = $$$)

I think I pretty much agree with everything here.  Except for the fact that I doubt Fox News will actually pick it up as a sitcom.  Maybe Greg was joking.  Right now I think Rosanne Barr is basically kryptonite for every network exec.  Interesting to mention Bill Maher, who probably used some more racist language, yet the torches and pitchforks did not get him.  He was allowed to apologize and move on. 

While I support fully the idea that employers and customers should retain the right to associate with whom they wish, I cannot fully support the idea that customers should demand termination for politically incorrect, racist, rude, *censored*ty, intolerant speech.  We've taught ourselves that the proper response to racism and political incorrectness is to demand the individual loses their job.  It seems petulant to me.  This includes demanding a second string quarterback be fired (or deported or some other ridiculous *censored*), because they are disrespectful or whatever to national symbols, or refusing to watch football.  It's all petulant, un-proportional, and dare I say it, unjust.  It also seems to be highly conditional, given how some people get a pass and others don't.  I imagine some will say that's a feature not a bug. 

We're at the point where people are demanding other people be fired because they said something mean.  Racism is a real problem, always has been, but if you teach racists that you're going to bring guns to rap battles then don't be surprised that negative things start to happen.  It's certainly not going to help end racism.  It's just going to push it underground.  I suppose some other people will also see that as a feature and not a bug.  Easier to always decode who the hidden wizards of the KKK are.  What would we do without "dog whistle" accusations? 

My personal belief is that speech should be met with speech.  Somebody calls you a name?  Feel free to call them something back.  It's still not illegal to say something stupid or racist, and that's a good thing.  Let's try to keep things proportional, and get back to where we are tough enough as a people to believe that "words can never hurt me". 

Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on May 30, 2018, 04:41:09 PM
Let's try to keep things proportional, and get back to where we are tough enough as a people to believe that "words can never hurt me".

You're forgetting the law of action and reaction: for every horrible person, that person must be punished.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on May 30, 2018, 04:46:48 PM
Let's try to keep things proportional, and get back to where we are tough enough as a people to believe that "words can never hurt me".

You're forgetting the law of action and reaction: for every horrible person, that person must be punished.

I'm all for punishment.  I'm just calling for proportional punishment, rooted in the idea of retributive justice (which doesn't seem to have any fans anyways but the same people who don't like the idea seem to also like getting people fired), and pulling back from a precipice where all of society is ready to shoot someone who "dissed" them. 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on May 30, 2018, 05:06:06 PM
Quote
Interesting to mention Bill Maher, who probably used some more racist language, yet the torches and pitchforks did not get him. He was allowed to apologize and move on.

There are a lot of people from the liberal side who have hammered Bill on his racist commentary. Why isn't he fired? HBO doesn't have to sell ad time on his program. Some may recall that Maher was also a guy who got fired by ABC for his loud mouth. I liked his show when it was on ABC, he's unwatchable now that nobody is looking over his shoulder.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Gaoics79 on May 30, 2018, 05:20:56 PM
yossarian22c, yes, I remember in the original when they changed out actresses playing the role of the daughter Becky, they did so by having the family around the kitchen table talking about the one previous time to that a prime time show had swapped actors. They were all discussing whether they preferred the first "Darrin" on the show Bewitched or the second one, and everyone in the Connor family says  that they preferred the first actor until they get to the last family member, which in this shot was the new actress playing Becky. And she disagrees and says that the second Darrin was so much better. And  that's the only reference they made to the fact that suddenly the eldest daughter was being played by a different actress

They did a later episode where John Goodman plays an adult Deejay in a mental institution who can only repeat the same refrain over and over: "they say she's the same but she's not".
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on May 30, 2018, 05:35:10 PM

There are a lot of people from the liberal side who have hammered Bill on his racist commentary. Why isn't he fired? HBO doesn't have to sell ad time on his program. Some may recall that Maher was also a guy who got fired by ABC for his loud mouth. I liked his show when it was on ABC, he's unwatchable now that nobody is looking over his shoulder.

I'm sure there were a lot of people on the liberal side who hammered Bill for his racist commentary.  I'm unsure if that means they all demanded that he be fired.  I'm also somewhat unconvinced of most of the liberal arguments made against him. I honestly don't know if Mill Maher is a racist.  I know he's disrespectful and somewhat uncourteous. 

As to his show being unwatchable, I've never watched it.  But apparently plenty of people do watch him on Friday nights.  So he can't be quite unwatchable. 

I honestly feel "good for HBO".  Maher may be a completely insufferable prick, but bowing to torch and pitchfork mobs is distasteful to me. 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on May 30, 2018, 06:35:18 PM
Just read now that she's blaming ambien. So, that explains why you didn't have a filter, but not why you found it acceptable to think of a human as an ape, but don't forget the other part which I think is worse about being part of the Muslim brotherhood.

This is part of the problem, and part of the answer, sadly. I've thought of other human beings as "being apes" at times, and most of the time, the people I thought that about were white. Keep in mind, I'm a white guy.

The expression "has a history," particularly in certain regions, which is a large part of the problem. Because it makes it very difficult to separate out the ones who are not being racist, but rather rendering commentary on the behavior of the person in question. "Behaving like a primate." Rather than someone who literally believes that a particular (ethnic/racial) group of people are literally "indistinguishable" from primates or apes as you choose.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on May 30, 2018, 06:46:49 PM
While I support fully the idea that employers and customers should retain the right to associate with whom they wish, I cannot fully support the idea that customers should demand termination for politically incorrect, racist, rude, *censored*ty, intolerant speech.  We've taught ourselves that the proper response to racism and political incorrectness is to demand the individual loses their job.  It seems petulant to me.  This includes demanding a second string quarterback be fired (or deported or some other ridiculous *censored*), because they are disrespectful or whatever to national symbols, or refusing to watch football.  It's all petulant, un-proportional, and dare I say it, unjust.  It also seems to be highly conditional, given how some people get a pass and others don't.  I imagine some will say that's a feature not a bug. 

We're at the point where people are demanding other people be fired because they said something mean.  Racism is a real problem, always has been, but if you teach racists that you're going to bring guns to rap battles then don't be surprised that negative things start to happen.  It's certainly not going to help end racism.  It's just going to push it underground.  I suppose some other people will also see that as a feature and not a bug.  Easier to always decode who the hidden wizards of the KKK are.  What would we do without "dog whistle" accusations? 

My personal belief is that speech should be met with speech.  Somebody calls you a name?  Feel free to call them something back.  It's still not illegal to say something stupid or racist, and that's a good thing.  Let's try to keep things proportional, and get back to where we are tough enough as a people to believe that "words can never hurt me".

In some respects, I think the whole "burn them because they something which could be considered racist" thing has a number of shades of George Orwell in it. It is restricting the range of speech that people are being "allowed" to use in society at large, even when the particular usage in question may not actually have been racist.

Somebody calling a highschool football team in Hicksville, Montana "a giant collection of apes" isn't likely to be burned at the stake, but change that location to somewhere in Mississippi, watch out. We are living in the age of the new Salem Witch Trials, only it isn't secret withcraft we're on the lookout for, it is racism, and your own poorly chosen turn of phrase is more than enough to convict.

At least in this case, it seems to be they'll settle for a scarlet letter rather than killing you outright, but all the same, not good.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on May 30, 2018, 07:29:33 PM
Quote
Interesting to mention Bill Maher, who probably used some more racist language, yet the torches and pitchforks did not get him. He was allowed to apologize and move on.

There are a lot of people from the liberal side who have hammered Bill on his racist commentary. Why isn't he fired? HBO doesn't have to sell ad time on his program. Some may recall that Maher was also a guy who got fired by ABC for his loud mouth. I liked his show when it was on ABC, he's unwatchable now that nobody is looking over his shoulder.

Just a nitpick, but he was fired for suggesting that suicide bombers are not cowards as the media narrative was suggesting, and if anything are courageous. It was more of a speculative question than a definitive statement by him but even asking his panel a question framed in that manner got him fired. It wasn't the racism narrative that got him, it was the pro-America (anti-terrorist) narrative.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Gaoics79 on May 30, 2018, 09:03:54 PM
I am not sure exactly what incident we are referencing (Maher has said many un-pc things) but I thought he was castigated for using the N word in a joke. He wasn't using it to attack someone but rather as a bizarre metaphor.

I think that on the totem pole of offenses, Maher is probably a notch or two below what Roseanne said, although I am certain there have been others who were fired for much less in the past. Using the N word as cringeworthy analogy is bad, but hardly on par with implying a black person is apelike.

You have to keep in mond that like South Park (another show that gets away with things no one else does) Maher has made a career of the politically incorrect. It was literally the name of his previous show. He's not immune, but he's a slightly harder target than most. That said, I suspect Maher came dangerously close to the line with his N word gaffe. Another inch and he would have been toast.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on May 30, 2018, 10:11:14 PM
I think that on the totem pole of offenses, Maher is probably a notch or two below what Roseanne said, although I am certain there have been others who were fired for much less in the past. Using the N word as cringeworthy analogy is bad, but hardly on par with implying a black person is apelike.

N word not as bad as apelike.  Look, I don't know if I want to go down this sewer.  It smells like cac.  It's going to get all over me.  It's going to get on my clothes and in my hair. 

One thing that always bothered me was non-racist people explaining racism.  It drives me nuts.  If you want to know about racism, you might as well go to racists.  What I hated the most when I was young was people misusing racial epithets.  I mean, you're already racist, so you look stupid anyways.  But then you go and use the wrong epithet, you look double stupid. 

I suppose your view on "apelike" being worse than "n-word" depends on your view of the particularity of "apelike" as an insult to black people.  It might also revolve around your view that black people have had it worse than other peoples, and hence they are more vulnerable or damaged by epithets. 

Now, I don't consider myself a racist, but I'm sure if I tried hard enough I could be called one, which might happen at some point.  I have known some racists in my time.  Most of them were generally soft racists, but some of them were hard enough. 

From my wealth of experience, knowing racists and being around them, and being around general *censored* and jerks and some just regular pricks, my personal opinion is that "ape-like" is not particular to black people.  Calling someone an ape, or a monkey, or ape-like, etc, is generally in use for just about every race on the planet, for racists, and for just regular jerks.  Asians, Africans, Spaniards, Italians, Pollocks, Irish, English, Welsh, Scots, Germans, Arabs, Jews.... "ape" or "monkey" is absolutely interchangeable.  In completely non-racial format, it's useful for children, the child-like, and for general screw-ups.  "You guys look like a band of monkeys trying to *censored* a football" was a well used phrase when I was in the Army, and was used in a color blind way, though not in a competency blind way.  I'm pretty sure I had elementary teachers who called us monkeys.  "Ape" or "Ape-like" certainly has different connotations.  It's altogether useful to describe people you think as ugly, dumb, and usually big.  A quick google search reveals a little person (that's what they like to be called now, right?) calling Kramer a "big ape" on Seinfeld. 

The second argument is that blacks are particularly vulnerable.  It's ok to call an Irishman an ape but not a black, because the Irish have had it easier than blacks.  Now, somebody is going to have to point out how the Irish have had it rough too, but I'm not going there, because it's going to devolve into a type of penis measuring contest.  If we are going there, I'd like to just get there immediately, and have a number or range, cross referenced by race to race relations, on how bad each race has had it in America and what the difference in numbers mean.  Can Native Americans call black people "ape-like", because they have had it sufficiently bad?  Can anybody call a WASP an "ape"?  I'm completely forgetting to add in religion and sexuality to the mix.  We're definitely going to need a group of gender studies and queer studies and cultural studies PhDs to get to the bottom of this. 

Quote
You have to keep in mond that like South Park (another show that gets away with things no one else does) Maher has made a career of the politically incorrect. It was literally the name of his previous show. He's not immune, but he's a slightly harder target than most.

And Rosanne Barr has built a career on being impeccably politically correct?  She's been a model of respectability and decorum for years?  You'll have to tell me, because I have NO IDEA WHY Rosanne Barr has a career at all.  I didn't watch her in the 80s, and sure as hell didn't watch her recently.  I was watching The Cosby Show, and we all know how that story ended. 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on May 31, 2018, 01:27:44 AM
One thing that always bothered me was non-racist people explaining racism.  It drives me nuts.  If you want to know about racism, you might as well go to racists.  What I hated the most when I was young was people misusing racial epithets.  I mean, you're already racist, so you look stupid anyways.  But then you go and use the wrong epithet, you look double stupid.

The actual "hard" racists are eye openers when you encounter them, and thankfully, in my experience, they've very few and far between, at least, the white ones. But then, I'm white, so I'm "naturally blind" to that kind of thing, largely due to the whole not have be on the receiving end of their "obvious bias."

Then there are the "soft" racists, who use the epithets, but probably have little to no actual appreciation for what they mean, and chances are in many cases, they probably haven't really (knowingly) had any more than the briefest interactions with people from said group(s). So in many cases, it's a more abstract thing for them that has no bearing on their normal life.

Then there is the unconscious/subtle "white privilege" flavor. Which honestly has been overplayed by many circles, but it still correct to a large degree that there are a lot of things people tend to do without even being consciously aware they are doing so. (Ie everybody "looking at the black person" who enters a room, which a common example of racism. Until you also take 5 seconds to realize that in the context of many such milieus where that happens, he probably is the first black many of the people in the town, never mind that room, had seen in recent memory. Of course they're going to look. It's like putting on a clown costume and walking into a WalMart and getting upset when people start looking at you funny. It happens, it sucks, it makes things super awkward for the racial minority in that position, as unlike the clown in WalMart, they cannot change their race on a whim, but it is human nature, no racism required.)

I would stop short of calling "white privilege" racist, as most people in this group are likely to either be horrified or go into denial when having it pointed out to them; in either case the end result is the same, they're consciously aware they shouldn't be that and probably had no intention of doing so, but unconscious behaviors are unconscious behaviors.

Quote
I suppose your view on "apelike" being worse than "n-word" depends on your view of the particularity of "apelike" as an insult to black people.  It might also revolve around your view that black people have had it worse than other peoples, and hence they are more vulnerable or damaged by epithets. 

Now, I don't consider myself a racist, but I'm sure if I tried hard enough I could be called one, which might happen at some point.  I have known some racists in my time.  Most of them were generally soft racists, but some of them were hard enough.

Knowing the history of the term, as it pertains to the "Deep South" and the KKK in particular, the term can be extremely racist. But as also mentioned, there are other uses for the term as well, as you cover:

Quote
From my wealth of experience, knowing racists and being around them, and being around general *censored* and jerks and some just regular pricks, my personal opinion is that "ape-like" is not particular to black people.  Calling someone an ape, or a monkey, or ape-like, etc, is generally in use for just about every race on the planet, for racists, and for just regular jerks.  Asians, Africans, Spaniards, Italians, Pollocks, Irish, English, Welsh, Scots, Germans, Arabs, Jews.... "ape" or "monkey" is absolutely interchangeable.  In completely non-racial format, it's useful for children, the child-like, and for general screw-ups.  "You guys look like a band of monkeys trying to *censored* a football" was a well used phrase when I was in the Army, and was used in a color blind way, though not in a competency blind way.  I'm pretty sure I had elementary teachers who called us monkeys.  "Ape" or "Ape-like" certainly has different connotations.  It's altogether useful to describe people you think as ugly, dumb, and usually big.  A quick google search reveals a little person (that's what they like to be called now, right?) calling Kramer a "big ape" on Seinfeld.

The monkey's with the football is one I picked up while in the Navy, and I still use it. I've even been one of those proverbial monkeys more times than I care to count.  :(

Quote
The second argument is that blacks are particularly vulnerable.  It's ok to call an Irishman an ape but not a black, because the Irish have had it easier than blacks.  Now, somebody is going to have to point out how the Irish have had it rough too, but I'm not going there, because it's going to devolve into a type of penis measuring contest.

The Irish had it bad up until just after the Civil War(as so many of them fought in it--against the South), then they were more readily accepted, but they still received a lot of grief over the next 60-some years because they committed the grievous sin of being Catholics in mostly WASP territory. The Italians were "getting it" even worse by the turn into the 20th century, again, primarily because they were Catholic. Also remember, the KKK was also chartered as  an anti-Catholic organization among other things, black people weren't the only ones they hated.

Quote
If we are going there, I'd like to just get there immediately, and have a number or range, cross referenced by race to race relations, on how bad each race has had it in America and what the difference in numbers mean.  Can Native Americans call black people "ape-like", because they have had it sufficiently bad?  Can anybody call a WASP an "ape"?  I'm completely forgetting to add in religion and sexuality to the mix.  We're definitely going to need a group of gender studies and queer studies and cultural studies PhDs to get to the bottom of this.

The WASP's historically persecuted practically everybody else, so I think they're "fair game" to just everybody. Of course, the "fun" begins when you start to define who is a WASP. Are (White) Mormons technically WASPs or something else? They're only vaguely Protestant, in that they have Missionaries, and actively seek converts. But they're also a historically persecuted group within the United States, the WASPs targeted them as well. Oh, except the Mormon faithful have been fighting against Gay Marriage so they've lost all accrued grievances by that act alone.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Gaoics79 on May 31, 2018, 05:15:02 AM
Quote
N word not as bad as apelike.  Look, I don't know if I want to go down this sewer.  It smells like cac.  It's going to get all over me.  It's going to get on my clothes and in my hair. 

I didn't say the N word wasn't as bad as apelike. I said calling someone who is black an ape or implying they are an ape is obviously worse than using the N word in an awkward metaphor. If Maher had called a black person the N word he'd be as dead as Michael Richards.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: DonaldD on May 31, 2018, 07:29:35 AM
I'm disappointed, but not shocked, that some people here can't distinguish between equating blacks with apes (because they share - to some observers - some morphological similarities, but mostly because they are both sub-human) and comparing certain individuals with particular simians because of the way they act.

It's also a bit disingenuous getting butt-hurt because calling a 6-foot-6, 3 hundred-pound weight lifter / line backer, who happens to be black, an ape, will get you censured, whereas doing the same to a similarly structured white man will rarely raise an eyebrow, not least because blacks were literally considered as less than human in the founding legal documents of your country and historically, and quite clearly to this day, people still think this to be true. And of course, part of the rationale historically was that blacks were, as part of that subhumanness, literally more closely related to apes than their white overlords. This is not something that can just be ignored.

Suggesting that a) equating a diminutive 60 year old black woman to an ape is similar to b) characterizing a disorganized group of young people hitting each other over a football as acting like monkeys, well, I can only hope you are consciously missing the point, because the other option is worse.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on May 31, 2018, 07:50:59 AM
not least because blacks were literally considered as less than human in the founding legal documents of your country

You do realize the 3/5ths provision is in there because of the Abolitionists? You know, the guys who felt that slavery was morally repugnant? Learn your history on that one. The slave owners wanted to be given "a full count" in that particular case. Be very glad the Abolitionists won that argument.

In some respects, when it comes to THAT piece of rhetoric being brought up, it's getting to the point it almost needs its own form of Godwin's Law applied to it where any historical arguments made by the poster in question are immediately rendered null and void, as they very obviously did not bother to spend more than a few minutes checking into the history of it beyond noticing it's been nullified by a subsequent Constitutional Amendment. (It should also be noted, that the 3/5ths provision only applied to "slaves" not "black persons" and there were thousands of free black persons living in the United States, even in the 1780's. They received a full count.

Quote
Suggesting that a) equating a diminutive 60 year old black woman to an ape is similar to b) characterizing a disorganized group of young people hitting each other over a football as acting like monkeys, well, I can only hope you are consciously missing the point, because the other option is worse.

I think you're missing the point several of us are attempting to make, and deliberately missing the forest because of all the trees blocking the view.

None of us denied that the use of the phrase can be racist, particularly given its history. What we did note was that there are non-racist uses of the phrase with examples available in popular media, no less, going back decades. Given the history anybody who uses the statement, particularly where a ethnic/racial minority is on the receiving end, should be scrutinized to determine whether or not the comment was racially motivated or not. That said, "in a perfect world" since comparing white males with apes still seems to be politically acceptable, it is only rational to think that people would be a little more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt with respect to a single, seemingly isolated, statement rather than "going from zero into full blown outrage" over it.

IE, Roseanne could call Harvey Weinstein or Hugh Hefner "big apes" all day long and few people would blink an eye, many would be likely to cheer her on even. But the moment she "slips," as happened here, and directly applies it to a black person, not to be confused with black people, she's suddenly persona non-grata? Talk about disproportionate responses. But research is hard and the evidence is "clearly damning" as she has convicted herself by her own words and actions, therefore she must be a witch! Quickly, brand her before she can get away!

Not a much of a Roseanne fan as a person, but I do not seem to recall any history with regards to her and the use of racial epithets. I do remember her travesty of a National Anthem performance, and I know plenty of people blacklisted her for that back in the day, maybe they've forgotten, maybe they've moved on, I don't know.

And the "Monkeys *bleep*ing a football" is not a group of disorganized young people hitting each other with it. It's an allusion to a bunch of monkeys using it with no conception of what it is even used for. Basically if you're on the receiving end of that one, the viewer believes, or knows, that what you're doing currently demonstrates that you are in way over your head with whatever your current task is.

Edit to add: Also expect "the fallout" from Roseanne to motivate a large number of Trump voters to turn up and vote in this upcoming cycle. Obviously their concerns about "Political Correctness" in 2016 are more valid now than ever before.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on May 31, 2018, 09:31:09 AM
Let's be clear. Rosanne's statement implied that an ape was her parent. Not that she looked like an ape, or like someone from a movie, or acted like an ape, or was dumb like an ape. Although a highly evolved ape from the future that enslaved humanity, so.... Hm.

To me, the other half is far more offensive, associating her with the Muslim Brotherhood. She isn't a Muslim. She isn't from Iran. The only way you believe these things is by total immersion in right wing conspiracy hate memes.

Not to mention, why aren't people over Valerie Jarrett by now, or why was she targeted in the first place? She hasn't been in government since January 2017. I didn't even know her name, and my casual research brings up little information on stances she's taken. She's been on a couple of talk shows lately, and critical of Trump, but nothing over the top as far as I know. One source, Brietbart, said Barr was responding to a post about Jarrett's alleged involvement in CIA intelligence gathering in France in 2011/2012. But that story dropped on Wikileaks over a year ago, and none of the documents have anything to do with Jarrett.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on May 31, 2018, 10:06:54 AM
I'm disappointed, but not shocked, that some people here can't distinguish between equating blacks with apes (because they share - to some observers - some morphological similarities, but mostly because they are both sub-human) and comparing certain individuals with particular simians because of the way they act.

Sorry, Dad.  I guess I'll just never be woke enough for you. 

Quote
not least because blacks were literally considered as less than human in the founding legal documents of your country and historically, and quite clearly to this day, people still think this to be true.

I would say that this is manifestly untrue, since the US Constitution did not count cows and dogs as counting towards representation towards Congress.  Instead, I would suggest that the document considers them to be less than white or black free citizens.  It's interesting to note that the slave owners themselves would have love to have each slave count as 5/5 of a person towards representation.  It's also interesting to note that these same founding legal documents gave impetus to the abolitionist movement.  "All men created equal" and all that. 

Quote
Suggesting that a) equating a diminutive 60 year old black woman to an ape is similar to b) characterizing a disorganized group of young people hitting each other over a football as acting like monkeys, well, I can only hope you are consciously missing the point, because the other option is worse.

I somehow feel that you have never used this phrase. 

Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on May 31, 2018, 12:12:11 PM
Let's be clear. Rosanne's statement implied that an ape was her parent. Not that she looked like an ape, or like someone from a movie, or acted like an ape, or was dumb like an ape. Although a highly evolved ape from the future that enslaved humanity, so.... Hm.

I haven't seem the quote, all I know is what has been posted in here which consisted of "compared her to an ape" until recently. And even with your further clarification, it clarifies nothing. Did she suggest that one of her "parents" actually were apes, or was she suggesting she must have been raised by an ape?

I'm not going off on a wild internet search looking for information which may have been partially scrubbed from the internet and left with less than ideal primary sourcing.

Quote
To me, the other half is far more offensive, associating her with the Muslim Brotherhood. She isn't a Muslim. She isn't from Iran. The only way you believe these things is by total immersion in right wing conspiracy hate memes.

There are plenty of Muslim black people in the United States, however. There also isn't an extreme shortage of Americans who are both Muslims, and supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood to one degree or another. That said, such comments of the nature such as what you're suggesting are not ones to make in a public forum unless you're willing to face the consequences.

Canceling a TV Series over comments from one actor in it(albeit the one playing the title character) is perhaps overkill, but then we're talking about broadcast television where margins are growing increasingly tight and even distant suggestions of advertiser boycotts will have them running for safety at the drop of a hat. So I can understand where the Network is coming from, although I think it is a rather poor statement on the state of society that the networks think advertisers are that skittish about controversy.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on May 31, 2018, 12:44:17 PM
First, it's not controversy they are skittish about, it's racism.  That's a poison pill.  You don't worry about offending team red or team blue here, you are risking all non whites and most of the whites.  You don't gamble on that.  It's financial suicide unless you market purely to those who don't give a crap about racism, or are in fact, racists.

Second, here's the initial tweet, if you really care. 
Quote
if the “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.”

Seemingly out of nowhere, no context, even uses initials rather than naming Valerie Jarrett.
Now you've seen it.  Feel free to defend her or not, but let's not pretend any of our great institutions are at risk and corporations are cowering at run-away liberalism.  There is no significant market share in open racism.  One may argue that there IS a market share for concealed or deniable racism and more so for intentional trolling of snowflakes but you best believe that any major network giving that vehicle a test flight has one hand on the ejection handle. 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on May 31, 2018, 01:20:55 PM
 :o

It all makes sense now. It's still way overblown, and the "Ambien excuse" makes sense, particularly if that tweet was late at night, or early in the morning. The number of steps you have to make in order to turn that into a racist statement is mind boggling, until or unless someone can bring forward additional evidence to support the idea that Roseanne Barr has "demonstrated racist tendencies" in the past.

This is going to be another arrow in the quiver of the "anti-snowflake"/"Trump Voter" crowd to motivate themselves and others to get out and vote in 2018. Obviously Political Correctness still reigns supreme, and the Politically Correct Hysteria has actually kicked it up several notches since the last election cycle. This is why they voted Trump in the first place. I don't fully agree with it, but I can certainly understand it to a reasonable degree.

2018 has only started to finish up the primaries, and it's looking like it's going to be an ongoing trainwreck. Of course, that was predicted about 30 seconds after Trump won the Electoral College.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-happens-if-republicans-keep-control-of-the-house-and-senate/

Even 538 thinks it's still possible (not necessarily probable) that the Republicans will retain control of both Congressional Houses after 2018. Many of their analysts think it's more likely things will "split"in that the House switches to Democratic Control, while the Senate remains Republican. I'm personally inclined to suspect it's going to split as well.

But more "snowflake" events like Roseanne getting out into the wilds of Middle-America, and the Democrats are going to be hard pressed to even get that split outcome. As that is the bigger thing to remember here: Roseanne's target audience was "middle-america" not the east or west coast. They're going to take notice, and they probably track closer to the middle or right-hand side of the spectrum than they did with the Democratic end of things.

The last thing the Democrats want is a motivated Conservatively inclined political base. And these "witchracist hunts" aren't doing them any favors.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on May 31, 2018, 01:43:35 PM
Quote
It all makes sense now. It's still way overblown, and the "Ambien excuse" makes sense, particularly if that tweet was late at night, or early in the morning. The number of steps you have to make in order to turn that into a racist statement is mind boggling, until or unless someone can bring forward additional evidence to support the idea that Roseanne Barr has "demonstrated racist tendencies" in the past.
Most of the "evidence" is similar in nature, so probably not worth anyone trotting it out if this boggled the brain.

I'm with you on the ambien excuse.  It may not excuse the behavior... but she was obviously not in a frame of mind to self-filter.  That whole thing, as short as it was, is a rambling mess.  I think the fact that it seeming came out of left field is what made people latch on.  This wasn't a comment taken out of context or reframed to stir up someone's base.

Quote
This is going to be another arrow in the quiver of the "anti-snowflake"/"Trump Voter" crowd to motivate themselves and others to get out and vote in 2018. Obviously Political Correctness still reigns supreme, and the Politically Correct Hysteria has actually kicked it up several notches since the last election cycle.
This, this right here is dangerous.  Racists will attempt to hide in this crowd and circle the wagons of Trump voters around them as cover.  Whether those Trump voters or even the anti-snowflake crowd lets them, is up to them. 

Quote
This is why they voted Trump in the first place
With all the bad things I've said and thought about Trump voters (several family members included) I refuse to believe this.  THEY, didn't vote for Trump as a licence to be racists without repercussion.  I may not agree with their reasons, but it wasn't "this".

The funny thing about the witch hunt line is we all know the people being targeted weren't actual witches.  While we do need to be careful not to sweep up innocents when we voice our outrage there ARE witches this time...  If you want to put on a pointy hat, grab your broom and adopt a black cat when you see the mob coming, that's your call.  The witches will certainly be grateful. 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on May 31, 2018, 01:57:22 PM
FWIW, the only similar statement I've seen from her is:

Quote
susan rice is a man with big swinging ape balls

Which is again not particularly on the nose. But you do have to understand the context and the pattern in conservative attack circles. Leslie Jones was called an ape. Obama as a photoshopped monkey. Michelle called an ape. If you like an example from the UK, suspended Tory (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4211374/Tory-suspended-comparing-Diane-Abbott-ape.html) said:

Quote
Alan Pearmain, deputy chairman of the South Ribble Conservative Association and a parish councillor, re-posted an original tweet that showed an ape wearing lipstick along with the words: 'Forget the London look, get the Diane Abbott look.'

Such quotes are made almost invariably about black people, and especially black women - with the notable exception of Bush. There is little question in my mind where such comparisons come from.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Gaoics79 on May 31, 2018, 02:12:01 PM
On a more practical note, it occurred to me that in today's climate, big studios and coporations may wish to adopt a technogical solution to this problem.

Imagine if as a condition of the contract, actors and others would have to install an app on their smartphones and all electronic devices that provides a 10 minute or 30 minute delay following any post - kind of like what networks use for live broadcasts. Your celebrity star posts a Tweet but during this "cooling off" period the comment is red flagged by employees charged with monitoring such traffic. In this case, there would be an opportunity to withdraw the tweet before it is made public.

Now maybe a big shot like Roseanne would never agree to such monitoring, but I'll bet most performers would.

I just read that ABC is going to lose about $1 BILLION dollars thanks to this snafu. The way I see it, this is a no-brainer. There needs to be a solution to this problem, which is only getting worse.

Heck, if I used social media just for myself I'd welcome such a feature. So much of this badness could be prevented if there was a delay, even just 15 minutes, before a comment goes "live". Even without monitoring by a third party, I think most of us would self correct if given even a short delay to reconsider.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on May 31, 2018, 02:19:39 PM
Your celebrity star posts a Tweet but during this "cooling off" period the comment is red flagged by employees charged with monitoring such traffic. In this case, there would be an opportunity to withdraw the tweet before it is made public.

Would the red flagged tweet be required to be taken down, or would they merely advise the performer "we think this one could be a problem" but it remains as advice that you can heed or ignore? If your contract stated that you had to heed it then I wonder whether that would violate the 1st and be an illegal contract. Basically at that point they could theoretically censor any opinion that the network doesn't like or feels could 'damage' their brand (such as supporting the wrong political party).
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on May 31, 2018, 02:36:29 PM
SAG and similar unions and associations would never go for it, I would guess.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Gaoics79 on May 31, 2018, 02:38:49 PM
Your celebrity star posts a Tweet but during this "cooling off" period the comment is red flagged by employees charged with monitoring such traffic. In this case, there would be an opportunity to withdraw the tweet before it is made public.

Would the red flagged tweet be required to be taken down, or would they merely advise the performer "we think this one could be a problem" but it remains as advice that you can heed or ignore? If your contract stated that you had to heed it then I wonder whether that would violate the 1st and be an illegal contract. Basically at that point they could theoretically censor any opinion that the network doesn't like or feels could 'damage' their brand (such as supporting the wrong political party).

I would imagine that the contract would cover the appropriate criteria for intervention. Some basic stuff would be pretty easy, such as a list of no-go words that could be negotiated and set out (eg: the N word).

Essentially my proposal is no different than what these contracts already likely do in general terms. But there would be an added technological safety net built in so that if someone is about to blow up their career and cause a 1 billion dollar PR debacle for their employer, at least they would get fair warning and have an opportunity to come back from the brink.

If I were a celebrity I'd view this as much about my protection as the studio's. I can think of a ton of celebrities in recent years who probably wish they had this oversight on their social media accounts.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on May 31, 2018, 02:52:07 PM
I would imagine that the contract would cover the appropriate criteria for intervention. Some basic stuff would be pretty easy, such as a list of no-go words that could be negotiated and set out (eg: the N word).

They might be able to stipulate that certain words are banned, but what about the word "ape"? I'm sure there are countless words that are only insulting in context. So basically it couldn't be reduced to a vocabulary rule and would have to require actually vetting of each and every tweet and FB post. And again, my question is whether the rule would have teeth or not.

But more broadly, does this mean that anyone working for a TV network is now considered to be a spokesperson for the network at all times? That they are not allowed to have an official capacity while working for the company, and a personal capacity where they only speak for themselves? I ask this because we could see an increase in this kind of thinking where any company at all requires its employees to sign waivers dispermitting them from posting material the company doesn't like, under the guise of the employee 'representing' the company. We've seen this with Brendan Eich already, where his personal life ended up conflated with his capacity as CEO for the company. But what if it becomes ubiquitous, where every person who has a job is now considered to be public representative for their company and can only post what the company approves? What if everyone's twitter account and posting habits became the territory of their employer to vet and censor as they desire?

This is what I mean about the 1st. This kind of social media management doesn't have to be restricted to major Hollywood enterprise. Any mid-size or large corporation would probably be able to afford to have someone monitoring their employees' public communications, or at least keep a bit of an eye on them. And if not now, there will probably soon be bots that they can have to do this task for them. My question is whether this type of mentality of "you always speak for the company, not for yourself" is acceptable when taken to its logical conclusion.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Wayward Son on May 31, 2018, 03:08:37 PM
Quote
Quote from: DonaldD on Today at 07:29:35 AM
Quote
not least because blacks were literally considered as less than human in the founding legal documents of your country

You do realize the 3/5ths provision is in there because of the Abolitionists? You know, the guys who felt that slavery was morally repugnant? Learn your history on that one. The slave owners wanted to be given "a full count" in that particular case. Be very glad the Abolitionists won that argument.

Do you realize that you're saying, in the context of this discussion, that the Abolitionists considered slaves to the "less than human," while the slave owners were the ones who considered them fully human, with the all the rights afforded to them? :D

I'm sure if you checked your history that the Abolitionists wanted slaves not to be counted at all,but not because they considered them sub-human, but, because the slaves were not accorded the rights of citizens, they felt they shouldn't be counted as citizens merely to give more political power to their owners.  The 3/5 was the compromise forced by the Southern slave owners.

So while technically you are right that the 3/5 compromise was because slave owners wanted their slaves to count, it was not because they thought of them as human, as your rebuttal implied.  The fact that they were only counted as 3/5 is because slave owners wanted them to be counted as citizens while also being considered sub-human property.  If they weren't considered property at all, then no compromise would have been necessary.

The Constitution still considered slaves as sub-human.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on May 31, 2018, 03:10:20 PM
It depends on what you're saying. I could imagine that if I posted a bunch of racially charged tweets, I could get fired too. It has happened that companies have cut people loose. You have to have enough of a following to get noticed, which is far more likely for a celebrity, politician, athlete, executive, etc, and to truly be associated with the brand.

The other thing is that lots of the people in those categories who like being inflammatory may separate their "official" account from their troll account under a pseudonym.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on May 31, 2018, 03:17:05 PM
The other thing is that lots of the people in those categories who like being inflammatory may separate their "official" account from their troll account under a pseudonym.

True. But then again even posting habits is only a subset of 'public behavior' that could get you in trouble. You'll note that Brendan Eich didn't get in trouble over a post but over a private transaction he had made. So even more broadly, the question becomes whether your personal life in general should have to conform to the approved image of your company. Granted, most people aren't celebrities or CEO's, but that mostly pertains to the likelihood that someone will notice your behavior and complain.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Gaoics79 on May 31, 2018, 03:21:02 PM
Fenring, I guess I am looking at this issue from the point of view of businesses employing high value high profile "assets" with the potential to cause disproportionate collateral damage. Roseanne's tweet, according to some media claims, may cost ABC 1 billion dollars. We are not talking about some anonymous junior executive here.

I agree with you that there could be a slippery slope here at some point - but for marquee celebrities like Roseanne, I think it is almost going to be a necessity.

Here's a nightmare example: Can you imagine what would happen if, say, Daisy Ridley made a racist tweet two weeks before the opening of Episode 9? We are talking about financial consequences that could rival a major natural disaster here. This is the kind of thing that could bring down a major studio.

If I were Disney or whoever, I'd be looking at all my options.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on May 31, 2018, 03:25:31 PM
I agree with you that there could be a slippery slope here at some point - but for marquee celebrities like Roseanne, I think it is almost going to be a necessity.

Maybe the celebrity should be able to opt-in for social media management, and if they don't then...is there such a thing as insurance for business disasters? Maybe insurance companies can begin offering "witch hunt insurance" in case a celebrity sinks a project. The premiums for that insurance can be withdrawn from their pay if they don't opt-in to the social media management. I dunno.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Gaoics79 on May 31, 2018, 03:38:40 PM
Oh I would be shocked if the insurance product didn't exist in some form. But that scenario would strengthen the need for active social media monitoring, as it might even be a condition for coverage.

Regarding someone like Ridley, who was not an established name when she was first hired, one wonders if this sort of thing wasn't already in place? Having your Twitter account chaperoned would be a small price to pay for going from an unknown to a mega celebrity. I'd suggest Disbey could put almost anything in her contract and she'd sign.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on May 31, 2018, 03:46:07 PM
Oh I would be shocked if the insurance product didn't exist in some form. But that scenario would strengthen the need for active social media monitoring, as it might even be a condition for coverage.

Sure. I guess my question was more like - let's say a group of belligerent actors who don't like being 'chaperoned' grouped up and initiated a class action suit against the studios arguing that this type of clause is a constitutional violation. Do you think the ACLU would back up such an argument? Could it possibly win in court?
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on May 31, 2018, 03:54:51 PM
Quote
But it's employees' personal accounts, which they own and manage, that will be harder to identify. For privacy reasons, some people might not want to tell their employer they have a Twitter account at all. According to analysts, that's fine — provided they don't say anywhere in the profile or in their tweets that they work for you (or drop the suggestion of it).

But as soon as they identify themselves as being a part of your company, then they need to be aware that, conscious or not, they in some way represent the business. The things they say about their company will become part of the public discourse, and they will have to follow guidelines.

IBM policy

Quote
1. Respect copyright and financial disclosure as laid out in the code of conduct.
2. Speak in the first person to help identify that you speak for yourself, and not the company.
3. Respect your audience by writing in thoughtful language (avoiding insults, slurs or obscenity).
4. Don't pick fights, and be the first to admit and correct a mistake.

CIO mag - twitter policy creation (https://www.cio.com/article/2425788/enterprise-software/twitter-tips--how-to-write-a-twitter-policy-for-your-employees.html)

Don't know about the number of people who may have been fired over it, but Roseanne busted through 3 & 4 like a rampaging ape.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on May 31, 2018, 04:27:33 PM
Roseanne busted through 3 & 4 like a rampaging ape (from the Muslim Brotherhood).
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Gaoics79 on May 31, 2018, 04:42:08 PM
The distinction between personal and business accounts is meaningless in this context.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on May 31, 2018, 06:11:36 PM
Quote
You do realize the 3/5ths provision is in there because of the Abolitionists? You know, the guys who felt that slavery was morally repugnant? Learn your history on that one. The slave owners wanted to be given "a full count" in that particular case. Be very glad the Abolitionists won that argument.

Do you realize that you're saying, in the context of this discussion, that the Abolitionists considered slaves to the "less than human," while the slave owners were the ones who considered them fully human, with the all the rights afforded to them? :D

I'm sure if you checked your history that the Abolitionists wanted slaves not to be counted at all,but not because they considered them sub-human, but, because the slaves were not accorded the rights of citizens, they felt they shouldn't be counted as citizens merely to give more political power to their owners.  The 3/5 was the compromise forced by the Southern slave owners.

So while technically you are right that the 3/5 compromise was because slave owners wanted their slaves to count, it was not because they thought of them as human, as your rebuttal implied.  The fact that they were only counted as 3/5 is because slave owners wanted them to be counted as citizens while also being considered sub-human property.  If they weren't considered property at all, then no compromise would have been necessary.

The Constitution still considered slaves as sub-human.

But "slaves" != "black persons" as there were free black persons known to be out and about in society even then. No provision was made in regards to them or any other ethnic group(aside from the Native Americans for other reasons) in regards to counting them as anything less than a whole person.

Only the slaves, who were unable to participate in the democratic process, were counted under the 3/5ths rule. Yes, it can be argued that "it was understood that 'slave' meant 'black' and was largely interchangeable in most cases," but it wasn't so in ALL cases..
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on May 31, 2018, 07:09:10 PM
The Constitution still considered slaves as sub-human.

 ::)

"three fifths of all other PERSONS"

PERSONS

PERSONS
PERSONS
PERRRRRRRRSOOOOOOONNNNNZZZZZZ

Peeeeeeeeepul
Pursuns

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person
Human. Individual. 

An individual human being. 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/person
A human being regarded as an individual. 

A HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMAAAANNNNNNN being. 

Not a dog.  Not a cat.  Not a fox.  Not a box.  Not a mouse.  Not a house.  Not an ape.  Not a grape. 

At no point does the Constitution of the United States equate black slaves to animals, or intimate that they are sub-human. 

Now, there is a good counter argument to the above, that goes like this: 
The legal difference between people and animals is that people have RIGHTS.  These rights are unalienable and include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  People have rights.  Slaves have no rights.  Hence slaves are not people.  If they are not people then they are not human and are thereby either subhuman or transhuman or whatever. 

Yet, the Constitution in and of itself does not deprive slaves or rights.  These are usually done at the state level.  Additionally, just about every state gave slaves some rights, and also differentiated them from animals. Some much more than others.  Northern states obviously had many more rights for slaves than southern ones.  Even then, there are grades.  From what I can tell, every state had laws against slave masters simply murdering their slaves.  Many had laws against cruelty. 

Second, it was widely understood and accepted at the time of the writing of the Constitution that different kinds of people had different rights.  White males had all the rights, black slaves had very little, and all kinds of grades between. Equal rights really wasn't a thing in 1781.  That doesn't mean that anyone who wasn't a white male was seen or described as sub-human.  It simply means that equal rights wasn't a thing.   

So the idea: slaves have no rights hence slaves are not people, is erroneous.  To the 18th century mind, different people have different rights.   Hence, slaves having less rights than non-slaves does not mean that they are not people, and hence sub-human. 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on May 31, 2018, 07:20:57 PM
Imagine if as a condition of the contract, actors and others would have to install an app on their smartphones and all electronic devices that provides a 10 minute or 30 minute delay following any post - kind of like what networks use for live broadcasts. Your celebrity star posts a Tweet but during this "cooling off" period the comment is red flagged by employees charged with monitoring such traffic. In this case, there would be an opportunity to withdraw the tweet before it is made public.

Now maybe a big shot like Roseanne would never agree to such monitoring, but I'll bet most performers would.

I just read that ABC is going to lose about $1 BILLION dollars thanks to this snafu. The way I see it, this is a no-brainer. There needs to be a solution to this problem, which is only getting worse.

Heck, if I used social media just for myself I'd welcome such a feature. So much of this badness could be prevented if there was a delay, even just 15 minutes, before a comment goes "live". Even without monitoring by a third party, I think most of us would self correct if given even a short delay to reconsider.

That's all well and good in theory, at least until one of the people involved in the monitoring decides to leak what some of the "filtered tweets" actually were. Or the group doing so gets hacked, etc.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on May 31, 2018, 07:38:27 PM
...and on further reflection on "such a filter" being made available is the other hazard it creates(regarding leaks/hacks in particular, but other ways as well).

As it then opens the employer/(filtering) service provider up to all kinds of hazards. Because the people using the service just simply start posting "whatever comes to mind" and stop engaging their own mental filters, and instead decide to trust in that service making sure that "nothing damaging" is released to the public.

Because you have to realize that is exactly how many people would start to use it.

Which brings us back to the prospect of those leakers/hackers managing to publicize the rejected messages. Or the public spectacle of messages that happen to "slip through the cracks" of their system for whatever reason.

The "best solution" is probably creating an option to send a potential post to a very short list of other friends/associates(such as the publicist for the Hollywood types) and have them up/down vote the post before it goes out to a wider audience. The challenge still remains in how to do so in a "safe" manner that isn't going to be vulnerable to hackers for whom such things would be "a target rich environment"(for blackmail if nothing else).

Honestly its a security and publicity nightmare waiting to happen. Forget "a single infamous damaging tweet" try "here are a list of the 20 worst tweets ____ tried to send out that their close friends stopped from going public."
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on May 31, 2018, 08:12:56 PM
Quote
This is why they voted Trump in the first place
With all the bad things I've said and thought about Trump voters (several family members included) I refuse to believe this.  THEY, didn't vote for Trump as a licence to be racists without repercussion.  I may not agree with their reasons, but it wasn't "this".

The funny thing about the witch hunt line is we all know the people being targeted weren't actual witches.  While we do need to be careful not to sweep up innocents when we voice our outrage there ARE witches this time...  If you want to put on a pointy hat, grab your broom and adopt a black cat when you see the mob coming, that's your call.  The witches will certainly be grateful.

I cannot find the post, or article at the moment, I recall it posted here on Ornery back in 2016, and it interviewed a number of people who intended to vote for Trump, and why. I think it was an article published in The Atlantic.

While I didn't find that article, this one from 2017 doing a post-mortem on the 2016 race seems to reflect a few of the pieces I keyed to/remember from that 2016 piece:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/white-working-class-trump-cultural-anxiety/525771/

Quote
Controlling for other demographic variables, three factors stood out as strong independent predictors of how white working-class people would vote. The first was anxiety about cultural change. Sixty-eight percent of white working-class voters said the American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence. And nearly half agreed with the statement, “things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country.” Together, these variables were strong indictors of support for Trump: 79 percent of white working-class voters who had these anxieties chose Trump, while only 43 percent of white working-class voters who did not share one or both of these fears cast their vote the same way.

The second factor was immigration. Contrary to popular narratives, only a small portion—just 27 percent—of white working-class voters said they favor a policy of identifying and deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally. Among the people who did share this belief, Trump was wildly popular: 87 percent of them supported the president in the 2016 election.

Nearly two-thirds of the white working class say American culture has gotten worse since the 1950s.

Finally, 54 percent of white working-class Americans said investing in college education is a risky gamble, including 61 percent of white working-class men. White working-class voters who held this belief were almost twice as likely as their peers to support Trump. “The enduring narrative of the American dream is that if you study and get a college education and work hard, you can get ahead,” said Robert P. Jones, the CEO of PRRI. “The survey shows that many white working-class Americans, especially men, no longer see that path available to them. … It is this sense of economic fatalism, more than just economic hardship, that was the decisive factor in support for Trump among white working-class voters.”

Not addressed in that piece, but I remember one interviewee directly mentioning it in the 2016 piece, was supporting Trump because he was flawed because he, and many like him, did not like the direction that society as whole seems to be taking in regards to how social missteps in general are handled and addressed. They were afraid that a Hillary win would result in solidifying a social order into place where any deviation from the "politically acceptable norm" would result in the complete and utter destruction of the livelihood of any individuals unfortunate enough to get outed.

Such as just happened in the case of Roseanne.

It isn't about really about racism, although it is the thing that happened to evidently trigger it in this case.

It is the sheer terror that has to leave a very large number of Americans living in knowing that when a single off-handed tweet or out of context comment can destroy a Billion Dollar enterprise virtually overnight. What chance do they have in their own lives should they happen to do or say something that puts them in a bad light?

That isn't freedom, that is living in sheer unadulterated terror. It is evidence that fascism is alive and well and people are afraid of it in ways others haven't even clued into just yet, because they're too busy fighting the social battles of 50+ years ago. Anti-Fa is just one such (unironic)manifestation of it.

The Democrats and the left-wingers are greatly overplaying their hands, they have utterly terrified Middle America. Not from foreign threats, but from their next door neighbors just as readily as it could be some obscure Liberal Activist living hundreds of miles away in California or NYC.

That and the Democrats seem to have utterly forgotten an older Maxim that many Americans generally held to for much of the 20th Century, and this is one that Middle America probably still remembers in large part, and this is the crux of "the problem" for Democrats and Liberals to bear in mind with their witchracist hunts. "I may disagree with what that has to say, but I will defend to the death his right to say it."

Yes, right-wing groups have likewise tried to target and "destroy" people "on the left" who have said unpalatable things, but those efforts also tend to be comparatively anemic and weak for good reason(albeit, terrifying enough for those on the receiving end). The same cannot be said in reverse.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on May 31, 2018, 08:57:59 PM
I don't want to speak for a social order, a whole party, or even the left in general, but I want to point out something I believe about free speech.  You have the right to say anything you want.  You do not have the right to demand a platform for that speech.  You do not have a right to a defense by others while you make your speech. 

Quote
"I may disagree with what that has to say, but I will defend to the death his right to say it."

I'm not going to charge Facebook's HQ and get into an armed stand-off if they ban your account.  I would probably step in (or at least call the cops) if it looked like you were going to get yourself killed after walking up to a group of people and baiting them with racial slurs.  But I'd probably laugh during the first few punches they threw at you.  Now, if our government came to detain you and place you in a 'racial sensitivity camp'...  Then that quote would be flashing through my brain.  I'd be forced to make some hard decisions then. 

While people of all political views fall on differing points of the 'bravery in the face of tyranny' scale, "The Democrats" as a party, have not forgotten.  If you want to say whatever you want without fear of repercussions, you better have a diagnosis of tourettes.  Otherwise we can use another old maxim.  "You reap what you sow".

We should all have the right to say what we want.  We should all be smart enough to anticipate the repercussions of what would happen if we say a thing.  Say something overtly racists, (seriously our society only requires a flimsy pretense to make racism acceptable) :( and you are putting advertiser revenue at risk.  This is not a shock, or a mystery, or a conspiracy of the left.  That's how business works.  You want to be a racist?  Go for it.  Just don't expect you won't be punished for it because the First Amendment is there to protect you.  That's not what it's for. ::)

*removed one example that was a bit of a gray area...
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on May 31, 2018, 09:27:31 PM
D.W., it sounded to me like TheDeamon's post was less about saying how awesome it is when people express their freedom of speech in appalling ways, but rather that the much-repeated meme that Trump won because of racism is possibly a piece of insulting disinformation. Assuming for the moment his argument is correct, not only does shifting focus to the 'racist Trump supporters' cast a shadow on the REAL issues that concern Americans, but on a more basic level, it's downright insulting. This 'racism' narrative around Trump hit both birds with one stone, effectively allowing liberals to dehumanize Trump supporters, while at the same time making it impossible to recognize that there are real issues afoot that are harming America. The usual retort would be something like "Yeah! Harming the racists. And that's a good thing!" And so this narrative makes it doubly hard to discuss these things with anyone. You skirt the issues, and then when the issues are reiterated they end up being actually celebrated because the people being harmed are "racists anyhow."

I'll just throw out there as well that the 'horrible' Salem witch trials took place in a tiny town and a total of 20 people or so died. The fame of the event far outstrips any reality in terms of its real scope. 20 dead is like a normal day at the office for drone strikes - oh wait, those aren't white people. If it's actually true that millions of Americans are scared of persecution I think that would mean that the cultural milieu is in point of fact far more toxic than anything Salem folk ever did. And before we jump to the "they're not really being persecuted" defense, let's remember the popular liberal maxim at the moment, which is that it's not kosher to tell someone else about their personal experience when they're reporting how they feel. I don't accept that maxim wholesale, but for those who do it should apply here, I think.

And D.W., yes, you're right that we shouldn't be apologizing for actual racism. So we need to distinguish between making cultural efforts to curtail racist remarks and between using an anti-racism movement to win the broader culture war against people who disagree with liberal maxims. As I think you've pointed out, we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater in either direction; neither to cease caring about fighting racism, nor to go around hunting for racism because the crusade needs enemies to stomp.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on May 31, 2018, 10:10:22 PM
Fenring, I got to say I have a hard time parsing your post.  I'm not going address all of it, because it seems off topic.  Maybe it's not to you.  Maybe that's key to the divide on this topic.

Quote
And D.W., yes, you're right that we shouldn't be apologizing for actual racism. So we need to distinguish between making cultural efforts to curtail racist remarks and between using an anti-racism movement to win the broader culture war against people who disagree with liberal maxims
I got to ask, as I'm not big on waging cultural war by proxy battles...  Is this what you see happening on this topic; the Roseanne show cancellation?  Is THIS why people are trying to frame this whole thing as "the left" attacking "the right"?  Is this why racism is being given a pass or minimalized or dismissed as a misunderstanding? 

Guess what, we care about the "REAL issues that concern Americans".  *I* care about those issues.  Assuming you mean, having a decent job, access to health care, to education, to opportunity and safety.  Now if that concern is being permitted to live in a bubble where you never have to encounter anything outside of your comfort zone, regarding neighbors of differing races, or sexual preferences, or religions, or lack of religion...  Sorry, your S.O.L. there.  You can be concerned about it, or uncomfortable, but that one is just gonna keep on 'getting worse' from that perspective.  No war to fight, unless you wana go full Luddite and smash all of modern society and our means of travel and connecting with each other.  I mean, if a nuke fight breaks out and we end up in something resembling the show Jericho, I suppose we can "get back to that idealistic 1950's way of life."  But that's not a trade off most are going to make.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: velcro on May 31, 2018, 10:18:38 PM
Quote
"three fifths of all other PERSONS"

So a slave is 3/5 of a person, i.e. 3/5 of a human.

3/5<5/5

Therefore, a slave is less than a full human, i.e. subhuman.

This is not trying to be clever.  This is pointing out the painfully obvious, in small, unassailable steps.

As far as demanding someone be fired, I think that is wrong.
I am all for boycotting a show or company as long as the star or CEO works there.  Then leave it up to the company to do what is in their own best interest.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on May 31, 2018, 11:03:29 PM
Quote
"three fifths of all other PERSONS"

So a slave is 3/5 of a person, i.e. 3/5 of a human.

3/5<5/5

Therefore, a slave is less than a full human, i.e. subhuman.

This is not trying to be clever.  This is pointing out the painfully obvious, in small, unassailable steps.

Hi.  I'm the guy who actually READS the portion of the Constitution that everybody is quoting.  You must be the other guy. 

Quote
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Here is the math:  Fp+ 3/5(Op)=N

In english:  The number of free persons plus three fifths the number of other persons (slaves) equals the respective numbers. 

This doesn't say that an "other person", ie slave, is only 3/5 of a free person.  It says that in determining representation, you take the number of slaves, and multiply it by 3/5.  Nothing to do with subhuman.  Even the language in the quote you provided is clear.  3/5 of all other PERSONS.  This does not say "other persons are 3/5 of persons, hence not persons".  That would be a self refuting statement.  Some other people might be that stupid, but James Madison is not.  Fp and Op are both of the set of P. Both contain units made up of persons.  Whole persons.  P is made up of counting numbers.  There is no such thing as a fractional person.  There is no such thing as being 3/5 of a person.  It's like there is no such thing as a person who is 3/5 dead, or 3/5 a moron.  James Madison understands this.  There are people, and there are non-people.  Slaves are persons.  They are people.  Whole people.  Because there is no such thing as a partial person. 



Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2018, 02:50:59 AM
I don't want to speak for a social order, a whole party, or even the left in general, but I want to point out something I believe about free speech.  You have the right to say anything you want.  You do not have the right to demand a platform for that speech.  You do not have a right to a defense by others while you make your speech. 

We should all have the right to say what we want.  We should all be smart enough to anticipate the repercussions of what would happen if we say a thing.  Say something overtly racists, (seriously our society only requires a flimsy pretense to make racism acceptable) :( and you are putting advertiser revenue at risk.  This is not a shock, or a mystery, or a conspiracy of the left.  That's how business works.  You want to be a racist?  Go for it.  Just don't expect you won't be punished for it because the First Amendment is there to protect you.  That's not what it's for. ::)

Honestly I could care less about racists. The issue here, and in particular for "white bread 'Middle America'" in particular(speaking of racist comments...), is the matter that has already been brought up here and vaguely alluded to on numerous other occasions in regards to "White Privilege" and some of the low-level terror in play here.

Most of "Middle America" grew up in a cultural milieu which was almost entire bereft of the whole racial animosity thing. They did not grow up with it going on around them, no "back story" being spoon fed to them growing up. Or any of that other nonsense. It just simply wasn't relevant to the world they lived in. Sure they'd see or hear about it on TV, or in movies, they probably even read about it in school, but it didn't exist with their own sphere of personal experience, and in many cases, it was also outside the experience of their parents and possibly grandparents as well.

That being said, it doesn't mean much of the language itself didn't find its way into their lives or their vocabularies all the same. It just happens to be utterly devoid of the racial overtones encountered in many other parts of the US. Which us back to their living in fear of this new digital age we live in, where Roseanne Barr just had her (long) career brought to a screeching halt, and saw a network possibly take a Billion Dollar loss because she made, what is to them, something which could possibly be "explained away" any number of ways and even easily interpreted in several ways utterly devoid of any racial malice. Because they've seen it used that (non-racist) way in their own personal lives.

Which is where "White Privilege" turns into "White Terror." Terror at the idea that through no malicious intent on their part, they might end up (unknowingly) saying or doing something which is going to make them come off as some kind of blatantly overt racist when they're anything but, and thus become subject to the might and fury of the Doxers, AntiFa and so forth.

Sure they can try to become "woke" as the matter of what those oh so many "racist" statements are that they've been unknowingly using for decades, and try to remove them from their vocabulary and language entirely, but old habits die hard and sometimes things slip out past even the best of mental filters.

Which then brings us to:

Fenring, I got to say I have a hard time parsing your post.  I'm not going address all of it, because it seems off topic.  Maybe it's not to you.  Maybe that's key to the divide on this topic.

Quote
And D.W., yes, you're right that we shouldn't be apologizing for actual racism. So we need to distinguish between making cultural efforts to curtail racist remarks and between using an anti-racism movement to win the broader culture war against people who disagree with liberal maxims
I got to ask, as I'm not big on waging cultural war by proxy battles...  Is this what you see happening on this topic; the Roseanne show cancellation?  Is THIS why people are trying to frame this whole thing as "the left" attacking "the right"?  Is this why racism is being given a pass or minimalized or dismissed as a misunderstanding? 

Guess what, we care about the "REAL issues that concern Americans".  *I* care about those issues.  Assuming you mean, having a decent job, access to health care, to education, to opportunity and safety.

Yes, because people feel really safe about their prospects, or those of their children/grandchildren when we seem to be living in a society that is willing to go scorched earth on a person and try to ruin or otherwise utterly destroy their professional lives if they ever step one foot across some invisible line they may very well be completely oblivious to until after they've crossed it.

Quote
Now if that concern is being permitted to live in a bubble where you never have to encounter anything outside of your comfort zone, regarding neighbors of differing races, or sexual preferences, or religions, or lack of religion...  Sorry, your S.O.L. there.  You can be concerned about it, or uncomfortable, but that one is just gonna keep on 'getting worse' from that perspective.

But this is part of the problem, and you're being willfully ignorant on this. The groups demanding such "comfort zones" and going to very highly destructive lengths to obtain them, are overwhlemingly left-wing Activist Groups. They want everybody to accept them anywhere and everywhere they wish to go, and will brook no disagreement as regards to their way of life. But the moment somebody even dares to say they disagree with them, it's time to break out the torches and pitchforks.

Tolerance is a two-way street, and that means you need to be talking about find ways to learn how to disagree, not just demand everybody else surrender unconditionally.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Gaoics79 on June 01, 2018, 07:02:31 AM
Quote
That's all well and good in theory, at least until one of the people involved in the monitoring decides to leak what some of the "filtered tweets" actually were. Or the group doing so gets hacked, etc.

? You are suggesting that the status quo, namely all of a celebrity's off the cuff thoughts being instantly transmitted to the world, is superior to having those ideas censored or monitored because of the risk that the censor.or moderator might expose them to the world?

Your logic escapes me!

By the way, in a world where some 20 something actress lile Daisy Ridley who a couple years ago was a nobody (to stick with that example) could wipe out billions of dollars overnight with a single impromptu tweet, I think if they are not already doing what I suggested, it is only a matter of time before they start. I would be surprised if official comments, interview answers for tv shows and the like, aren't already heavily scripted. This would just be taking it a step further and applying it to social media.

I am betting that this is already being implemented. Someone like Roseanne may be exceptional. On that topic, Tom Arnold was interviewed recently and suggested that this issue with Roseanne and the risk it posed was well known to her inner circle and that the idea of "getting the phone out of her hand" was one that had been raised.

The problem was it's Roseanne Barr. Maybe not easy to control an established celebrity at that level.

But you better believe, this has to be a wakeup call. I don't believe for a second there isn't going to be a memo circulating at the highest levels that the days of free range social media use for lynchpin celebrities is coming to an end.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on June 01, 2018, 08:25:58 AM
Quote
That being said, it doesn't mean much of the language itself didn't find its way into their lives or their vocabularies all the same. It just happens to be utterly devoid of the racial overtones encountered in many other parts of the US. Which us back to their living in fear of this new digital age we live in, where Roseanne Barr just had her (long) career brought to a screeching halt, and saw a network possibly take a Billion Dollar loss because she made, what is to them, something which could possibly be "explained away" any number of ways and even easily interpreted in several ways utterly devoid of any racial malice. Because they've seen it used that (non-racist) way in their own personal lives.

There is a point here. I grew up in an environment where it was considered completely acceptable to tell racist ethnic jokes. It wasn't done with malice, and we had little feedback opportunity to correct our behaviour. It took a few years away from my hometown to become aware of context and understand how wrong it was.

But when we talk about a celebrity with decades of exposure to other cultures and norms, who is so tied into politics that she rants regularly about various cultural issues, I don't see using the ignorance or casual slip excuse. Surely Barr was aware of this relationship and made no effort to change how she thought about such things or how she expressed it. We saw this with Imus and his comment about nappy headed hoes which got him fired. When you take up a microphone that reaches millions of people, you ought to be more circumspect. If I heard Barr made the same comment in the writers room, I'd probably feel a lot more sympathetic about it. If it came up in an improv, I'd be more sympathetic. I'm still not sure it should be condoned, but I'd potentially argue for more leniency.

In summation, if you are a celebrity you are on-air 24/7 unless you choose to use a pseudonym. You are speaking for your brand, and the brand of your employers.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 01, 2018, 09:49:10 AM
Quote
Honestly I could care less about racists.
Then this topic is not relevant to you. 
Quote
It just simply wasn't relevant to the world they lived in.
But it IS relevant now.  Our society is too connected for it not to be relevant.  There’s no putting that genie back in the box.
Quote
But this is part of the problem, and you're being willfully ignorant on this. The groups demanding such "comfort zones" and going to very highly destructive lengths to obtain them, are overwhlemingly left-wing Activist Groups.
To the extent this happens, (anywhere other than from a bunch of teenagers on a college campus)  I have little sympathy for them either.  I believe this is a ridiculously overplayed concern, but I’ve never claimed “my side” didn’t have its crazies, or... less than realistic people.  However, more often than not, what these people are asking for is only decency, respect, or at least, to avoid being harassed.  Do some take it too far?  Sure, but most are just sick of other people’s *censored* stopping them from living their lives.  They’ll eventually learn they have to toughen up.  Because they’ll learn you can’t rely on the decency of others.  Some people are just *censored*ty.  Is that “tolerance” or is it defeatism?  Little of both I guess.  So learn to live in the world as it exists while you strive to improve it.

Quote
Tolerance is a two-way street, and that means you need to be talking about find ways to learn how to disagree, not just demand everybody else surrender unconditionally.
And how does one do that?  How do you “learn to disagree” when someone doesn’t believe you are as important as them.  That they deserve more opportunity than you?  That your behavior, choices or traits make them better than you?   How do they learn to live along side you, let alone empathize with you, if they are told not even their God is able to tolerate the way you are / you are behaving?

This isn’t about things like how to create jobs.  It’s not about how to best control health care costs.  It’s not about how to educate future generations and create a strong work force.  It’s not about how best to use our natural resources.  It’s not about how best to defend our country from outside threats.  THOSE, those are points where we can “learn to disagree” because there can legitimately be two paths to the same goal.

That just isn’t the case when it comes to things like racism, or bigotry, or homophobia, or misogynist. 

Quote
There is a point here. I grew up in an environment where it was considered completely acceptable to tell racist ethnic jokes. It wasn't done with malice, and we had little feedback opportunity to correct our behaviour. It took a few years away from my hometown to become aware of context and understand how wrong it was.
Thank you, I was unable to formulate a civil response to this point TheDrake.   But today, you don't need to leave your hometown.  People are informing others, it is wrong.  They aren't pulling your leg.  They aren't trying to 'trick you' into falling for some blue-team plot.  It's not someone holding a gun to your head.  It's a huge number of people begging you, from a distance, to lower the gun and not to shoot yourself.

Roseanne grabbed the pistol, said, "Don't worry guys, it's not loaded." and pulled the trigger.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2018, 10:35:56 AM
Fenring, I got to say I have a hard time parsing your post.  I'm not going address all of it, because it seems off topic.  Maybe it's not to you.  Maybe that's key to the divide on this topic.

Just for clarity, my post was made in reference to yours, which in turn was tacitly in reference to TheDeamon's. So that's why I mentioned his post content in mine. I later referenced Salem because of the 'witch hunt' references that have been made, and my intent was to point out that literal witch hunts in the past have been overhyped and weren't actually that serious, where something that affects many people today is potentially more serious than a literal witch hunt.

Quote
Quote
And D.W., yes, you're right that we shouldn't be apologizing for actual racism. So we need to distinguish between making cultural efforts to curtail racist remarks and between using an anti-racism movement to win the broader culture war against people who disagree with liberal maxims

I got to ask, as I'm not big on waging cultural war by proxy battles...  Is this what you see happening on this topic; the Roseanne show cancellation?  Is THIS why people are trying to frame this whole thing as "the left" attacking "the right"?  Is this why racism is being given a pass or minimalized or dismissed as a misunderstanding? 

I wasn't trying to suggest that in particular the firing of Roseanne was a left vs right conspiracy. But it's part of a larger cultural narrative, sure. And I was pretty specific in my above comment that you quoted that stepping away from the broad left vs right culture war does not mean giving real racism a pass. So it would be fair to specify further that I didn't mean to imply that this is what you or others on this board are doing. But 'out there', on social media and elsewhere, yeah, there are many people on the hunt for bogeymen, and racism is a darn good one. The fact that we objectively should be against racism doesn't have anything to do with the fact that we can raise an eyebrow at the general policy of hunting for bad guys to squash to virtue signal ourselves and win points 'for the cause'. Like I said earlier, I can be anti-fascist and also anti-Antifa; or likewise, anti-racism and also anti-BLM (although I'm not specifically saying I *am* anti-BLM). In fact, I believe I was posting on these boards about unfair police practices long before BLM even existed, so surely it's possible to be 'fighting the good fight' (in my lazy, board-posting way) without subscribing to certain brands of social activism, intersectionalist terminology, or grabbing the mike away from Bernie (and yes, I know that may have been a false flag).
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 01, 2018, 11:00:23 AM
Quote
But 'out there', on social media and elsewhere, yeah, there are many people on the hunt for bogeymen, and racism is a darn good one. The fact that we objectively should be against racism doesn't have anything to do with the fact that we can raise an eyebrow at the general policy of hunting for bad guys to squash to virtue signal ourselves and win points 'for the cause'.
One of the largest obstacles of defeating racism is that racists have developed this defense mechanism.  They have parasitically attached themselves to a side and fostered the concept of a larger culture war. 

Hypothetical racists:  They aren’t after ME, they are after YOUR way of life.  They aren’t doing a “good thing” they are “virtue signaling” to excuse wiping YOU out!  Even if you believe they are in the right about racism, that’s purely an accident, and it is just about ‘winning points’ for their side while they divide US.  (I can be part of US right?) because you are going to need the help; and besides, I’m not THAT racists, I just want to be left alone.  That’s not too much to ask, is it?

Apparently it’s not. 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2018, 11:17:15 AM
D.W., why are you framing the issue I'm presenting (and that maybe TheDeamon was presenting in his way) as being a product of the immune system of racists? I didn't get what I'm saying from a right-wing blog, I get it because this is what I observe is happening. Just because a bona fide racist may dismiss any accusation simply because he'll never admit to anything doesn't pertain to the fact that I can object to the accusation for my own reasons. It doesn't scare me to be against something a racist is againt, nor does it bother me if doing the right thing somethings has collateral benefits to bad people. I just call 'em as I see 'em.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 01, 2018, 11:24:47 AM
Maybe, particularly in this case, it was worth seeing someone on TV they can identify with (in a totally NOT racist way).  They could excuse a little "political incorrectness" if it meant those liberals were forced to 'lose some ground' on the cultural war.  It means a lot to be able to watch TV and have at least a short reprieve in the whole country, if not the whole world, telling them they are wrong.  I can sympathize.  It doesn't stop me from condescending... but I can sympathize. 

Hell, I grew up watching her show.  In a lot of ways, I grew up LIKE the Conner family.  I saw myself and my family reflected in theirs too.  I found her funny most of the time.  And maybe I am a hypocrite on this one.  I've excused / ignored worse statements from family members or friends.  Why get so worked up over a TV star?  Maybe it's safe.  Safe in the same way people are looking for to escape into the nostalgia of a show that tells us we CAN go back to the way things were, when we were younger, had less concerns, and didn't KNOW we were being *censored* without knowing it... 

I grew up.  The world changed (or is changing).  I chose my friends more carefully now.  I call out BS from my family because even if we like each other a bit less, we still love each other.  I suppose to contradict the "we need to learn to tolerate each other" line from earlier; I've learned when not to.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on June 01, 2018, 11:36:27 AM
I think a big question does remain on where to draw the line. There are the totally ephemeral complaints that one could only hate Obama because he is black, whether that person has expressed any racial thought whatsoever. There's the idea that Hank Azaria can be called out for voicing a disrespectful caricature cartoon figure. I think such things are a cultural question that we are now exploring. Some people like to call it a war, and some people treat it as such. I doubt anyone would stand up and defend Roseanne if she called vj a cotton picker. On the other hand, if she had just kept retweeting her wild conspiracy theories and memes I don't think there would have been any more outcry than the past couple of years. She probably could have got by retweeting the message that got her canceled. This conversation is going to continue, and we are all going to be in different places on the spectrum.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 01, 2018, 11:38:14 AM
Quote
D.W., why are you framing the issue I'm presenting (and that maybe TheDeamon was presenting in his way) as being a product of the immune system of racists?
Quote
I just call 'em as I see 'em.
Same here man.  Same here.  Did I tell you to start tweeting with #BLM?  Did I tell you to put on a mask, grab a stick and march with the AntiFa (assuming you could find them…)  Did I say you should also take a knee during the national anthem?  No.  Those using you as cover are telling you that’s what The Left wants.  And they are doing so, because they KNOW you are not their ally.  If you could “see ‘em” for what they are, instead of as “one of you” you’d also take out the trash.  But WE are the enemy here.  Not them.

Never mind that all (or most) of those groups you don’t approve of, would have no reason to exist if you cleaned house. 

It’s dangerous to dance with someone while they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2018, 11:59:56 AM
Those using you as cover are telling you that’s what The Left wants.  And they are doing so, because they KNOW you are not their ally.

Here's where I think we're getting our wires crossed. I don't really think anyone is using me as cover, but maybe you'd have to know me better to know why. Most of the people I know are liberals, and in the milieu in which I work - especially in my spare time - is *vastly* over-represented by people on the left or far-left. Not too many people in my active life will hear me say something and nod as it validates their racist theories. In fact, I rarely discuss my personal beliefs in my public life anyhow unless in private conversation with someone who wants to engage me on some topic.

But maybe you're saying that any objection to an anti-racist movement will generally give cover to racists, and that therefore we should avoid criticizing anti-racist movements no matter what their form? If that's your argument then I don't agree at all. If anything I would argue that doing a well-intentioned thing the wrong way is its own form of wrong. If Antifa gives me pause, for instance, and I distance myself from them, you may argue that this gives cover to actual fascists. But I would argue that Antifa's bad virtues are what give cover to actual fascists. You discredit a cause when you go about it wrongly, and this is what strengthens and emboldens the opposition. See TheDeamon's comments about Trump's support. 

Quote
It’s dangerous to dance with someone while they are shooting themselves in the foot.

First of all, if someone reads a post I write and silently believes it's supporting their racist upbringing, that's their own bad reading at fault, not my observation. Second, even if they legitimately agree with someone I write - so what? I'm not affiliated with someone who likes what I said. That's sort of what I was trying to clarify before about tribal lines being conjoined to ideological issues: I am not 'dancing' with someone who agrees with an idea I believe. I have nothing to do with them, am not 'with them', don't have any association or connection to them, other than the fact that all people are connected in some way broadly speaking. Two different people who say the same thing are not a group. That was my point, they are just two different people saying a thing. I don't become 'one of them' or give them cover, or anything, if I say a thing they like, and I don't have to try to avoid saying things they like just in case they like it.

The real issue here is that if every issue is framed as a culture war it could be construed that if I'm taking sides against one side I'm helping the other. This is the illusion that I refuse to believe. I can takes sides against both or neither and not be 'with' either one of them. I think this may be why the occasional person here suggests I'm 'clearly' a Republican or right-winger when speaking against intersectionalism; if I'm not on one side I must be on the other!
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2018, 12:07:09 PM
Quote
D.W., why are you framing the issue I'm presenting (and that maybe TheDeamon was presenting in his way) as being a product of the immune system of racists?
Quote
I just call 'em as I see 'em.
Same here man.  Same here.  Did I tell you to start tweeting with #BLM?  Did I tell you to put on a mask, grab a stick and march with the AntiFa (assuming you could find them…)  Did I say you should also take a knee during the national anthem?  No.  Those using you as cover are telling you that’s what The Left wants.  And they are doing so, because they KNOW you are not their ally.  If you could “see ‘em” for what they are, instead of as “one of you” you’d also take out the trash.  But WE are the enemy here.  Not them.

Never mind that all (or most) of those groups you don’t approve of, would have no reason to exist if you cleaned house. 

It’s dangerous to dance with someone while they are shooting themselves in the foot.

Here's the thing, I largely agree with most of the claimed objectives of most of those "left-wing groups." I may disagree about certain specific details, but on "the broad strokes" side the agreement is near universal. The problem at hand is I strongly disagree with their methods, and I feel that the methods currently being employed, both by "unsanctioned" activist groups like AntiFa, but even the more ham-fisted Mass Media campaigns about tolerance and accpetance are being received as outright attacks against much of the American Heartland.

This. Is. Not. Good.

They("the left" for lack of a better identifier) are literaly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. What should have ended with a faint whimper, is now likely to turn into a long protracted bitter fight because they "declared war"(intentionally or not) on people who were not their enemy.

I'm inclined to think that in a few cases, the effort is deliberate, "the grievance industry" is a massive one, worth Billions of dollars a year in the United States alone. If they allow the hatchet to be put away, they're going to have to find a new line of work. So in a sick sense, "stirring the pot" and going after "micro-issues" among other things in the hopes that it will provoke a significant counter response from others who would be otherwise content to leave things alone is a brilliant (fund raising) strategy. One that could very easily prolong "the battle for equality" by at least another generation, if not longer. (Giving them plenty of time to either be retired, or dead before the funding dries up)

That they can in turn point to "that bunch of deplorables" and use that as justification and cover for what they're doing just makes it that much more golden from their point of view. Because who is going to go after them personally, when doing so makes it seem like they're defending Nazis if their "opposition" should try to do so?

What is happening is highly toxic to society as a whole, there are very clear beneficiaries, yes, some of them are white supremacists and whatnot. But the biggest beneficiaries by miles are groups like the NAACP, LGBTQI+ groups, and so forth. You know, the whole "follow the money" argument is valid here, and the big money involved in this fight very strongly favors a very small subset of groups.

If you're willing to step a bit further into tin-foil hat territory, you also have Anti-Fa to point at, which has strong ties to Anarcho-Communist groups, who in turn are running straight off the playbooks of either Karl Marx or Stalin, if not both. You know, disrupt the system by playing up racial and class divides to the maximum extent possible? As such, they likewise have zero interest in actually wanting these issues to get solved, at least, not until their glorious revolution has come to pass and swept away the old order. Which cycles us back to "highly toxic" with a number of vested parties on "both sides" that happen to have every interest in trying to protract the fight, not resolve it.

And the kicker is people are buying into this claptrap hook line and sinker, "because Neo-Nazis are real" ...and were essentially irrelevant and powerless in the US, at least until certain groups decided to make them relevant again.

Yes, they're real, but you don't get rid of them by going off on witch hunts, dragging (seeming) innocents into the (proverbial) streets "for justice" to be done. All that does is make YOU look like the fraud, not them. Stop the madness. Just stop it. Down the path that these groups groups seems to have collectively chosen just lies generations more of heartache and strife. Whatever their intentions are, what they're doing is not accomplishing what they seek to achieve. Well, unless chaos and strife actually is their goal.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 01, 2018, 12:22:28 PM
I don’t disagree with anything you just said Fenring.  But this topic doesn’t seem to reflect that.

Roseanne said something racists.

The responses range from, “maybe not racists”, to “disproportionate punishment”, to “just an excuse by the other side to stick it to us”, to one of the most perplexing to me, “we cannot allow a victory to those who use methods we do not approve of.”

The AntiFa did not get her fired.  BLM did not get her fired.  The Left did not get her fired.  Political Correctness did not get her fired.  A large corporation protecting it’s bottom line reacted to something SHE did.  They made the business decision that they were better off dropping the entire show, than to “give cover” to her off hand comment because they knew that those who would cheer here are NOT a viable market share compared to those who would be offended by her.  And even if you add in those who would let it pass, it STILL was not a good business decision to let it slide.

So why are YOU framing the discussion as if I am insisting it’s a “my way or the highway” decision?  I’m not saying that you can’t object to anti-racist movements.  I AM suggesting you quit throwing out chaff and flares while personal consequences home in on their target. 

If instead you are arguing that this TV show, and Roseanne are important enough, and do enough good, or provide enough entertainment to excuse the remarks…  That’s something else.  We COULD agree to disagree. 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: NobleHunter on June 01, 2018, 12:44:45 PM
Quote
And the kicker is people are buying into this claptrap hook line and sinker, "because Neo-Nazis are real" ...and were essentially irrelevant and powerless in the US, at least until certain groups decided to make them relevant again.
One of those groups being the Trump led GOP.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on June 01, 2018, 12:49:19 PM
Particularly interesting is the "I thought she was white/iranian" argument, echoed around and made by Barr in the first place. It reveals that the speaker tacitly acknowledges that comparing black people to apes is not an acceptable thing to do. Does this mitigate anything? I would say no, because if you are going to vilify someone you should probably research something about them. This is a long standing Barr tradition, case in point when she accused Soros of being a Nazi collaborator, and that Chelsea Clinton is married to his nephew. When you become that disconnected from reality, you're going to cross a line - it is only a matter of time.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2018, 01:28:42 PM
I don’t disagree with anything you just said Fenring.  But this topic doesn’t seem to reflect that.

Roseanne said something racists.

The responses range from, “maybe not racists”, to “disproportionate punishment”, to “just an excuse by the other side to stick it to us”, to one of the most perplexing to me, “we cannot allow a victory to those who use methods we do not approve of.”

The AntiFa did not get her fired.  BLM did not get her fired.  The Left did not get her fired.  Political Correctness did not get her fired.  A large corporation protecting it’s bottom line reacted to something SHE did.  They made the business decision that they were better off dropping the entire show, than to “give cover” to her off hand comment because they knew that those who would cheer here are NOT a viable market share compared to those who would be offended by her.  And even if you add in those who would let it pass, it STILL was not a good business decision to let it slide.

So why are YOU framing the discussion as if I am insisting it’s a “my way or the highway” decision?  I’m not saying that you can’t object to anti-racist movements.  I AM suggesting you quit throwing out chaff and flares while personal consequences home in on their target. 

If instead you are arguing that this TV show, and Roseanne are important enough, and do enough good, or provide enough entertainment to excuse the remarks…  That’s something else.  We COULD agree to disagree.

We're discussing politics, and my commentary was largely on how either I view things myself, or how I'm reasonably certain how others will view it. You should realize by now that the political aspect of things often is very wildly disconnected from the reality of the thing itself.

Unconditionally in this case, what happened with Roseanne Barr is going to be tied to "all of the above" in regards to this, and it is going to used against them, even if they had nothing (directly) to do with it. ABC isn't stupid, they know what the tactics and other associated methods of said groups are. They acted as swiftly as they did so that they could remain ahead of the controversy instead of getting caught in the middle of it for "protecting Roseanne Barr."

Unless you somehow honestly believe that most of those groups would NOT have done anything had ABC likewise chosen to sit on their hands instead and let things play out. But I don't think you honestly think that, if you do, I have this bridge I can sell you for a good price.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 01, 2018, 01:47:38 PM
Quote
Unconditionally in this case, what happened with Roseanne Barr is going to be tied to "all of the above" in regards to this, and it is going to used against them, even if they had nothing (directly) to do with it.
In case I was not clear enough before, THIS is the cover I was speaking of. 

This 'political reality', is the calculation that people make when they chose to blurt out racist things.  They can get away with it, it's no big deal, because  "all of the above" is going to be a shield.  And EVEN if they are wrong and the slings of those P.C. bastards land a mortal blow, there is still hope for a social, media and social-media afterlife as a martyr to those who fall into the "all of the above" group. 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2018, 01:59:56 PM
Quote
Unconditionally in this case, what happened with Roseanne Barr is going to be tied to "all of the above" in regards to this, and it is going to used against them, even if they had nothing (directly) to do with it.
In case I was not clear enough before, THIS is the cover I was speaking of. 

This 'political reality', is the calculation that people make when they chose to blurt out racist things.  They can get away with it, it's no big deal, because  "all of the above" is going to be a shield.  And EVEN if they are wrong and the slings of those P.C. bastards land a mortal blow, there is still hope for a social, media and social-media afterlife as a martyr to those who fall into the "all of the above" group.

Maybe I'm misreading, but when TheDeamon wrote "all of the above" would be tied to what happened to Roseanne that all the left-leaning groups would be tied to it, whether or not they (such as BLM, or Antifa) particularly had a hand in this specific event. It will be counted in the cultural war as a 'win' in their favor and 'their side' will get credit for it. TheDeamon, is this in fact what you meant? If so, it's very different from what you think he means, D.W. What it actually means is that because BLM et al., through their branding, have become synonymous with liberal social justice, and event in that sphere will implicate them regardless of their actual participation. And THAT is the problem I was addressing above. I don't want it to be the case that they have anything to do with broader activism against racism. But it seems inescapable that disentangling the individual activist groups with good PR from action taken unrelated to them is going to be tough. And when people who feel threatened by (for instance) BLM in particular feel they're connect to what happened with Roseanne, it might make a person who otherwise would have had no inclination either way feel like shying away from what you see as the good side of the cause - because of ancillary parties associated with it. It's like not wanting to go to a diverse party because that guy is going to be there. It's a real thing. The more party becomes seen as being centered around that guy the less attendance you'll get for an otherwise good party.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 01, 2018, 02:00:56 PM
Quote
Unless you somehow honestly believe that most of those groups would NOT have done anything had ABC likewise chosen to sit on their hands instead and let things play out.
I expect they would have called for the show to be canceled.  They would have called for boycotting advertisers on the show.  They would have said some awful things about Roseanne and the cast.

I don't agree with some of that, but just like it was Roseanne's right to tweet what she wanted, it's their right to do all of those things as well.  They all face the consequences of their words and actions. 

And ABC obviously saw that as the likely outcome and acted in what they felt was their best interest. 

Now you can talk about the political implications of our shifting society where previously excusable behavior is no longer excused, but it's not an "us vs them" culture war.  You seem to agree that a lot of the battlefronts in this "war" are not even points of contention to the majority.  They only flare up because those with a vested interest in a conflict (and yes, both sides have their provocateurs and puppet-masters) tell you that this skirmish is important to the larger war effort.  Just trust your generals.  (or your President)

It's why I keep closing in on THIS isolated incident, instead of letting the blob of the wider culture war engulf it.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 01, 2018, 02:08:22 PM
Quote
But it seems inescapable that disentangling the individual activist groups with good PR from action taken unrelated to them is going to be tough.
Nobody can control that.  When you consciously avoid doing something you believe is right, because you are afraid someone bad will take credit, then I have no respect for you.

Either it's something you believe in or not.  It's either right or wrong.  It's something you will embrace or ignore or fight against.   I'm not demanding anyone fight against racism.  Who am I to dictate how hard or even if you should fight or sacrifice or risk?  I do state that you should not BE a racist... But don't expect anyone to go, "OH, huh, good point.  I'll knock that *censored* out."

But the argument that you cannot do good because someone might associate you with a group that shares that goal is ludicrous to me.  How can I NOT see that as an excuse rather than a reason?
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2018, 02:24:19 PM
Quote
But it seems inescapable that disentangling the individual activist groups with good PR from action taken unrelated to them is going to be tough.
Nobody can control that.  When you consciously avoid doing something you believe is right, because you are afraid someone bad will take credit, then I have no respect for you.

Either it's something you believe in or not.  It's either right or wrong.  It's something you will embrace or ignore or fight against.   I'm not demanding anyone fight against racism.  Who am I to dictate how hard or even if you should fight or sacrifice or risk?

But the argument that you cannot do good because someone might associate you with a group that shares that goal is ludicrous to me.  How can I NOT see that as an excuse rather than a reason?

I don't believe the argument being made (such as it is) is that what happened to Roseanne shouldn't have happened to her because it will be tied to BLM et al. I think the argument is that we should be trying to reframe conversations about culture so that these things aren't tied to BLM et al at all. In other words, it would be good to recognize generally that we don't need to be affiliated with a group to be on the right side of things. But the trend of hashtagging #BLM because it's "solidarity" and because it's the only recognizable name is all too easy for someone who doesn't want to stand for himself. I mean, you could always hashtag #IGT (a made-up acronym, standing for some obscure or even self-generated group) and no one will know what that means due to lack of fame, and there goes your (a) brand recognition, (b) solidarity, and (c) virtue signal, because no one will get the signal.

To whatever extent elements on the left are damaging American culture it would be good to get the public image of 'the fight' away from them and dissociated with their PR, because as TheDeamon mentioned they scare people. Actually, they scare me too, and I believe in the things they claim to fight for. And they drive me away. Think about that. And for the record, yes, there are plenty of right-wing groups that also damage their real issues because they are insane. Groups like the Rand Corporation, which in theory should stand for liberty, instead seem to me to represented unadulterated greed and opportunism. So they don't help their cause either, and neither do people like Ted Nugent, or groups like The Westboro Baptists Church. There are partisan or extreme groups all around whose stated goals (liberty, free market automony, etc on one side, Antifa on the other) may be laudable on paper but in practice they hurt America. Most people aren't as extreme as those crazies on either side but because of controlling the narrative people end up feeling like the de facto have to pick one of those sides or the other. And I see politics in the same light. Everyone would benefit by divesting ourselves of the crazies on both sides.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 01, 2018, 02:42:19 PM
Quote
I don't believe the argument being made (such as it is) is that what happened to Roseanne shouldn't have happened to her because it will be tied to BLM et al. I think the argument is that we should be trying to reframe conversations about culture so that these things aren't tied to BLM et al at all.
If so, (trying to suspend my disbelief here), then I concur.  It’s why, I’ve made my repeated failed attempts to say concern over them is a distraction.

Listen, I find “hashtagging” ridiculous.  I find the whole concept of a character limited tweet, ridiculous.  But I’m over 40 now.  I trend towards rambling…  I hate bandwaggoning as a rule.  I think that social media short hand is a clear and present danger to clear, concise communication and it reinforces quick snap “my team” or “their team” assessments that make people either mash the like button in an attempt to siphon off a little of that endorphin high, or tune out to what someone irrelevant is trying to say, or maybe even enrage them into lashing out.

But would I trade our connectivity and exposure to a world outside of our bubbles and slip back into the comfort (for me, as a strait white male) of an earlier “more simple time”?  No.  Because that’s horse poop.  And it wasn’t “better”.  Not for me, and certainly not for those who aren’t strait white males… 

We are (obviously) tribal minded creatures.  The only way forward is expanding our concept of tribe to include a more diverse group.  Some of us are better at that than others.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 01, 2018, 02:51:17 PM
Just out of curiosity and because I think it would be helpful, could I get some definitions for racism?

My own definition of racism is treating people differently because of their race or the color of their skin.

I've looked up a bunch of definitions and that was none of the ones I've found.

I'd like to see how the definitions compare with Roseanne's tweet. For some definitions, racism wouldn't apply if white people can and are compared to primates like G.W. the chimp and Trump the Orangutan and Trump supporters who are Trumpanzees. Racism is treating people differently because of their race so if people of both races are compared to primates that would seem to not be treating them differently based on race. If racism were treating people differently because of race it would actually be racist to compare whites to primates but not blacks because that is different treatment. So racism must be something else. Equal treatment, in some cases, is actually racist.

I wonder if a push for racial equality means that nobody of any race can be compared to primates. That would seem fair enough, I suppose. That would be fighting for equality. I get the history of it all and the racial backdrop. But it's kind of like black people using the N word. If racism is treating people differently because of their race then if it's wrong for one race to use it then it's wrong for everyone. Maybe I'm being too literal about it. Maybe treating people differently because of their race isn't racism at all. Just to be on the safe side I just won't liken anyone to primates, regardless of their race but I don't know if I have the heart to tell my wife that she's a racist if she keeps calling me a gorilla.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 01, 2018, 02:53:01 PM
You are correct cherrypoptart.  While that definition seems correct on its' face, obviously it is lacking.  How do you quickly, in a tiny tweet sized portion, so that nobody loses interest, or becomes confused, relay that context is also important?  That history matters?  That most of the problem today is not white sheet apparel, flaming crosses or lynch mobs, but people attempting to say something everyone knows is racists yet still preserve deniability?

I got nothing.

How about:  Don't act *censored*ty to people (or MORE *censored*ty if you are already a *censored*ty person) because of their DNA.

We can cover a lot more ground, by adding an "or their lifestyle" to the end of that.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Wayward Son on June 01, 2018, 03:05:49 PM
Quote
Now, there is a good counter argument to the above, that goes like this: 
The legal difference between people and animals is that people have RIGHTS.  These rights are unalienable and include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  People have rights.  Slaves have no rights.  Hence slaves are not people.  If they are not people then they are not human and are thereby either subhuman or transhuman or whatever. 

Yet, the Constitution in and of itself does not deprive slaves or rights.  These are usually done at the state level.  Additionally, just about every state gave slaves some rights, and also differentiated them from animals. Some much more than others.  Northern states obviously had many more rights for slaves than southern ones.  Even then, there are grades.  From what I can tell, every state had laws against slave masters simply murdering their slaves.  Many had laws against cruelty. 

Second, it was widely understood and accepted at the time of the writing of the Constitution that different kinds of people had different rights.  White males had all the rights, black slaves had very little, and all kinds of grades between. Equal rights really wasn't a thing in 1781.  That doesn't mean that anyone who wasn't a white male was seen or described as sub-human.  It simply means that equal rights wasn't a thing.   

So the idea: slaves have no rights hence slaves are not people, is erroneous.  To the 18th century mind, different people have different rights.   Hence, slaves having less rights than non-slaves does not mean that they are not people, and hence sub-human.

That is very well-argued, that in the 18th century you could be human but have difference rights, but it still seems to be a distinction without a difference.

What good is it to be considered human if your owner can rape you at will?  Whip you at will?  Sell your children at will?  Have you torn apart by dogs if you try to escape?  Perform surgery on you (without anesthesia) if he wants to experiment?  It's good to hear that murdering slaves was illegal in some states, but what was the punishment?  Hanging, like for the murder of any other person, or a stiff fine? ;)

Exactly what "rights" did slaves have that animals didn't, except maybe the right not to be eaten?

As you mentioned, the Declaration of Independence says that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  But when you are not afforded these unalienable Rights that other humans enjoy, what good is it to be human?  What distinguishes you from a "sub-human?"

And do remember that many people at the time did consider blacks and other races as being sub-human--closer to apes than (white) men.  And this idea didn't come from Abolitionists.

You guys are right that the Constitution does not establish that slaves were less than human.  But it did reflect the reality at the time that they were not considered to have the full rights of a man.  Perhaps the word shouldn't be "establish" but rather "admit."
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2018, 03:25:46 PM
Maybe I'm misreading, but when TheDeamon wrote "all of the above" would be tied to what happened to Roseanne that all the left-leaning groups would be tied to it, whether or not they (such as BLM, or Antifa) particularly had a hand in this specific event. It will be counted in the cultural war as a 'win' in their favor and 'their side' will get credit for it. TheDeamon, is this in fact what you meant?

Yes.

Quote
If so, it's very different from what you think he means, D.W. What it actually means is that because BLM et al., through their branding, have become synonymous with liberal social justice, and event in that sphere will implicate them regardless of their actual participation. And THAT is the problem I was addressing above. I don't want it to be the case that they have anything to do with broader activism against racism. But it seems inescapable that disentangling the individual activist groups with good PR from action taken unrelated to them is going to be tough. And when people who feel threatened by (for instance) BLM in particular feel they're connect to what happened with Roseanne, it might make a person who otherwise would have had no inclination either way feel like shying away from what you see as the good side of the cause - because of ancillary parties associated with it. It's like not wanting to go to a diverse party because that guy is going to be there. It's a real thing. The more party becomes seen as being centered around that guy the less attendance you'll get for an otherwise good party.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2018, 03:25:52 PM
Quote
I don't believe the argument being made (such as it is) is that what happened to Roseanne shouldn't have happened to her because it will be tied to BLM et al. I think the argument is that we should be trying to reframe conversations about culture so that these things aren't tied to BLM et al at all.
If so, (trying to suspend my disbelief here), then I concur.  It’s why, I’ve made my repeated failed attempts to say concern over them is a distraction.

There are two different issues, which could sometimes be conflated and cause people to speak past each other here. One issue is how the narratives in the broader culture are shaping and what it means for everyone. The other issue is how we, here on Ornery, are framing the issues and discussing them. Sometimes a poster here will take issue with an approach to a topic and people here assume they are the ones being targeted, but actually it was meant as a general social critique. Likewise, sometimes people here are having a particular disagreement with each other and it begins to be mistaken for some kind of broad issue when really it's about two people trying to connect ideas to each other. So we do need to distinguish between "our conversation" (on Ornery) and "the broad conversation" which is now often about social media and the MSM. When I mention taking issue with how liberal causes are often framed, I'm not really speaking about here on Ornery but rather addressing observations I make about Facebook and Twitter habits, bloggers I come across, and so forth. I bring that information here and speak about it. I rarely address issues about how people here post because in general I think posting habits here have become rather good.

So when I say there's concern about BLM et al it isn't because I want to focus on them, or even because people here are focusing on them, but because out there in the blogosphere people focus on them. It's that line of attention and of branding that I address and which I think would be good to separate from the issues. Surely you've heard of the counter to #blacklivesmatter, which is #alllivesmatter. Well that counter-tag probably had a diversity of people using it, but on the whole it seems to me that it more more a negative response to BLM specifically than to the issue that black people shouldn't be targeted by police. Maybe I'm wrong about that and you can find examples of totally bigoted users of #alllivesmatter, but my point is that taking what should be a slam-dunk "duh" issue and having it (in the public eye) associated with a group many find questionable makes even moderates want to shy away from a subject where they should be all for it.

Quote
Listen, I find “hashtagging” ridiculous.

Same. But the fact that I want nothing to do with it doesn't stop it from being a real cultural phenomenon. So I try to keep my eyes open to what's going on with the public 'mind'. And actually I do think of it as that. Anyone here read Dan Simmons? He borrows an old but obscure term called the "noosphere" which means the ecosphere of ideas. This is practically a living thing as far as I'm concerned and I try to observe its progress. Part of that at present involves who's paying attention to what signals, and it's the signals that I'm concerned with here.

Quote
The only way forward is expanding our concept of tribe to include a more diverse group.  Some of us are better at that than others.

You say that as if that's even what everyone is trying to do. But you can only be 'better at' a thing if you're willing to try it in the first place. I'm not 'better than' (or worse than) anyone at hang gliding, because I just don't do it. I say this because here are people who actively do not want us to become one big, diverse tribe. They want fragmentation, generally because there's money in  it for them. I would much rather the culture war be about "partisan vs non-partisan" rather than "partisan of one side vs partisan of another". I'd join a group that refuses to be called a group; kind of a reverse Grouch Marx principle. I'd say mission #1 should be to route all the parties trying to divide us, rather than to pick sides in a massive side game of capture the flag. I don't want to capture the flag, it's supposed to belong to everyone. The biggest hindrance to routing them is to buy into their game and pick sides, because it harms the people who should be your allies (you know, the ones you're supposed to think of as the enemy) and casts a shadow on those profiting from trench warfare.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on June 01, 2018, 03:51:57 PM
Just out of curiosity and because I think it would be helpful, could I get some definitions for racism?

My own definition of racism is treating people differently because of their race or the color of their skin.

Just off the top of my head, I would say that racism has more to do with thought than action, in order to differentiate it from discrimination.  That being said, the usual sign of racism, since we can't read minds, is to look at actions, which includes discrimination. 

From wikipedia:
Quote
Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. Today, the use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.

Seems wikipedia is with me in that racism is a belief rather than actions, while discrimination and prejudice are actions. 

The OED covers it's bases by connecting the cause and effect as one. 

Quote
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

OED stresses the connection under the assumption that one cannot exist without the other.  It also takes the stance that simple belief in superiority must be accompanied by action, including antagonism. 

Webster comes back to say that it is a belief, and clarifies that the belief in superiority must be believed to be both inherent and due to race. 

Quote
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Wikipedia lists "Aspects" of racism, without a clear reference.  It seems to be social scientific aspects.  They include:
1. Aversive racism- "I just don't like you because you are different"
2. Overt racism- "I hate you"
3. Color blindness- "You did not get the job because we only hired the 3 best candidates, not because you were Japanese". 
4. Cultural- "We don't like you because you are not in our group"
5. Economic- "You're poor because we don't like you"
6. Institutional- "You're not receiving police protection because we don't like you"
7. Etc Etc

Sorry I got tired of so many racisms.  I imagine it's probably more tiring if you're on the receiving end.  Some of these deal with discrimination, and some don't.  Some are about thought, some are about action. 


Personally, I thought Webster did the best job of defining, though it's food for thought to think of discrimination and prejudice as being inseparable and part of racism. 

My personal belief:

Racism has three stratum. Soft racism is when someone subscribes to a generalization (correct or incorrect) that leads to a belief of general superiority of one race over another that is typically extended irregardless of individual merit.

Medium racism is when someone doesn't like you, simply because of what color you are or what ethnicity you are, often based on beliefs of general superiority of one race over another.  This belief is typically not translated into any type of discriminatory action, but does inform non discriminatory action and political action that is non punitive or exclusionary.   

Hard racism is when you really hate someone based on their color or ethnicity.  It is accompanied by discriminatory action and political action that can be both punitive or exclusionary, etc.   

My view is that all of these things are bad things, but to different degrees.  I believe that the only one that is illegal and should be illegal is hard racism, when it does not interfere with one's own freedoms.  I believe that racism is a problem but less of a problem than general economic and geopolitical problems or even environmental problems.  I believe that the solution to racism is the same as it has always been; exposure to other races, ethnicities, and general removal from racist culture. 

We face new sources of racism today because of politics.  The general right/left divide, and the war against racism and it's casualties, has created new sources of generalizations, and the application of unproportional punishment for racism is creating grievances as much as racism itself.  I think that the way to fight racism and seek justice is to promote love and understanding, and if that is not achievable, then strict philosophy of non-harm. 

Perhaps the most respected authority:

Quote
Racism is a philosophy based on a contempt for life. It is the arrogant assertion that one race is the center of value and object of devotion, before which other races must kneel in submission. It is the absurd dogma that one race is responsible for all the progress of history and alone can assure the progress of the future. Racism is total estrangement. It separates not only bodies, but minds and spirits. Inevitably it descends to inflicting spiritual and physical homicide upon the out-group.



Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2018, 03:56:27 PM
Just out of curiosity and because I think it would be helpful, could I get some definitions for racism?

My own definition of racism is treating people differently because of their race or the color of their skin.

In my case, I consider racism to be a subset of bigotry and/or hypocrisy in general. Only in the "racist" sense it is specifically targeted towards members of a certain identifiable demographic/ethnic group where a "racial characteristic" such a skin color, is used as a primary means of identification.

Primary indicators would different treatment being offered "on the basis of racial characteristics" and/or advocacy for others to do the same. Tertiary indicators would also be that they are constantly degrading both the (racial) group and numerous members within it.

And some of these indicators are tricky ones because context, and sample size matters. If you walk in a see a white guy working with a mixed racial group of people but he spends most of his time/attention focusing on the only 3 people who happen to belong to a certain other racial group, you might get the impression of a racial bias at play. But if you take some time, and don't rush to judge, you might discover there is "nothing racial" going on at all with regards to that white guy, but that other reasons existed why those 3 kept getting extra attention.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Wayward Son on June 01, 2018, 04:01:01 PM
BTW, one more thing to add to the mix.

ABC was very quick to cancel "Roseanne" after the tweet.  Almost like they didn't need to have a discussion about it.  Which is rather odd for a series that is doing well, and that they have already sold commercial time for in the upcoming season.

Ms. Barr apparently has a history of provocative remarks and of believing conspiracy theories.  And she apparently has always been a headache for the network, even during her original series.

I have a theory.  I bet that when ABC signed the contract with her, there was a clause that stated that she could not cause too much trouble or somesuch.  That they were expecting something like this, and already had a contractual "out" to drop her if necessary.

And I bet that this incident was covered in the contract.

Anyone heard anything like this?
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 01, 2018, 04:08:01 PM
We aren’t talking past each other though, not really.
I’m saying, “Hey, bad people are using the concept of a broader culture war and enlisting you, against your will, to fight for them.”
Your response is, “But we ARE in a culture war, and just because there are bad people out there, doesn’t mean we can ignore that.”

It’s an impressive trap / cycle.  I thought, and still think, that pointing out that trap is a tactic worth pursuing.  No crossed wires.  No speaking past each other.  We’re both presenting views of reality that align.  It’s a matter of priorities it seems.  I guess mine are radically different.

This whole conversation is weird because I’m no activist by any stretch of the imagination.  The only active measures I take to call out racism is telling a friend or family member they are being inappropriate.  Then deciding if those comments/views impact how much (if any) contact I want to have with them moving forward.  That’s pretty much it.  No signs, no donations.  Just that, and going to my local poling location come election time.  Other than that, I just do my best to judge people only based on how they act, towards me, and towards others.
Quote
You say that as if that's even what everyone is trying to do. But you can only be 'better at' a thing if you're willing to try it in the first place.
Nope!  It’s not what everyone is trying to do.  But it IS the only way forward.  Some people don’t want to go forward.  Many want desperately to go backwards.  Many are cool with the status quo.  You may not want to go hang gliding.  Some of us would rather fly than just sit here, or worse, be shoved off this ledge without one.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on June 01, 2018, 04:26:38 PM
Quote
That is very well-argued, that in the 18th century you could be human but have difference rights, but it still seems to be a distinction without a difference.

This is a very good post, Wayward.  Pardon me while I rub my nerps. 

Quote
What good is it to be considered human if your owner can rape you at will?  Whip you at will?  Sell your children at will?

As you say, you still could not be eaten.  If someone did kill you they could be tried for murder, rather than destruction of property.  In certain places if your master was too cruel then you could be legally removed from them and sold to someone else, though you probably didn't have a right to make the complaint yourself.  I think the key aspect of the difference between then and now is that they saw no problem in legally treating other human being like *censored*.  It didn't make them non-human.  It just meant that white males sat on top of a racial and sexual pyramid of power and rights.  I have no doubt that many people treated their slaves worse than their dogs, so I think you have a point.  What does it matter if you are defined as a human being if you still get treated worse than a dog by someone? 

Quote
Exactly what "rights" did slaves have that animals didn't, except maybe the right not to be eaten?
Depends on where you were.  As I said before, I believe that at a minimum you could not be murdered, that your murderer could be prosecuted, and that you could be taken away from your master for mistreatment.  "Mistreatment" probably being ill defined, but you need to talk to a 18th/19th century slave code legal scholar.  That's probably more rights than a dog had, but maybe not much. 

Quote
But when you are not afforded these unalienable Rights that other humans enjoy, what good is it to be human?  What distinguishes you from a "sub-human?"

All those things that abolitionists point out that make you human, and above an animal.  What good is it to be human yet a slave?  You can love.  You can laugh.  You can hate. You can learn.  You can think and experience things a dog never could fathom.  You can fight.  You can pray.  You can make friends.  You can read a book if you learn in secret to read.  You can devise an escape.  You can push yourself and sacrifice.  You can take meaning from suffering.  You can possibly live forever. 

Quote
And do remember that many people at the time did consider blacks and other races as being sub-human--closer to apes than (white) men.  And this idea didn't come from Abolitionists.

Many people?  I dunno.  I don't have a gallup poll.  Some people, sure.  There still probably are today.  Probably less.  But it generally wasn't an idea shared by the educated or spiritual.  Even the Southern Baptists believed they had souls. 

Quote
But it did reflect the reality at the time that they were not considered to have the full rights of a man.  Perhaps the word shouldn't be "establish" but rather "admit."

This is the conflict and the inconsistency.  They recognized it as well back then.  Yet even today we recognize that not all human beings have equal rights.  Children do not have the right to vote.  Felons do not have the right to vote or own firearms.  Not everyone has the right to drive a car, you need a license.  When it comes to licensing, oh boy, not everyone has the right to cut hair.  Not everyone has the right to distribute morphine.  Some people have food and health care and some don't.  Some people have more freedom than others.  We generally do not call these things rights, because a right, by definition, is something that everyone has a right to. 

We think of freedom and the vote as being the right of all men, of all people.  But that just wasn't the case a long time ago.  Even when it was spelled out in the Declaration. 


Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2018, 04:33:06 PM
We aren’t talking past each other though, not really.

We sort of still are, because -

Quote
I’m saying, “Hey, bad people are using the concept of a broader culture war and enlisting you, against your will, to fight for them.”
Your response is, “But we ARE in a culture war, and just because there are bad people out there, doesn’t mean we can ignore that.”

- doesn't represent what I think I'm saying. But maybe I could still look for better ways of saying it. If the first statement is your position, mine would read more like:

"People on one side believe they're waging a culture war against bad people, and many people who shouldn't be involved feel targeted. People who are the actual bad people see this and are pleased that the cause that should have targeted them has instead targeted others and actually shielded them in a way."

That's too pat, but something like that. Basically the 'bad people' you're concerned about are often little more than bystanders in all this. But worse, because they know a great many people feel targeted and therefore have animus towards the 'good guys', the 'bad guys' can actually feel emboldened to criticize the warriors and know that they speak truth. It gives them something true to say against the other side.

In short, I'm not trying to convince you that we "ARE" in a culture war. I'm saying that people try to rile things up into one because targeting boogeymen is just their thing. Most 'civilians' are probably not much involved, and the biggest participation will be using hashtags and yelling at the air on Facebook. But to whatever extent there are real problems to solve in society I think these efforts are hampered by turning race relations into a culture war.

Quote
Quote
You say that as if that's even what everyone is trying to do. But you can only be 'better at' a thing if you're willing to try it in the first place.

Nope!  It’s not what everyone is trying to do.  But it IS the only way forward.  Some people don’t want to go forward.  Many want desperately to go backwards.  Many are cool with the status quo.  You may not want to go hang gliding.  Some of us would rather fly than just sit here, or worse, be shoved off this ledge without one.

Not quite what I meant. You said some people are better than others are uniting as one tribe. My point was that you measure better/worse in cases where people are actually trying, not when they have an alternate agenda. Hang gliding wasn't meant as a metaphor as if to say "I prefer being down here on the ground." It was an example of something I'm not a part of, where I don't even exist on the "better or worse at" scale. Someone trying to foment discord is not "worse at" unity than I am; they're not playing the same game at all. I agree with you that it's the ideal way forward. But I think an important step in going forward is identifying forces that push us back. I would argue that Antifa is a backward-moving force, and so when seen on that axis whatever claim they make about their cause is irrelevant. If it causes discord it's backward and therefore not part of my cause. This is what I mean about disentangling groups from ideas. We want to pursue the idea, and if the group is doing that in a way that harms the idea then I'll try to counter the notion that they actually serve it. Not because I'm in a culture war, but because I don't want there to be  a war at all, and they (hypothetically) do.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2018, 04:37:31 PM
This is the conflict and the inconsistency.  They recognized it as well back then.  Yet even today we recognize that not all human beings have equal rights.  Children do not have the right to vote.  Felons do not have the right to vote or own firearms.  Not everyone has the right to drive a car, you need a license.  When it comes to licensing, oh boy, not everyone has the right to cut hair.  Not everyone has the right to distribute morphine.  Some people have food and health care and some don't.  Some people have more freedom than others.  We generally do not call these things rights, because a right, by definition, is something that everyone has a right to.

Just a quibble, but no one has the "right" to distribute morphine. Some people are authorized to do so, but there is no right backing that up. Similarly with other things where being allowed to do a thing or not that has to do with licensing/permits. License to do something and a right to it are very different from each other, a mistake many people (maybe you not, specifically) make often. But I think your point is still taken that not everyone has equal access to things that actually are rights anyhow.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on June 01, 2018, 04:43:49 PM
Just a quibble, but no one has the "right" to distribute morphine. Some people are authorized to do so, but there is no right backing that up. Similarly with other things where being allowed to do a thing or not that has to do with licensing/permits. License to do something and a right to it are very different from each other, a mistake many people (maybe you not, specifically) make often. But I think your point is still taken that not everyone has equal access to things that actually are rights anyhow.

Yesssss.  This is why some of these things would be better called "privileges".  Now back in the day many saw their rights as being connected to their race and sex, or maybe even that they were privileges granted by the government or sovereign rather than what we would consider a "natural right". 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2018, 04:48:47 PM
My personal belief:

Racism has three stratum. Soft racism is when someone subscribes to a generalization (correct or incorrect) that leads to a belief of general superiority of one race over another that is typically extended irregardless of individual merit.


Eh, I don't think that a belief in "inherent superiority" on the basis of race alone is completely accurate, or true, particularly as used in the United States. A LOT of what is getting lumped under "racism" is actually more cultural in nature more than it is racial. It just happens that because most people that subscribe to certain cultural more also generally have a corresponding racial/ethnic composition tends to blur the lines a lot. (See one of the other threads where I discussed a Hispanic associate of mine, who is very obviously Hispanic if you met him in person. However, his family has been in the United States for generations, and as such he speaks unaccented (North-Western US) English, which means he "sounds like a white guy."

So he gets it from both sides, he's been on the receiving end of Racial profiling by the police, even I'm reasonably convinced of that, although even he concedes that in many of his encounters with them, the "profile" he happened to meet wasn't just a racial one. He's also been ignored by other (ESL) Hispanics after initially trying to talk to them in English, at least right up until he switches to Spanish.

That isn't racist in nature, that's cultural/lingual. He probably received an additional "helping" in that case because "he's brown" so they were likely offended by the presence of this brown-skinned gringo in their midst, right up until he demonstrated differently.

Of course, on the "softer side" I'll have to admit that anymore as I'm out on the road and shooting the bull with other drivers, I've started to "taking odds" on how long it'll be until the black driver I'm speaking with decides to start complaining about how they're discriminated against. Although I'll say by far the most interesting ones to talk with are the black driver's who complain about the other black drivers who are complaining about being discriminated against. Those guys are probably some of the most amazing people I've ever met.

Quote
Medium racism is when someone doesn't like you, simply because of what color you are or what ethnicity you are, often based on beliefs of general superiority of one race over another.  This belief is typically not translated into any type of discriminatory action, but does inform non discriminatory action and political action that is non punitive or exclusionary.   

Hard racism is when you really hate someone based on their color or ethnicity.  It is accompanied by discriminatory action and political action that can be both punitive or exclusionary, etc.   

My view is that all of these things are bad things, but to different degrees.  I believe that the only one that is illegal and should be illegal is hard racism, when it does not interfere with one's own freedoms.  I believe that racism is a problem but less of a problem than general economic and geopolitical problems or even environmental problems.  I believe that the solution to racism is the same as it has always been; exposure to other races, ethnicities, and general removal from racist culture.

Agreed, although there is a bit of a fine line to walk on that. You want to make it clear that what they spew is trash, and it is not acceptable in society at large. But at the same time, you need to keep them engaged in society all the same, or they're going to become truly lost, far more radicalized, and much more of a problem later on.

Which is part of the "chilling effect" IMO that what happened with Roseanne Barr is going to have on things. The honest answer is that there is no real good answer for how that should have been handled, except immediate cancellation of the show is going to be an action that has consequences in ways most people are unable to appreciate at present. I fully expect it's going to help motivate more people to turn up and vote against the Democrats, and only time will tell(in November) if that is going to be something the DNC rather specifically is going to regret, even though they have utterly 0 input in what goes on at ABC. It is very possible that in looking back on things come November, a lot of activist groups may end up with the question of "If we had a choice, allow Roseanne Barr to continue with her TV Sitcom, or see the Republicans retain control of Congress, we'd chose letting her keep the sitcom." (and in a twisted irony, her sitcom still being on the air might also have motivated some additional people to vote Democrat that won't be doing so now)

Quote
We face new sources of racism today because of politics.  The general right/left divide, and the war against racism and it's casualties, has created new sources of generalizations, and the application of unproportional punishment for racism is creating grievances as much as racism itself.  I think that the way to fight racism and seek justice is to promote love and understanding, and if that is not achievable, then strict philosophy of non-harm.

The bigger thing for me is that Roseanne wasn't even given a chance to apologize. She slipped up, and she was immediately booted out the door. No chance for a walk-back, no by-the-way, or anything else, just "good bye."

I'm still not convinced she actually is racist. Particularly given her somehow thinking "VJ" was Iranian. (I knew about her, and that she was black back in 2009) Not that Roseanne has impressed me with much of anything since watching her sitcom while growing up as a kid, and even then, her show wasn't high on the list of things to watch.

Quote
Perhaps the most respected authority:
Quote
Racism is a philosophy based on a contempt for life. It is the arrogant assertion that one race is the center of value and object of devotion, before which other races must kneel in submission. It is the absurd dogma that one race is responsible for all the progress of history and alone can assure the progress of the future. Racism is total estrangement. It separates not only bodies, but minds and spirits. Inevitably it descends to inflicting spiritual and physical homicide upon the out-group.

For the outright racist/hate groups, 100% agreed with that one.

But most "racists" stop well short of that. They just think Native Americans are a bunch of drunks living off of public assistance(and casino money now), Blacks Men are a bunch of lazy unmotivated thugs. Muslim men are a bunch misogynists with aspirations of bringing to pass a global Caliphate. So on and so forth. (Of note there: Muslim's are followers of Islam, not a race; although certain racial groups are overwhelmingly Muslim)
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2018, 05:00:48 PM
We aren’t talking past each other though, not really.

We sort of still are, because -

Quote
I’m saying, “Hey, bad people are using the concept of a broader culture war and enlisting you, against your will, to fight for them.”
Your response is, “But we ARE in a culture war, and just because there are bad people out there, doesn’t mean we can ignore that.”

- doesn't represent what I think I'm saying. But maybe I could still look for better ways of saying it. If the first statement is your position, mine would read more like:

"People on one side believe they're waging a culture war against bad people, and many people who shouldn't be involved feel targeted. People who are the actual bad people see this and are pleased that the cause that should have targeted them has instead targeted others and actually shielded them in a way."

That's too pat, but something like that. Basically the 'bad people' you're concerned about are often little more than bystanders in all this. But worse, because they know a great many people feel targeted and therefore have animus towards the 'good guys', the 'bad guys' can actually feel emboldened to criticize the warriors and know that they speak truth. It gives them something true to say against the other side.

It might seem "too pat" but I think it is more on the nose than you might fully appreciate. Keep in mind that for the "hard racist" types, they revel in their hate speech, and if they're out in society at large, they've probably more fully aware of what the "dog whistles" and other "triggers" are when it comes to racial epithets, so they can go a number of ways with that. They can either stay "under the radar" completely and not use any of them, or they can try to engineer scenarios where it seems like they "slipped" in an innocent way and provoked a disproportionate response from somebody else.

But 100% agreed that they have to be absolutely positively gleeful everytime some stripe of "SJW" goes off on a tear against someone who is not actually a racist because they inadvertently stumbled across one of those "triggers" unknowingly. Which brings us back to my earlier comments about how "Middle America is terrified" of the current take-no-prisoners approach to social behavior when it comes to racial matter or "Alternative lifestyles" because all they know is that there is this minefield of words and phrases that when combined together in a particular way that seems rather innocuous to them, famous and powerful people suddenly find their lives getting turned upside down. If THAT can happen to those rich and powerful people, what could possibly happen to them?

This is why Roseanne "is a big deal" as ABC just wrote off a billion dollars of potential revenue just to escape the potential fallout they expected from Roseanne's one bizarre tweet.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 01, 2018, 05:01:33 PM
Quote
"People on one side believe they're waging a culture war against bad people, and many people who shouldn't be involved feel targeted. People who are the actual bad people see this and are pleased that the cause that should have targeted them has instead targeted others and actually shielded them in a way."
Then I was too optimistic about common ground.  (But then you go on to reframe most of my points, you just seem to insist the left accept the blame before we could call a ceasefire.)  WTF, blame me.  I’ve hit the like button on memes attacking Trump.  I’ve said some seriously derogatory things about those who voted for him.  So blame me.  It’s my fault.  Can I interest you in a *censored*ing hang glider now?
Quote
That's too pat, but something like that. Basically the 'bad people' you're concerned about are often little more than bystanders in all this.
Bullpoop.  I get that you are probably talking about some broader “you” as a stand in for {insert label for a side in the culture war}, but it’s bullpoop.  This is like looking for an extremist, and going, HERE!  Gotcha!  Your point is now invalid because there is an extremist saying it!  THEY are “bad people” so obviously, the position is bad.  It’s bullpoop. 

I don’t believe there IS a culture war.  There are people who do not treat their fellow human beings with respect and are hard pressed to even leave those they disagree with alone.  They deflect and obfuscate rationalize and outright lie in order to continue doing so.  There are those who buy into that rhetoric and try to fight on that artificial battleground on those terms.  I pity both sides of that “war”.

There are serious divides on important issues in this country.  All those related to the culture ware are not among them.  Hell I’m pro 2nd Amendment, I’m anti-undocumented immigrant (though not pro-border security) ;) , rather hawkish when it comes to the military and more than a hint of a protectionists when it comes to trade.  I may not even BE a Democratic voter if not for “social issues”.  I also trend strongly towards more of the democratic-socialist platform though I didn’t have a label for it until the last election.  But those social issues, are what I consider to be the most important issue.  If we managed to resolve that, there’s very little our country couldn’t fix or improve, in a bipartisan way. 

There absolutely are people out there terrified of that ever coming to pass.  I do my best to refuse to help them.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 01, 2018, 05:03:20 PM
Quote
Hang gliding wasn't meant as a metaphor
And I know.  Happy accident.   How could I not go there after you tee-ed it up? :P
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on June 01, 2018, 05:11:02 PM
Quote
Eh, I don't think that a belief in "inherent superiority" on the basis of race alone is completely accurate, or true, particularly as used in the United States. A LOT of what is getting lumped under "racism" is actually more cultural in nature more than it is racial.

Yeah.  I can see that.  And I can see how it could be lumped in with racism, or probably more accurately could be form of cultural superiority.  For racists, I believe they typically lump their culture in with a race.  It's not always entirely wrong.  Food for thought. 

Quote
Agreed, although there is a bit of a fine line to walk on that. You want to make it clear that what they spew is trash, and it is not acceptable in society at large. But at the same time, you need to keep them engaged in society all the same, or they're going to become truly lost, far more radicalized, and much more of a problem later on.

It is a fine line.  It's certainly easier when you're not the one being crapped on.  It takes immense spiritual and emotional strength to engage with fools that hate you and are trying to hurt you in some way.  I think we need to get back to the basics, not just Meagan McArdle. 

Quote
PRINCIPLE ONE: Nonviolence is a way of life for courageous people.
It is active nonviolent resistance to evil.

It is aggressive spiritually, mentally and emotionally. 

PRINCIPLE TWO: Nonviolence seeks to win friendship and understanding.
The end result of nonviolence is redemption and reconciliation.

The purpose of nonviolence is the creation of the Beloved Community.                                                                                                       

PRINCIPLE THREE: Nonviolence seeks to defeat injustice not people.
Nonviolence recognizes that evildoers are also victims and are not evil people.

The nonviolent resister seeks to defeat evil not people.

PRINCIPLE FOUR: Nonviolence holds that suffering can educate and transform.
Nonviolence accepts suffering without retaliation.

Unearned suffering is redemptive and has tremendous educational and transforming possibilities.   

PRINCIPLE FIVE: Nonviolence chooses love instead of hate.
Nonviolence resists violence of the spirit as well as the body.           

Nonviolent love is spontaneous, unmotivated, unselfish and creative. 

PRINCIPLE SIX: Nonviolence believes that the universe is on the side of justice.
The nonviolent resister has deep faith that justice will eventually win.

Nonviolence believes that God is a God of justice.   

I think this is a recipe for getting as much success as you can, but it still won't eradicate racism.  People are just too stupid.  They are and always have been.  This includes everybody.  We're human. 

Quote
SIX STEPS OF NONVIOLENT SOCIAL CHANGE

INFORMATION GATHERING:To understand and articulate an issue, problem or injustice facing a person, community, or institution you must do research. You must investigate and gather all vital information from all sides of the argument or issue so as to increase your understanding of the problem. You must become an expert on your opponent's position.
EDUCATION:It is essential to inform others, including your opposition, about your issue. This minimizes misunderstandings and gains you support and sympathy.
PERSONAL COMMITMENT:Daily check and affirm your faith in the philosophy and methods of nonviolence. Eliminate hidden motives and prepare yourself to accept suffering, if necessary, in your work for justice.
DISCUSSION/NEGOTIATION:Using grace, humor and intelligence, confront the other party with a list of injustices and a plan for addressing and resolving these injustices. Look for what is positive in every action and statement the opposition makes. Do not seek to humiliate the opponent but to call forth the good in the opponent.
DIRECT ACTION: These are actions taken when the opponent is unwilling to enter into, or remain in, discussion/negotiation. These actions impose a "creative tension" into the conflict, supplying moral pressure on your opponent to work with you in resolving the injustice.
RECONCILIATION:Nonviolence seeks friendship and understanding with the opponent. Nonviolence does not seek to defeat the opponent. Nonviolence is directed against evil systems, forces, oppressive policies, unjust acts, but not against persons. Through reasoned compromise, both sides resolve the injustice with a plan of action. Each act of reconciliation is one step close to the 'Beloved Community.'

That guy is a truly great American. 

Quote
But most "racists" stop well short of that. They just think Native Americans are a bunch of drunks living off of public assistance(and casino money now), Blacks Men are a bunch of lazy unmotivated thugs. Muslim men are a bunch misogynists with aspirations of bringing to pass a global Caliphate. So on and so forth. (Of note there: Muslim's are followers of Islam, not a race; although certain racial groups are overwhelmingly Muslim)

Well, that was MLK's definition.  I kinda like the others a little better, honestly.  Now, if you think that Native Americans are all drunks living off public assistance, then you're also making a value judgement, and you're also probably comparing them your own race/ethnicity.  So you probably believe that Native Americans are bad/poor/less because they are all drunks living off the public assistance, and you probably believe that whites or whatever are not all drunks living off public assistance, so you have created your basis for specific superiority.  Because it has a strong value part, you could extend this to make a general belief concerning superiority.  So I think that makes you racist, if you get led to the superiority part.  Maybe the general superiority part is the key.  I suppose you could hate just about everybody and every race, and not believe that any one is superior.  I remember plenty of old drill sergeants that presented that persona.  It could be they were playing to a caricature, but it also helped inure people to racist statements while coming from a non-racist point of view. 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 01, 2018, 05:14:13 PM
Quote
Which brings us back to my earlier comments about how "Middle America is terrified" of the current take-no-prisoners approach to social behavior when it comes to racial matter or "Alternative lifestyles" because all they know is that there is this minefield of words and phrases that when combined together in a particular way that seems rather innocuous to them, famous and powerful people suddenly find their lives getting turned upside down. If THAT can happen to those rich and powerful people, what could possibly happen to them?
I know it’s futile to try and calm an irrational fear by pointing out it’s an irrational fear but…

This happens BECAUSE those people are rich and powerful.  And guess what.  When you are rich and powerful, you are thrust into the minefield.  “Middle America” does not face the same repercussions, let alone possibly worse ones. 
As Wayward Son pointed out, this happened SUPER fast.  They must have known this was a possible if not likely scenario and had their response ready to go.  If you think Roseanne was ignorant of this I think you are being naive.  But, I think her personality compels her to play chicken with such constraints.  There was no way she wasn’t going to go RIGHT up to that line…  She miscalculated. 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on June 01, 2018, 05:27:26 PM
As Wayward Son pointed out, this happened SUPER fast.  They must have known this was a possible if not likely scenario and had their response ready to go.  If you think Roseanne was ignorant of this I think you are being naive.  But, I think her personality compels her to play chicken with such constraints.  There was no way she wasn’t going to go RIGHT up to that line…  She miscalculated.

I think it's a bunch of speculation that they had a response ready to go.  Sure it's possible, but it's speculation.  I don't see how you could base your views on the firing on speculation. 

I havn't been following your discussion closely.  It seems it revolves around one side being afraid (maybe irrationally) and the other side not caring because JUSTICE!  I think we all make mistakes, and we're all human, and racism and stupid comments are sometimes those mistakes.  I think if you're going to scream about justice or fairness, then you need to be reminded about the punishment fitting the crime and proportionality. 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2018, 05:32:49 PM
I expect they would have called for the show to be canceled.  They would have called for boycotting advertisers on the show.  They would have said some awful things about Roseanne and the cast.

I don't agree with some of that, but just like it was Roseanne's right to tweet what she wanted, it's their right to do all of those things as well.  They all face the consequences of their words and actions. 

And ABC obviously saw that as the likely outcome and acted in what they felt was their best interest.

Fully agreed, that is how I would have expected it to work, the rest of the cast would be called terrible things until/unless they either quit, or renounced Roseanne Barr's actions in a very public way.

Rather reminiscent of Nazi Germany and the Fascists in a way, IMO, or Stalinst Russia for that matter, or Maoist China, and so on. But maybe that's just me. 

Quote
Now you can talk about the political implications of our shifting society where previously excusable behavior is no longer excused, but it's not an "us vs them" culture war.  You seem to agree that a lot of the battlefronts in this "war" are not even points of contention to the majority.  They only flare up because those with a vested interest in a conflict (and yes, both sides have their provocateurs and puppet-masters) tell you that this skirmish is important to the larger war effort.  Just trust your generals.  (or your President)

It's why I keep closing in on THIS isolated incident, instead of letting the blob of the wider culture war engulf it.

I weep for the American Culture when 1 person makes an ill-conceived statement, and a tangentially related billion dollar endeavor, employing dozens, if not hundreds of people, gets killed overnight, and at least a dozen or so other people feel like they're likely to be compelled(not by law, but by social pressure) to issue public statements distancing themselves from the person involved.

I don't care if she advocated for the public sexual abuse of Unicorns. (Do I need to be concerned about "Unicorn" being some kind of Trigger phrase? I'm too lazy to check, but I seem to recall it being associated with homosexuals for some reason)

The type of society where people feel they must take such active measures in order to protect themselves is not one I'm particularly proud of. It should go "without saying" that unless somebody says otherwise that it is going to be "of course I don't support her stated position regarding Unicorns." This whole guilt-by-association thing is a whole additional level of social toxicity that needs to be stopped.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 01, 2018, 05:39:59 PM
I don't know about "my side" but for me I think that's a fair assessment Grant.

I take a bit of exception to the "base your views on" part.  If the bureaucracy moves that fast, I'm impressed.  If the comment just happened to strike the right person in power wrong, so be it. 

I am indeed the type to cheer JUSTICE! 

I'm not an admirable enough person to fit into the lists quoted above.

The punishment fitting the crime is a very interesting concept.  But, as I've stated repeatedly, this was self interest.  This was ABC reacting to the 'conditions on the ground'. 

If I had a renter who constantly antagonized a local gang, and everyone knew he was my room mate, I'm gonna kick him out.  I'm going to make sure everyone knows I kicked him out.  Did he deserve the punishment of eviction for the crime of antagonizing dangerous people?  Who gives a *censored*?  I just don't want to take a bullet because of this jackass!
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 01, 2018, 05:47:47 PM
P.S. regifted the hang glider.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on June 01, 2018, 05:52:06 PM
I weep for the American Culture when 1 person makes an ill-conceived statement, and a tangentially related billion dollar endeavor, employing dozens, if not hundreds of people, gets killed overnight, and at least a dozen or so other people feel like they're likely to be compelled(not by law, but by social pressure) to issue public statements distancing themselves from the person involved.

This is why I say we need to get back to the point where the social punishment fits the crime, and a place where we are all strong enough to say "sticks and stones...".

But we didn't get here overnight.  There is a long line of this going back and it's seen as a war now by the chief leaders of the mobs.  How do you step back from the grievances?  You really do need leadership that can go to the other leadership and say, "ok, truce", and then have the gravitas and leadership to keep their people from joining mobs by saying "we don't do this".  But the fact seems to be that there are not a lot of real leaders out there, and that a great portion of the mob sees no need for leadership nor will have any.  They're basically the Bandar-Log from the Jungle Book. 

Quote
They have no law. They are outcasts. They have no speech of their own, but use the stolen words which they overhear when they listen, and peep, and wait up above in the branches. Their way is not our way. They are without leaders. They have no remembrance. They boast and chatter and pretend that they are a great people about to do great affairs in the jungle, but the falling of a nut turns their minds to laughter and all is forgotten.

The solution per Baloo:

Quote
The Jungle-People put them out of their mouths and out of their minds. They are very many, evil, dirty, shameless, and they desire, if they have any fixed desire, to be noticed by the Jungle People. But we do not notice them even when they throw nuts and filth on our heads.

Not sure if any of that will win any converts, since Rudyard Kipling is supposed to have been a gigantic racist and The Jungle Books full of racist, white supremacist ideology. 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on June 01, 2018, 05:57:40 PM
The punishment fitting the crime is a very interesting concept.  But, as I've stated repeatedly, this was self interest.  This was ABC reacting to the 'conditions on the ground'. 

Oh, I'm going to repeat that I think ABC has every right to fire Rosanne and that it's between them.  Not sure if it really was in self interest, since it was the 3rd highest rated show on TV, right?  Their #1 probably.  But ABC could fire Rosanne for saying that coke tastes better than pepsi if it really means that much to them. 

Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2018, 06:45:51 PM
The punishment fitting the crime is a very interesting concept.  But, as I've stated repeatedly, this was self interest.  This was ABC reacting to the 'conditions on the ground'. 

Oh, I'm going to repeat that I think ABC has every right to fire Rosanne and that it's between them.  Not sure if it really was in self interest, since it was the 3rd highest rated show on TV, right?  Their #1 probably.  But ABC could fire Rosanne for saying that coke tastes better than pepsi if it really means that much to them.

Agreed, ABC was well within their rights to do what they did, at least, assuming they didn't breach a contract in doing so.

That said, ABC being within their rights to do so still doesn't mean that others who are not ABC are going to be immune from the political fallout of what happens in the aftermath.

ABC didn't start the fire, it is no fault of ABC for what happened, but there certainly are others who are going to reap the proverbial whirlwind for it. I doubt it'll be anything hugely disruptive in its own right, but it might be enough to tip some races in favor of Republicans that would have gone Democrat otherwise.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on June 01, 2018, 07:06:02 PM

ABC didn't start the fire, it is no fault of ABC for what happened, but there certainly are others who are going to reap the proverbial whirlwind for it. I doubt it'll be anything hugely disruptive in its own right, but it might be enough to tip some races in favor of Republicans that would have gone Democrat otherwise.

It's a long way to November.  And I would encourage Democrats to appraise an action on it's right or wrongness, despite election results, the same as I would a Republican.  There is room for some pragmatism and patience and thought, but it's a dangerous area. 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 01, 2018, 07:07:18 PM
I wonder whether the event of her firing wasn't spurred on by the Kevin Spacey phenomenon. And don't get me wrong, eliminating rape and pedophilia from Hollywood would be a crusade worth watching. But it seems that the notion of removing stars who crossed the moral line started with him recently, and perhaps Roseanne could be viewed as being part of the scramble for networks and production companies to find themselves on the wrong side of public opinion. If so, then it does beg Grant's point about proportionate response. To whit, the response to Spacey's problematic sexual history and Roseanne issuing one idiotic tweet seems to have been on the whole similar. Granted, the most a network can actually do is fire you (unless they choose to sue) so perhaps this issue can't handle an apples-to-apples comparison. Maybe Spacey's actions were way beyond firing but that was the most they could do to him, whereas with Roseanne she barely qualified for firing but just crossed the line.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on June 01, 2018, 07:18:45 PM
I wonder whether the event of her firing wasn't spurred on by the Kevin Spacey phenomenon.

Spacey was accused of crimes.  Some very serious ones.  And while I would caution even more against trial by public opinion than I would mob by public opinion, I would also say that employers that distanced themselves from an individual accused of such crimes is expected and proper. 

Roseanne was accused of the thought crime of racism.  That's a pretty serious crime for some.  But it still wasn't a legal crime.  I think we should differentiate between the two, while reminding ourselves even more that it's the criminal justice system that is responsible for punishment for crimes, not Twitter Joe. 

I wish there was a list of people who got fired for thought crimes or unacceptable speech, but I don't have one.  Not sure if it began with Spacey or Damore or goes further back, and when things started heating up.  The first one I remember on the forum is the firing of Brendan Eich.  Paula Deen lost her job in 2013 I think.  That's just celebrity/CEO firings. 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: velcro on June 01, 2018, 09:48:17 PM
I concede that the Constitution does not explicitly say that slaves are sub-human.

I understand that they are "persons" in the constitution.  And I understand that the laws at the time did not allow women to vote or own property, so that is not a measure of personhood.

But to explicitly say you count for less than another person makes you unquestionably inferior than the other person.

How about this:

The Constitution explicitly states that non-slaves are superior to slaves.  It makes no such statement about superiority of men over women, or landowners over non-landowners.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: DonaldD on June 01, 2018, 11:45:34 PM
If all "men" have the inalienable right to liberty, and there exist entities, whose existence is acknowledged legally, who do not have the right to liberty, then those entities are by definition not "men".
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 02, 2018, 02:02:56 AM
I concede that the Constitution does not explicitly say that slaves are sub-human.

I understand that they are "persons" in the constitution.  And I understand that the laws at the time did not allow women to vote or own property, so that is not a measure of personhood.

This is categorically false, even going back to the Pilgrims for that matter. My 10x great-grandmother is a historical example of this for that matter in colonial Massachusetts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Warren

Quote
In his “Increasings and Decreasings”, Bradford assigns Richard Warren the title of “Mr.” which indicates someone of status, but does not mention him at all in his recording of Plymouth history. And except for a few mentions elsewhere, not very much is known about him in Plymouth, but the Warren family does seem to have been among those with wealth.

During her widowhood, Elizabeth Warren’s name is noted in Plymouth Colony records. She was listed as the executor of her husband’s estate, paying taxes as head of household and as an independent agent in her own right.

In Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1627 no less.

Now granted, such circumstances were by their very nature exceptional, and required a certain specific configuration of events to happen, but they did happen.

I just happen to know about that about that specific one due to a website available to users of the LDS Family Search website to check for "Famous ancestors" and relatives with some degree of (supposedly) documented relationship within up to 16 generations... Assuming somebody did the research and put the work on Family Search at least. So I looked him up on Wiki afterwords. 

Quote
But to explicitly say you count for less than another person makes you unquestionably inferior than the other person.

How about this:

The Constitution explicitly states that non-slaves are superior to slaves.  It makes no such statement about superiority of men over women, or landowners over non-landowners.

Until subsequently changed by way of constitutional amendment, the Constitution in the form initially ratified, specified no requirements for a state to adhere to in regards to who voted or did not vote. States were just required to hold an election every two years for the House of Representatives in accordance with whatever additional instructions Congress may provide(Which have been few to none). So if New Jersey wanted to give 2 year olds the right to vote, they were within their rights to do so. Technically speaking, I think they'd still be within their rights to give 2 year olds the right to vote, they're only currently required to allow citizens of 18 years or older of either gender to vote(unless otherwise restricted by court order).

The constitution simply stated that for the purposes of enumeration in the allocation of House Seats(and electoral votes), slaves would be accounted for at 3/5ths of their true number. The constitution said nothing about landowners or non-landowners being allowed to vote(in most states at the time, only landowners could vote). It also said absolutely nothing about female voters, and most states DO have historical examples of female voters, even in the 1790's. They just often happened to be widows serving in the "head of household" role.

The more operative expression for the era would probably be more accurate to say it wasn't "1 man, 1 vote." It was "1 household, 1 vote." So it wasn't just women who were being disenfranchised, it was men as well, if you weren't "the head of household" you didn't vote, simple as that.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on June 02, 2018, 07:44:12 AM
If all "men" have the inalienable right to liberty, and there exist entities, whose existence is acknowledged legally, who do not have the right to liberty, then those entities are by definition not "men".

This is true, and is a good example of a conversion contrapositive.  But the defenders of slavery commonly argued that the status of "men" was not extended to those who were not white males.  They were "persons", but not "men".  They argued that Jefferson meant only white men when he stated that all men had these rights.  Personally, given Jefferson's attempt to place a slave clause in the Declaration and his many writings on the subject, I think they were wrong, and it was argued such by the abolitionists.  It was the great contradiction, and was acknowledged by the men of the time. 

Without further ado, I give you the Father of the Consitution:

Quote
In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another, the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected, on the other hand, in his life and in his limbs, against the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others, the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere article of property.


Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on June 02, 2018, 07:58:32 AM
But to explicitly say you count for less than another person makes you unquestionably inferior than the other person.

Obviously.  No argument.  The only argument at the time was whether being a slave made them less or they were slaves because they were less.  Was the inferiority inherent and the natural cause of slavery, or was it slavery itself that degraded the man? 

But the counter argument to the 3/5 compromise will always be that in this particular case, it was the northerners, who were against slavery, who insisted that slaves not be counted towards, representation; and it was the southerners who wanted them counted as full people.  Hence, the very people who would argue that slaves were inherently inferior wanted them to be counted as 5/5 of a person. 

Quote
The Constitution explicitly states that non-slaves are superior to slaves.  It makes no such statement about superiority of men over women, or landowners over non-landowners.

Mmmmmehhh.  I would instead say that the Constitution IMPLICITLY states that non-slaves are superior to slaves.  "Slavery" was, I believe, never explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, only alluded to.  This was generally thought to be purposeful so that the Constitution could not be seen as explictly supporting slavery. 

From the Constitutional Convention Debate Minutes, August 25 1797


Quote
Mr. MADISON thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not hold, as slaves are not like merchandize, consumed, &c

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_825.asp


Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Gaoics79 on June 02, 2018, 05:57:36 PM
Quote
And I bet that this incident was covered in the contract.

Anyone heard anything like this?

I am certain it was covered. But so what? It may give them legal cover to fire her without repercussion in the sense that she can't sue them for whatever her compensation would have been. But if their loss has been anywhere close to the 1 Billion that was quoted in some of the stories, her compensation and anything she could sue them for would be less than pocket change.

This is a bloodbath for ABC. It is insane to imagine that they wanted this to happen. Even if they sued Roseanne for whatever they lost and won, what would they get out of her? You think Roseanne has $100,000,000 in her bank account. May as well try to take it out of the studio janitor.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 02, 2018, 06:29:16 PM
Quote
And I bet that this incident was covered in the contract.

Anyone heard anything like this?

I am certain it was covered. But so what? It may give them legal cover to fire her without repercussion in the sense that she can't sue them for whatever her compensation would have been. But if their loss has been anywhere close to the 1 Billion that was quoted in some of the stories, her compensation and anything she could sue them for would be less than pocket change.

This is a bloodbath for ABC. It is insane to imagine that they wanted this to happen. Even if they sued Roseanne for whatever they lost and won, what would they get out of her? You think Roseanne has $100,000,000 in her bank account. May as well try to take it out of the studio janitor.

I think the only thing that was covered under the contract was some flavor of "morality clause" which was promptly executed the moment her Tweet started to get negative attention.

As to the show itself, if you poke around a little more, something I suspected is already "in discussion" as the Producers and everyone else involved in the  show are looking at options as to how they could "reformat" the program without Roseanne as part of the cast. Looking like it'd probably center on her one daughter, under a different title. Same characters, same (general) setting, but at a guess, they'd probably kill off her(Roseanne's) character to ensure that she has no ability to return to the show.

Of course, there could be all kinds of nasty infighting that can happen in regards to that, as I'm sure a lot of the "IP" as it relates that particular sitcom family traces back to her. But she'll probably be more than happy to get money for just sitting back and letting them do all the work, or not, time will tell.

The "real fun" will be when/if other people realize that even though she may no longer be "a participant" in the show, she's still getting paid for it, and what the activists try to do at that point.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 02, 2018, 09:54:11 PM
The "real fun" will be when/if other people realize that even though she may no longer be "a participant" in the show, she's still getting paid for it, and what the activists try to do at that point.

If that happens I hope they'll do nothing. It's one thing to be upset at an employee of a company making them look bad, but it's another to be upset that someone you don't approve of has a financial stake in a company. It would be equivalent to being upset that she owns stock in ABC, which is none of the fans' business. Try enforcing a regime where people on the social black list are barred from buying financial interest in publicly traded companies.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 03, 2018, 01:54:33 AM
This happens BECAUSE those people are rich and powerful.  And guess what.  When you are rich and powerful, you are thrust into the minefield.  “Middle America” does not face the same repercussions, let alone possibly worse ones.

This needed to be circled back on as I couldn't immediately bring to mind a good response to this.

This cycles back to "politics often has little to no bearing on the actual reality of the situation." And what you have going on is partially a cultural zeitgeist in play based on other past efforts of a comparable nature.

Grant touched on it briefly but it needs to be re-emphasized:
Roseanne was accused of the thought crime of racism.  That's a pretty serious crime for some.  But it still wasn't a legal crime.  I think we should differentiate between the two, while reminding ourselves even more that it's the criminal justice system that is responsible for punishment for crimes, not Twitter Joe. 

I wish there was a list of people who got fired for thought crimes or unacceptable speech, but I don't have one.  Not sure if it began with Spacey or Damore or goes further back, and when things started heating up.  The first one I remember on the forum is the firing of Brendan Eich.  Paula Deen lost her job in 2013 I think.  That's just celebrity/CEO firings. 

In addition to this, we need to remember the numerous Dox'ing efforts aimed at even the "rank and file" members, one of the most recent examples, with wildly variable accuracy no less, being in the aftermath of the rally in Virginia. And in the case of Brendan Eich, the issue there was the (illegally) leaked Prop 8 donor list, and he just happened to be one of the highest profile people to be targeted because of it, he wasn't the only one negatively impacted by it.

Hobby Lobby, and Chick-Fillet's(SP?) CEO also come to mind as well. (Although those didn't go to plan for the Activists)

Another recent example would be the response to "The Google Manifesto" as well. The list just keeps growing and I know it is anything but complete as it stands. Most of "Middle America" probably will be doing good to even give you vague details on more than two of the above listed events, never mind anything more specific about them. Their "important take away" about them however, was that those events made them feel threatened personally on some level.

They see a pattern, and its one that threatens them, yes the high profile cases involve a number of people who were targeted expressly because they were high profile, but other examples (Prop 8 donor list) exist of "Joe Blow" getting targeted as well.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 03, 2018, 09:15:27 AM
Quote
Roseanne was accused of the thought crime of racism.
She wrote something, I'd say "most", but ignoring that contentious point, I'll say "ABC", found to be a racist (or at least hazardous to their bottom line because others will) statement.  She didn't just think it.  Heck, she didn't even just say it in a small group.  She posted this in a highly visible public medium.  That is a serious crime offense for some; and obviously for ABC.

Quote
I wish there was a list of people who got fired for thought crimes or unacceptable speech, but I don't have one. 
This is how to better frame the point.  Just wanted to get that off my chest as long as we are circling back...

I'm all for stronger laws to prevent people from online harassment, such as DOXing and death threats, or threats of vandalisim or of inciting people to move from online to physical intimidation. 

People getting fired because a company/brand doesn't want to be associated with them and their expressed views (note:  nothing to do with what they think) is fine by me.  I'm fine with people voicing their opinions that a company/brand SHOULD cut ties with someone or face losing customers.  Whatever my feelings on the war over decency... err sorry, the battle of "P.C.", there is no arguing that P.R. is a real fascet of the busines world.

The question about how this applies to politics is a bit difference.  While I'm against people giving out home addresses and the like, and our voting habbits should be confidential, people are very concerned about there not being enough transparancy in campaign finance. 

My point about the high profile danger is that 'Joe Blow' could have made the same rant, and his friends/family and maybe one ring of association beyond that may have seen it.  They would have wondered what the hell he was on about, and maybe recieved a, "F U Man!" in return.  It would have been chalked up to Joe being an *censored*. 

But he's not a symbol.  (I mean the name is kinda a meme, but that's besides the point.  :P)  Roseanne (and others) are.  They are not JUST individuals, but they are representative of others.  Is it fair?  Probably not.  But Joe's boss, if he ever even saw/heard Joe spout off something racist, is not likely to lose any business because he employs this guy.  Mostly because his customers won't know Joe occasionally spouts off racist remarks. 

This is why the 'punishment fitting the crime" is tricky.  First, it's not often a "crime" as has been pointed out.  And the punishment for Joe Blow would be meaningless and have zero moderating behavior on Roseanne.  The reverse, in some cases when it comes to monetary amounts involved reach the absurd were Joe on the hook for something his life time wages would likely never reach. 

"Famous" or high profile people or those being paid at rates 50, 100 times or more, the rates of the average American are watched more closely and are judged by a different scale.  Sometimes that makes them untouchable.  Sometimes it means their fortune is tied to them navigating the minefield.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: DonaldD on June 03, 2018, 09:21:41 AM
Roseanne Barr was not punished, any more than were John Goodman, Laurie Metcalf or Sara Gilbert.  ABC is not in the business of punishing, they are in the business of making money.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 03, 2018, 09:38:14 AM
I'm all for stronger laws to prevent people from online harassment, such as DOXing and death threats, or threats of vandalisim or of inciting people to move from online to physical intimidation. 

People getting fired because a company/brand doesn't want to be associated with them and their expressed views (note:  nothing to do with what they think) is fine by me.  I'm fine with people voicing their opinions that a company/brand SHOULD cut ties with someone or face losing customers.  Whatever my feelings on the war over decency... err sorry, the battle of "P.C.", there is no arguing that P.R. is a real facet of the business world.

The "issue" here, as the more socially conservative side of the nation can fully attest to, is this scenario is NOT reciprocal. If you hold a socially conservative/more traditionalist point of view, and express it publicly, the current social milieu is such that if you're not careful, you could lose your job, and see your career be seriously damaged by it. "And deserve what you get" when it happens to you.

But if you hold a more socially "liberal" or progressive positions, without regard to how "socially acceptable" those positions/attitudes may be where you are,  and an employer attempts "to cut ties" with you because of your public positions. THAT's protected, and suddenly some sacred cow is under attack and the employer is now under threat of boycotts, multi-million dollar crowd-funded lawsuits, and so forth.

This is the perception, and to an extent, it also is the reality, because it is happening. So once again, it should go without much surprise for someone who is being truly objective, that it is causing a LOT of people to develop "siege mentalities" and feel that "their side" is under attack.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 03, 2018, 09:46:56 AM
And as to linking "Democrats" to the Roseanne Barr firing/show cancellation:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/03/bernie-sanders-disney-rhetoric-raises-questions-about-his-worker-advocate-credentials.html

Quote
In the same speech, Sanders also praised Disney CEO Bob Iger for canceling ABC's “Roseanne” after its star's recent Twitter meltdown -- even though the sitcom's shutdown reportedly threw hundreds of crew members out of work.

Yes, Bernie technically isn't a Democrat. But a large number of Democrats support him. It certainly is a lot easier "to make the connections" between Bernie and the Democratic party than it is take the "twitter meltdown" mentioned above and turn Roseanne Barr into an unapologetic racist. At least, for many segments of the US Population.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 03, 2018, 10:07:46 AM
Quote
The "issue" here, as the more socially conservative side of the nation can fully attest to, is this scenario is NOT reciprocal. If you hold a socially conservative/more traditionalist point of view, and express it publicly, the current social milieu is such that if you're not careful, you could lose your job, and see your career be seriously damaged by it. "And deserve what you get" when it happens to you.

But if you hold a more socially "liberal" or progressive positions, without regard to how "socially acceptable" those positions/attitudes may be where you are,  and an employer attempts "to cut ties" with you because of your public positions. THAT's protected, and suddenly some sacred cow is under attack and the employer is now under threat of boycotts, multi-million dollar crowd-funded lawsuits, and so forth.
This is likely going to be a clear cut case of, "But DW you are biased as you ARE the liberal/progressive side." 

Conservative / more traditionalist point of view meaning what?

Liberal / progressive point of view meaning what?

I'm sure you can guess what instantly pops into my brain (as a liberal).  I can take a stab at those, but it's DEEP into the motive speculation land we are suppose to avoid here on Ornery.  It will also, almost certainly, land in territory that will be seen as offensive.  (and be non-conducive to debate)

Quote
This is the perception, and to an extent, it also is the reality, because it is happening. So once again, it should go without much surprise for someone who is being truly objective, that it is causing a LOT of people to develop "siege mentalities" and feel that "their side" is under attack.
I agree.  It IS happening.  The most important point from the perspective of the left/progressive side, (speaking for myself at least) is that if you walk out the gates, the sieging force will welcome you.

I see this like terrorists setting up rocket launchers on top of hospitals and schools.  Yes, that building is going to come under attack.  Yes, that's horrible.  Yes, those targeting the building have a responsibility to avoid collateral damage.  Maybe those inside fear the terrorists more than they fear the sieging force?  Maybe they don't believe the sieging force can tell the difference?  It's a mess to be sure.

The thing is, some of those "concervative/more traditionalist points of view" ARE under attack.  Even I, a decidedly non-active non-crusader who does little more than vote and post on the internet, am attacking those views.  If you are a racist, a mysognist, a bigot, or believe you can force people out of our greater society because of their religion, lack of religion, sexual identiy or sexual preferences or skin color, or country of origin, then I'm attacking you. 

If you are simply not willing to accept the mantle of "liberal/progressive" even if you agree those things are bad, because you have more in common with a different social/political "tribe", that's perfectly fine with me.  I try to aim my slings and arrows carefully.  But from my perspective you are staying in that building surrounding my targets.  You do not seem to be doing enough to cast out those targets.  The battle rages on.  Leaflets have been dropped warning of the siege and potential strikes.

So if you want to understand why things are NOT reciprocal, you need only to look past the red or blue uniforms involved and look at the views themselves.  While there are defiantly liberal/progressive radicals out there, the "unfairness" is pretty easy to see when you look at what is being defended or opposed by each side. 

(end entirely biased analysis)
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 03, 2018, 10:30:20 AM
Quote
The "issue" here, as the more socially conservative side of the nation can fully attest to, is this scenario is NOT reciprocal. If you hold a socially conservative/more traditionalist point of view, and express it publicly, the current social milieu is such that if you're not careful, you could lose your job, and see your career be seriously damaged by it. "And deserve what you get" when it happens to you.

But if you hold a more socially "liberal" or progressive positions, without regard to how "socially acceptable" those positions/attitudes may be where you are,  and an employer attempts "to cut ties" with you because of your public positions. THAT's protected, and suddenly some sacred cow is under attack and the employer is now under threat of boycotts, multi-million dollar crowd-funded lawsuits, and so forth.
This is likely going to be a clear cut case of, "But DW you are biased as you ARE the liberal/progressive side." 

Conservative / more traditionalist point of view meaning what?

Liberal / progressive point of view meaning what?

I'm sure you can guess what instantly pops into my brain (as a liberal).  I can take a stab at those, but it's DEEP into the motive speculation land we are suppose to avoid here on Ornery.  It will also, almost certainly, land in territory that will be seen as offensive.  (and be non-conducive to debate)

You probably wouldn't be far off the mark for many/most of them. On a racism/bigotry scale of 1 to 10, with 10 rating "foaming at the mouth" most of these people probably rate somewhere between 2 to 4. Largely due to "lack of exposure" to people from those particular groups in general, or lack of (known) exposure to members of those groups who haven't attempted to "weaponize it" in some form.

But this boils down to agreement with the goals, but opposition to the methods being used to achieve those goals. With the 2-4 grouping, the tactics getting media attention are very bad, and horrendously chosen, they're making things worse, not better.

Quote
Quote
This is the perception, and to an extent, it also is the reality, because it is happening. So once again, it should go without much surprise for someone who is being truly objective, that it is causing a LOT of people to develop "siege mentalities" and feel that "their side" is under attack.
I agree.  It IS happening.  The most important point from the perspective of the left/progressive side, (speaking for myself at least) is that if you walk out the gates, the sieging force will welcome you.

See above, in the case of many, "they don't know any better." And as they are, no, they would not be welcomed. You seem to make it fairly clear and self-evident for yourself as well.

Quote
I see this like terrorists setting up rocket launchers on top of hospitals and schools.  Yes, that building is going to come under attack.  Yes, that's horrible.  Yes, those targeting the building have a responsibility to avoid collateral damage.  Maybe those inside fear the terrorists more than they fear the sieging force?  Maybe they don't believe the sieging force can tell the difference?  It's a mess to be sure.

The thing is, some of those "concervative/more traditionalist points of view" ARE under attack.  Even I, a decidedly non-active non-crusader who does little more than vote and post on the internet, am attacking those views.  If you are a racist, a mysognist, a bigot, or believe you can force people out of our greater society because of their religion, lack of religion, sexual identiy or sexual preferences or skin color, or country of origin, then I'm attacking you. 

If you are simply not willing to accept the mantle of "liberal/progressive" even if you agree those things are bad, because you have more in common with a different social/political "tribe", that's perfectly fine with me.  I try to aim my slings and arrows carefully.  But from my perspective you are staying in that building surrounding my targets.  You do not seem to be doing enough to cast out those targets.  The battle rages on.  Leaflets have been dropped warning of the siege and potential strikes.

So if you want to understand why things are NOT reciprocal, you need only to look past the red or blue uniforms involved and look at the views themselves.  While there are defiantly liberal/progressive radicals out there, the "unfairness" is pretty easy to see when you look at what is being defended or opposed by each side.

And this is why "the fight" is going to take much longer to resolve than it needs to. You're causing a large swath of people to "dig in their heels"  because they know you would target them, when they haven't really been given any valid reason(besides threats) to change their views.

No amount of carrot/stick is going to change that, only experience will. And beating them with the freaking stick isn't going to make them view things more favorably, it is far more likely to have the exact opposite effect.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 03, 2018, 10:48:53 AM
Quote
"they don't know any better." 
This explains my grandma making racist remarks.  It explains my parents generation making less, but still offensive remarks.  It may even explain kids, telling racists jokes they know are wrong, but it's a form of rebellion and they don't know how wrong they are.

But people DO know better.  They are being informed every day.  Those "attacks"?  Those "horrendously chosen" methods?  Those are informing you.  People largely DO know better.  What you are really talking about, is that despite knowing better, they were able to do so anyway.  What has changed, and continues to change, is your ability to do so without repercussions. 

That change is happening fast.  Technology and our changing, ever more connected society, makes those changes far faster than they have ever been.  As such those repercussions are escalating quickly.  THAT is what is terrifying people.  They fear they may be punished for things they've been permitted to do for a long time.

I simply don't buy the, "I didn't know better" defense.  They did.  They just didn't know they were now facing an ever increasing level of personal responsibility for them.

Quote
No amount of carrot/stick is going to change that, only experience will.
This IS that experience.  I've got no stick.  I've got no carrot.  Maybe you can get a virtual carrot in the form of a "Like" click from 8 other Ornery posters here or a virtual stick in the form of a couple people telling you, you are wrong (or worse). 

The thing is I expect people to dig in their heels.  There is no other option.  Actually, what I expect, is for them to swallow their awful impulses and opinions and pretend decency, and maybe, in the process they'll learn some.  If they want to seethe all the more because they can't be awful openly, I'm OK with that.  They're still less likely to pass on that type of thinking or behavior.

Give it time?  How much time?  How many decades or generations is an acceptably comfortable pace for people who claim not to know any better?
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 03, 2018, 11:26:54 AM
Quote
"they don't know any better." 
This explains my grandma making racist remarks.  It explains my parents generation making less, but still offensive remarks.  It may even explain kids, telling racists jokes they know are wrong, but it's a form of rebellion and they don't know how wrong they are.

But people DO know better.  They are being informed every day.  Those "attacks"?  Those "horrendously chosen" methods?  Those are informing you.  People largely DO know better.  What you are really talking about, is that despite knowing better, they were able to do so anyway.  What has changed, and continues to change, is your ability to do so without repercussions. 

That change is happening fast.  Technology and our changing, ever more connected society, makes those changes far faster than they have ever been.  As such those repercussions are escalating quickly.  THAT is what is terrifying people.  They fear they may be punished for things they've been permitted to do for a long time.

I simply don't buy the, "I didn't know better" defense.  They did.  They just didn't know they were now facing an ever increasing level of personal responsibility for them.

That's the thing, the change is "happening fast" everywhere, and a LOT of it is fueled by the Internet. Basically, the people who reached adulthood prior to the advent of Social Media and wide-scale use of the Internet, particularly people living in more "isolated", mostly white, communities have "cover" and "an excuse" for "not knowing" heck, there still are rural parts of ("White") America that still don't have reliable high-speed internet. And I'm talking the about the 2007 definition of the term.

Quote
Quote
No amount of carrot/stick is going to change that, only experience will.
This IS that experience.  I've got no stick.  I've got no carrot.  Maybe you can get a virtual carrot in the form of a "Like" click from 8 other Ornery posters here or a virtual stick in the form of a couple people telling you, you are wrong (or worse). 

The thing is I expect people to dig in their heels.  There is no other option.  Actually, what I expect, is for them to swallow their awful impulses and opinions and pretend decency, and maybe, in the process they'll learn some.  If they want to seethe all the more because they can't be awful openly, I'm OK with that.  They're still less likely to pass on that type of thinking or behavior.

Give it time?  How much time?  How many decades or generations is an acceptably comfortable pace for people who claim not to know any better?

Basically, if people hadn't started "poking the bear" like they did, I expect the "last gasp" of it existing in any meaningful way would have died out with my generation, possibly even before its membership had even partially or fully died off. But as it is now, I'd make no such bet.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 03, 2018, 11:35:33 AM
So, ignore the problem and it will go away?  If it doesn't die out with your/our generation, then... that's the next generation's problem!

Fantastic...   :-\

That this seems acceptable to anyone blows my mind.  I don't want to know the next generation will probably treat each other better than we do.  I want to see that happen now. 

I don't want future generations to learn that ours was one of the last generations that believed this crazy hurtful hateful *censored*.  I want them to learn that we had the bravery to finally face the cancer at the heart of our society.  That we were the ones who did the course correction needed.  That we made the hard choices and said, "no more excuses."
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 03, 2018, 11:43:34 AM
I try to aim my slings and arrows carefully.  But from my perspective you are staying in that building surrounding my targets.  You do not seem to be doing enough to cast out those targets.  The battle rages on.  Leaflets have been dropped warning of the siege and potential strikes.

I was going to ask other questions and reply to certain comments, but I realized that I really only have one question. Why do you feel you need to have "targets", exactly? What's the situation raging in America that warrants targeting anyone, as such? Why not continue on as liberalism had before, making regular progress without the need for a culture war? The increased intensity in 'targeting' wrong views has been going on for...what...around 10 years? But I don't see what warranted the escalation. There's been no evangelical resurgence, no anti-gay backlash in broader culture, and no apparent increase in hate crimes that I can detect. So what warrants breaking out the slings and arrows and adopting a siege approach?

The one thing I would say that's been different starting around 10-15 years ago is the escalation of police militarization and the disintegration of police-community relations. That's a big one, and came to a head in events like Charlottetown, in NYC (with that guy whose name I forget who was killed), and in other cases. There were marches, body cams began to be a thing, and I do think this has been a serious problem in American culture. The relation between these events and 'racism' is that each case of a black person attacked or killed was linked to possible racist motives, even though based on my observations I don't think the police practices were spawned of racism, so much of fear and bad training. But perhaps the racism narrative snowballed and the enemy appeared to be everywhere after that. Before that I can't recall there being this terror of 'the racists'. I'm sure there were literal racists around, but they were a weak minority and certainly had no significant public voice. The election of Trump seems to have confirmed for many liberals that the racists do, indeed, have a public voice, of which I'm skeptical but I'm sure that many liberals connect A to B directly in that way. Trump as President = racists are winning. And this again goes back into the issue of people buying into a narrative without it being based on factual evidence or documented trends. I never saw a cogent argument that Trump won because of racists, although I certainly think there's a case to be made that he won because of animus against liberal culture (which is an entirely different can of worms).

But here we are, throwing spears, and indeed I have no problem with spear-chucking in the case of a bona fide unacceptable comment or display. You want to step into the right and make a racist remark, get ready for a right cross to the face. My question is more about why there is this perceived "army of racists" out there that need to be hunted down, or battled, or defeated or whatever. I don't think it takes weapons or clashes to 'defeat' whatever racist elements are out there. Why isn't is good enough to continue to help the reconciling of the black and white communities, to build better police/community relations, and to make sure that things like the War on Drugs come to an end? These are steps that would benefit everyone and don't require anyone to be 'the enemy' (other than bad government policies). Like TheDeamon, I don't see what value comes from broadly striking at huge swathes of people, most of whom haven't even entered the right but feel the punches coming anyhow?
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 03, 2018, 12:18:14 PM
Quote
The increased intensity in 'targeting' wrong views has been going on for...what...around 10 years? 
From wiki land
Quote
The presidency of Barack Obama began at noon EST on January 20, 2009, when Barack Obama was inaugurated as 44th President of the United States, and ended on January 20, 2017.

What had the potential to be a nail in the coffin moment on racisim instead fanned flames instead of extinguishing sparks.  I believe you have the whole situation backwards.  It's not that liberals/progressives are inciting people to dig in their heels, there by prolonging racist beliefs.  It's that (to use a term I find irritatingly pretentious) we are finally 'woke' to the fact that we cannot, "wait it out" or look for reasonable excuses for behavior.  We can't just pretend it's something else like 'just politics' or 'partisan dissagreements'. 

This is a chicken or the egg issue and both sides are shouting, no "the other thing came first!"

But hey, at least we both seem to agree on the timeline.

Setting aside the race issue, to answer the broader question, one needs only look at what's going on with our lawmakers.  Public support for, "just let people live their lives as they see fit if they are not hurting others" is pretty much overwhelming.  Yet attempts to create law insuring that does not become reality, or to rewind those slow, incrimental gains is moving at a furious pace.  A "wait and see" approach is preposterous. 

That those pushing this agenda are ALSO the ones doing things that bipartisan condemnation would occur swiftly to stop is no accident.  The interest of middle america go unaddressed while this "culture war" is raging.  The simple truth is that there are people so terrified of losing what little they have, that sharing "equality" is seen as a sacrifice they cannot make.  Ignorant to the fact that as a unified group, there is little they could not solve. 

Those dividing us sure as hell realize this.  So even when the causes are richous, the methods are attacked.  Even when the goal is laudable, the pace of attempting to achieve it is too fast.  Even when our President governs without dignity or respect to even his fellow countrymen, let alone acting respectful on the world stage, his detractors are just partisan hacks pedeling "fake news".

What warranted the escalation?  A black man winning the presidency.  The absurdly wealthy dumping vast resources into convincing the conservative/traditional identifying people that "equality" is un-American and a danger to them greater than the business practices that made them receptive to such a weak deflection of anxiety.  A dream of a better, slowly moving towards improved situations for all was replaced with a regressive nightmare that rewards the abusors and the exploitators at a rate so alarming that you can tell they KNOW their days are numbered and want to rape and pillage the country and secure their ill gotton gains before we decide we've had enough.  What's a little race-war or religious persecution if it gives them another decade to rob us all blind?

If that's not cause for escalation I honestly don't know what is.  I don't want to "fight" the racists.  I don't think there are all that many of them to be perfectly honest.  But there are A LOT of people out there looking to fight anti-racists.  So am I part of the distracted?  Part of the duped?  Ya.  I am.  But again, I vote for my goals, and I argue on the internet.  I just see my self as slightly less manipulated than "the other side" and I'm convinced, that they are my allies, as soon as they wake up and realize it.

It should be noted that I do not suffer the direct ill effects of racism, or sexism, or homophobia and the like.  The issue is both not as urgent to me as it is to others, and my interest is in part, self-serving.  I want to move on to "the real issues" which, I understand is insulting to those suffering from the things I want to "move past". 

There are those on the fringes of the progressive/left camp that would find this an unforgivable sin as well.  And those salivating out there to push this wedge and prolong the issue from ever being resolved...

One big mess.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Gaoics79 on June 03, 2018, 01:17:16 PM
Quote
I can take a stab at those, but it's DEEP into the motive speculation land we are suppose to avoid here on Ornery.  It will also, almost certainly, land in territory that will be seen as offensive.  (and be non-conducive to debate)

You say this as if it's just some technicality that applies on certain internet forums (like Ornery) but that otherwise you feel free to engage in.

Motive speculation isn't allowed on Ornery (and most civilized forums) because it isn't just non conducive to debate, but destroys it;. You can't have a meaningful debate if you don't understand what the other person is saying, and speculating on motive is a one-way ticket to injecting your own bias into the other side's argument. Instead of debating another person, you're debating a straw man you created.

Quote
The absurdly wealthy dumping vast resources into convincing the conservative/traditional identifying people that "equality" is un-American and a danger to them greater than the business practices that made them receptive to such a weak deflection of anxiety.  A dream of a better, slowly moving towards improved situations for all was replaced with a regressive nightmare that rewards the abusors and the exploitators at a rate so alarming that you can tell they KNOW their days are numbered and want to rape and pillage the country and secure their ill gotton gains before we decide we've had enough.  What's a little race-war or religious persecution if it gives them another decade to rob us all blind?

You don't understand anything. I know you don't, because you're incapable of explaining what the other side actually believes. I could explain what they believe, just as I could explain what you believe.

You can't. It's obvious from your postings.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 03, 2018, 01:44:03 PM
Setting aside the race issue, to answer the broader question, one needs only look at what's going on with our lawmakers.  Public support for, "just let people live their lives as they see fit if they are not hurting others" is pretty much overwhelming.  Yet attempts to create law insuring that does not become reality, or to rewind those slow, incrimental gains is moving at a furious pace.  A "wait and see" approach is preposterous.

It is clear that by whatever  means it happened to occur, you have "lost touch" with a very substantial portion of the American populace, and you have no desire to understand them.

That said, it should also be noted that "support for being left alone" has two approaches that can apply. The "Liberal" approach through legislation(which does the opposite of "leaving people alone" IMO), and "the Libertarian" approach.

The two approaches are mutually exclusive of one another. It also is plainly evident why racists of various different stripes would favor one path over another depending on which course they think "best benefits them."

There is more that can, and probably should be said, but I need to be driving and not posting. So it will have to happen later, if others don't address it earlier.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 03, 2018, 02:25:51 PM
*Note: I use "you" a lot, and realize that I'm responding to at least two people, and speaking to broader issues.  Sorry about the laziness of writing on that front.
Quote
Motive speculation isn't allowed on Ornery (and most civilized forums) because it isn't just non conducive to debate, but destroys it;. You can't have a meaningful debate if you don't understand what the other person is saying, and speculating on motive is a one-way ticket to injecting your own bias into the other side's argument. Instead of debating another person, you're debating a straw man you created.
How it manifests itself here, or rather, the alergic reaction (or even threats of suspension or banning in the past) IS a bit different.

I frequently, do engage in a process of, "You SAY this, but do you really mean THIS?"  Or I'll say, "You SAY this, but what that means to me is, THIS.  Was that your intention or would you care to convince me it meant something else?"

The simple truth is on internet forums I do not know people well enough to know if I can take topics at face value.  Let alone if I can afford to assume that the best possible light one can take a statement in, is the one I should.

Bad habbits?  Maybe.  But let's not forget that here, in particular, we are discussing politics.  This topic is the embodyment of layered motivations.  It is almost impossible to disentangle motives as we've all clearly demonstrated here.  So yes, I do feel free to engage in it.  I try to avoid crossing lines that lead unambiguously to suspensions or bans.  And to be fair, I haven't seen the threat of moderation wielded so agresively here as of late, but then again our number of partisipants isn't all that high, so maybe I get cut some slack?  I don't know.

Quote
You don't understand anything. I know you don't, because you're incapable of explaining what the other side actually believes. I could explain what they believe, just as I could explain what you believe.

You can't. It's obvious from your postings.
What would you like me to explain?  It's true I trend towards, "here's what I THINK you believe."  I even go so far as to say, "I think you are being dishonest, possibly with yourself, when you say you believe X."  It's aggressive, and impolite, but I AM listening to the responses.  I think years ago I had a discussion with Pete on this issue.  I believe that some level of intentionally provoking people makes them more emotional and gets them to drop their filters.  They move away from "safe" and diplomatic responses and get at what they feel about a topic.  (I know it happens to me more frequently than in the past.)

It is poor sportsmanship when it comes to the rules of debate.  It may even poison opportunities at reaching a consensus.  I get that, and try not to take it TOO far.  But that impulse is strong in me.  I think that's part of why I often enjoyed the posts of some of our other more agressive posters in the past and got upset when they faced repeted moderation. 

Quote
It is clear that by whatever  means it happened to occur, you have "lost touch" with a very substantial portion of the American populace, and you have no desire to understand them.
If I was that disconnected from them, I'd probably not get so worked up about this to be honest.  But I'm not.  They're my aunts, my uncles, my siblings, friends I grew up with, current co workers.  They aren't some mysterious alien group out of sight and out of mind.  It would be so much easier were that the case... 

Quote
The "Liberal" approach through legislation(which does the opposite of "leaving people alone" IMO), and "the Libertarian" approach.
Can you give me some examples?  The only one I can think of that comes close are things like, "you must provide birth control as part of your benefits package."  And again, I fall into:  "You SAY you don't want to be forced to offer birth control, but what you MEAN is you want to force others not to be able to access it easily."  Fighting against that IS a libertarian ideal!  That it apparently requires additional legislation to achieve it, I understand is upsetting to those who honestly believe we are better off with less government.  Am I off the mark here?  Do you have a better illustrative example of the opposite of leaving people alone?

The two examples are mutually exclusive from one another because of packaging.  Both sides want the same thing, but because you have decided that "leaving people alone" cannot be separated from "small government" any solution which requires additional legislation means it is invalid.  And I get that.  If "small government" is the priority over "leaving people alone" that's OK.  I don't share that priority, but I refuse to just leave it alone when I know that either we share a common goal here, and only differ on method, OR people are paying lip service to a 'consensus good' without really caring about, and possibly opposing it.  Of course I'm going to pick at it and see which it is. 

I know people who when picked at fall in both of those camps...  Maybe you're right though.  Maybe I have "lost touch".  It may just be that while my bubble includes A VERSION of both sides, I still don't have a clear picture of a very substantial portion of the American populace. 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 03, 2018, 04:20:03 PM
Anyone else watch The Orville? There was an episode called Majority Rule. Not sure I want to go into it too much because of spoilers but it seems like our society is getting closer and closer to theirs. Well I guess I can talk about it a little after saying SPOILER ALERT. Basically, everyone in their society can be judged by everyone else with likes and dislikes and if you get too many dislikes, which you have to wear openly so everyone can see them in comparison to your likes, that can affect whether or not you can buy a cup of coffee at a coffee shop, for instance. It could affect whether or not you could keep your lease for your business office. That example wasn't in the show, but it was an example in our own society with a New York lawyer who went on a rant in public about people speaking Spanish. I just thought that episode was pretty on point, not so much prescient even as reflective.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 03, 2018, 04:27:09 PM
There is a Black Mirror episode that's also about that concept.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: rightleft22 on June 04, 2018, 09:56:12 AM
I don't think we know how social media and 'being connected' 24/7 will impact us and society. The thought that keeps crossing my mind is that we are becoming Borg, all sides attempting to assimilate the others knowing there can only be one (hive mind).
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 04, 2018, 10:16:29 AM
While I think comparing it to the Borg is a bit alarmist, I don't disagree.

Isolated pockets of conflicting opinions will no longer be able to avoid contact.  Our 'right' to have our views go unchallenged is being rescinded.

It doesn't have to be a horror story / bogyman. 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 04, 2018, 12:37:32 PM
What had the potential to be a nail in the coffin moment on racisim instead fanned flames instead of extinguishing sparks.  I believe you have the whole situation backwards.  It's not that liberals/progressives are inciting people to dig in their heels, there by prolonging racist beliefs.

I thought for a while before responding because I was trying to see what you mean, but I'm having trouble. I know you're trying to say that having Obama as President sparked all of this racism or whatever...but did it? I really never saw that or heard anything about it. Are you referring specifically to the birth certificate issue? Or what? What is this fanned flame you speak of? Where was it seen, what evidence do you have that it became suddenly worse or that liberal progress began to go retrograde?

Quote
It's that (to use a term I find irritatingly pretentious) we are finally 'woke' to the fact that we cannot, "wait it out" or look for reasonable excuses for behavior.  We can't just pretend it's something else like 'just politics' or 'partisan dissagreements'.

Again, I don't understand this rationale. I'm very aware that many people felt like they couldn't wait it out. But what real situation suddenly arose making it impossible to wait it out any more? What elicited the need to go to war, as it were? 

Quote
This is a chicken or the egg issue and both sides are shouting, no "the other thing came first!"

Yes, you seem to be saying that the liberal movements as we see them now were merely a reaction to the racists and whatnot having some kind of resurgence. But I've never seen on these boards...ever actually...an argument suggesting there has been a resurgence of racism or that the liberal vs conservative cultural clash suddenly began to swing in the reverse direction. For many years it's been steadily going in the liberal direction and the conservatives have been losing in nearly every quarter. Surely you'd have to be able to demonstrate that this trend began reversing when Obama was inaugurated in order to suppose this position, no?

Quote
What warranted the escalation?  A black man winning the presidency.  The absurdly wealthy dumping vast resources into convincing the conservative/traditional identifying people that "equality" is un-American and a danger to them greater than the business practices that made them receptive to such a weak deflection of anxiety.  A dream of a better, slowly moving towards improved situations for all was replaced with a regressive nightmare that rewards the abusors and the exploitators at a rate so alarming that you can tell they KNOW their days are numbered and want to rape and pillage the country and secure their ill gotton gains before we decide we've had enough.  What's a little race-war or religious persecution if it gives them another decade to rob us all blind?

Let's back this up a bit. Now what you're talking about is the general state of inequality and injustice in America from all quarters. And most of the above list can be situated squarely in the economic system and its ties to lawmaking that enable corporate welfare and exploitation. This is, by the way, the exact stuff Sanders has been railing at for...what...15-20 years? And never did he bring white vs black into it or find the need to paint any bad guy other than corrupt politics. What on Earth does any of this have to do with blogging about how white people are racists and if they deny it then it proves they are? Or what does it have to do with the view that racists and Trump are dominating America? How is any of that a logical response to the things you just mentioned?

Quote
If that's not cause for escalation I honestly don't know what is.  I don't want to "fight" the racists.  I don't think there are all that many of them to be perfectly honest.  But there are A LOT of people out there looking to fight anti-racists.  So am I part of the distracted?  Part of the duped?  Ya.  I am.  But again, I vote for my goals, and I argue on the internet.  I just see my self as slightly less manipulated than "the other side" and I'm convinced, that they are my allies, as soon as they wake up and realize it.

It seems you're saying that your position is more or less that there's all kinds of injustice around, that the system perpetuates it, and that immediate action is needed. I agree. Actually, I couldn't agree more. And this is why I thought (and still think) we're speaking past each other. You seem to insist, no matter what I say, that my position is that we shouldn't be doing anything about these injustices. No. My position is that I don't want radical groups involves in 'helping' to deal with injustice. They make it worse, not better, in my opinion, and yet through branding they've become synonymous with the fight against injustice.

But what's most important is to pinpoint exactly what the fulcrum of the injustice is, and to go after that. Not to go after whoever's a convenient target, or can be lambasted safely (like "the racists"), or other straw man targets. And it's not that fighting racism is itself a straw man, but going after the wrong people, or the wrong cause, ends up being a straw man because you're fighting windmills instead of the very real forces causing injustice. It's often been said in social justice blogs that people who don't recognize their privilege are the problem. That's nice and pat because as a proposition it's (a) untestable, (b) non-falsifiable (since denial is taken as confirmation), and (c) you get to adopt the position of the underdog taking on the majority. But telling white people (for instance) that they're part of the problem doesn't do anything about campaign finance laws, or about legal bribery. In fact it will make them worse, because if the partisan wedge is increased by alienating those who disagree with you they'll be even more prone to accept misdeeds by their politicians as long as it's in the name of defeating your side. The ability to recognize that when any politician is corrupt it hurts all of America will fade away. Do you see what I mean?

I need to reiterate that you would be quite mistaken if you think that what you want is for change and what I want is for us to sit on our laurels. I don't see how my posting history could ever suggest that in the first place. Are you sure you haven't been responding to what you see as a prevalent position you perceive, and just attributing it to me? If I had my way the changes to be made would be radical. Bernie's a moderate compared to what I would like to see. But his ideas were a really good start, especially his longstanding desire to see campaign finance reformed. Find the people who are against that and you'll find the real enemy of change.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: DonaldD on June 04, 2018, 12:50:33 PM
Quote
But I've never seen on these boards...ever actually...an argument suggesting there has been a resurgence of racism
I think it is pretty clear that a subset of the US population holds the view that racism is resurgent.  I won't make any claim about the size of that subset.  I question whether you dispute this, or whether you literally simply haven't seen "an argument" supporting this claim on Ornery.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 04, 2018, 01:02:10 PM
Quote
But I've never seen on these boards...ever actually...an argument suggesting there has been a resurgence of racism
I think it is pretty clear that a subset of the US population holds the view that racism is resurgent.  I won't make any claim about the size of that subset.  I question whether you dispute this, or whether you literally simply haven't seen "an argument" supporting this claim on Ornery.

No, no. What I said was I've never seen a cogent argument showing that there actually was a resurgence. It's obvious that many people think there has been.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: DonaldD on June 04, 2018, 01:23:04 PM
I'm not sure why you wrote "no, no", when you really meant "the latter".  Also "cogent" means what in this context, especially since you added it to your clarification, where it was not in your original claim? 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: DonaldD on June 04, 2018, 01:32:19 PM
This is not an argument, but reported statistics seem to support the largely anecdotal evidence. From USA Today last year - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/07/09/kkk-racist-rants-religious-vandalism-us-vs-them-mentality-escalates-leaving-dark-corners-interne/418100001/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/07/09/kkk-racist-rants-religious-vandalism-us-vs-them-mentality-escalates-leaving-dark-corners-interne/418100001/)
Quote
While a patchwork of data means we don't have a complete picture of the problem, the SPLC and the ADL say available numbers show disturbing trends. In its most recent hate crimes report, the FBI tracked a total of 5,818 hate crimes in 2015, a rise of about 6.5% from the previous year, and showed that attacks against Muslims surged. The SPLC documented an uptick of hate and bias incidents after the presidential election, tracking 1,094 in the first month alone. The organization also says the number of hate groups in the U.S. increased for a second year in a row in 2016. In April, the ADL reported anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. rose 86% in the first quarter of 2017.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 04, 2018, 01:32:55 PM
I'm not sure why you wrote "no, no", when you really meant "the latter".  Also "cogent" means what in this context, especially since you added it to your clarification, where it was not in your original claim?

I wrote "no, no" because your response of "I think it is pretty clear that a subset of the US population holds the view that racism is resurgent." was non-responsive to my point, hence I assumed you misunderstood it. I am not arguing that no one thinks there's a resurgence, what I specifically said was that no one on Ornery has in the past made a case demonstrating how it's resurgent. I wrote "cogent" as a follow-up because there have been a lot of tacit statements that there's been a resurgence, but the claims have only been of the form of stating it as a fact. But to whit I can't recall anyone here taking some evidence or statistics and demonstrating clearly why they think it's resurgent. And it's not like they've done so and met resistance, as happened on the lengthy thread about Obamacare. There has simply never been an effort of any kind to demonstrate in what way or to what degree there's a resurgence. It's always just been a borderline tautological proposition of "it's resurgent, because everyone knows it is." I don't know that it is, and I've never seen the case made clearly, hence "cogent".

My observation is that at a certain point (which I guessed was ~10 years ago, and I guess I made a lucky guess since D.W. came up with a definite reason why that timing might be accurate) the narrative that racism is resurgent became prevalent, which is completely different than observing that it did become prevalent. Do you see the difference?
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: DonaldD on June 04, 2018, 01:36:56 PM
Then last year, the ADL reported the largest single-year increase in anti-semitic incidents in its history (since 1979): https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/27/589119452/anti-semitic-incidents-see-largest-single-year-increase-on-record-audit-finds (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/27/589119452/anti-semitic-incidents-see-largest-single-year-increase-on-record-audit-finds)
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: DonaldD on June 04, 2018, 01:43:06 PM
Then there are the general hate crimes as documented by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Sourced from the FBI: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/11/13/fbi-hate-crimes-reach-5-year-high-2016-jumped-trump-rolled-toward-presidency-0 (https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/11/13/fbi-hate-crimes-reach-5-year-high-2016-jumped-trump-rolled-toward-presidency-0)
Then there was 2017: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2018/2017-year-hate-and-extremism (https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2018/2017-year-hate-and-extremism)
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 04, 2018, 02:06:19 PM
What had the potential to be a nail in the coffin moment on racisim instead fanned flames instead of extinguishing sparks.  I believe you have the whole situation backwards.  It's not that liberals/progressives are inciting people to dig in their heels, there by prolonging racist beliefs.

I thought for a while before responding because I was trying to see what you mean, but I'm having trouble. I know you're trying to say that having Obama as President sparked all of this racism or whatever...but did it? I really never saw that or heard anything about it. Are you referring specifically to the birth certificate issue? Or what? What is this fanned flame you speak of? Where was it seen, what evidence do you have that it became suddenly worse or that liberal progress began to go retrograde?

Obama as President certainly spiked accusations of racism. It was a meme almost as soon as he became President-Elect "The only reason you disagree with Barak Obama is because he's black and you're a racist." Hell, former President Jimmy Carter flat out said essentially that just a couple months into Obama's presidency.

Honestly, I do think the Obama Presidency did specifically cause "a resurgence" in racial supremacy groups, both for "Whites" and other colors as well. Comparatively, the net change was probably relatively huge for many of those same groups. But we're into the realm of "lies, damned lies and statistics" with that. IIRC, it is claimed the KKK had an estimate membership in the ~100,000 person range in 2015/2016. So for them, picking up for example, twenty thousand people over 8 years would have been a "huge increase" in their numbers. However, twenty thousand people out of a population of nearly 330 million people is practically noise level for a statistics type.

And reality is, I don't think that Obama really was that much of a contributor(although the Obama Admin certainly "went to town" with exploiting "wedge issues" to the maximum extent possible, which once again, probably benefited those racist groups too) all things considered.

When you really drill into this stuff more often than not it tends to come down to a small number of things.
1) Education
2) Economic Opportunity (which tends to cycle back to Education)
3) Personal experience with said groups they're hating.

I think you'd find the largest contributor is item #2. When people cannot find (good) work, they're going to start looking for reasons why they cannot get said work. And as the "grievance industry" so aptly demonstrates, it's far easier to blame others than it is to find fault in ourselves. Ergo, "bad economies" result in more toxic behaviors all around(homicide rates as well as number of other crime indicators also tend to go up in such situations).

Which is part of the problem with the "You said something we find unacceptable, so we're going to destroy you're ability to make a comfortable living." Is just a giant recipe for creating a ticking time bomb. If also doesn't help when, for example on item #2, when people apply for jobs, are even told they're the best qualified candidate for the job, but.... "We're going to hire somebody else because they're going to help us with meeting our EEO goals." So just stick with it, you're clearly a good hire, but we're not hiring you because social justice requires you get left out on the curb.

Quote
Quote
It's that (to use a term I find irritatingly pretentious) we are finally 'woke' to the fact that we cannot, "wait it out" or look for reasonable excuses for behavior.  We can't just pretend it's something else like 'just politics' or 'partisan dissagreements'.

Again, I don't understand this rationale. I'm very aware that many people felt like they couldn't wait it out. But what real situation suddenly arose making it impossible to wait it out any more? What elicited the need to go to war, as it were?

See earlier comment about accusations starting at the onset of Obama's presidency where ALL opposition to him was inherently racist in nature. Seeing Obama get largely stymied for all but the first 2 years of his tenure in office(and being fought tooth and nail even then), was all the "proof" they needed that racism is clearly out of control in America.

That he was in turn followed up by President Trump the Racist, just further cements things in their view.   

Quote
Quote
This is a chicken or the egg issue and both sides are shouting, no "the other thing came first!"

Yes, you seem to be saying that the liberal movements as we see them now were merely a reaction to the racists and whatnot having some kind of resurgence. But I've never seen on these boards...ever actually...an argument suggesting there has been a resurgence of racism or that the liberal vs conservative cultural clash suddenly began to swing in the reverse direction. For many years it's been steadily going in the liberal direction and the conservatives have been losing in nearly every quarter. Surely you'd have to be able to demonstrate that this trend began reversing when Obama was inaugurated in order to suppose this position, no?

Don't you understand, the Tea Party was racist. They opposed Obama, they're racist. They advocated policies that racists agreed with, which makes them racist by association. (Never mind there are racists on the Socialist/Communist side of the spectrum as well that "fully support" many of the programs Democrats advocate for, because of what it "opens doors" to)

Quote
what's most important is to pinpoint exactly what the fulcrum of the injustice is, and to go after that. Not to go after whoever's a convenient target, or can be lambasted safely (like "the racists"), or other straw man targets. And it's not that fighting racism is itself a straw man, but going after the wrong people, or the wrong cause, ends up being a straw man because you're fighting windmills instead of the very real forces causing injustice. It's often been said in social justice blogs that people who don't recognize their privilege are the problem. That's nice and pat because as a proposition it's (a) untestable, (b) non-falsifiable (since denial is taken as confirmation), and (c) you get to adopt the position of the underdog taking on the majority. But telling white people (for instance) that they're part of the problem doesn't do anything about campaign finance laws, or about legal bribery. In fact it will make them worse, because if the partisan wedge is increased by alienating those who disagree with you they'll be even more prone to accept misdeeds by their politicians as long as it's in the name of defeating your side. The ability to recognize that when any politician is corrupt it hurts all of America will fade away. Do you see what I mean?

Amen.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 04, 2018, 02:24:04 PM
DonaldD,

It's well and good to begin to cite to articles about racist trends, but that's an entire issue that should have its own thread. And I wasn't exactly challenging anyone to prove something to me - or at least that wasn't my main point. What I was saying is that at around the time of Obama's early Presidential years the claims of racist resurgence seemed to precede evidence of any such resurgence. I'm skeptical that there was one to any significant degree but would be interested to learn more and maybe I'd change my mind on that. But what I'm observing is that the public narratives seemed to me to appear sans evidence, even if by happenstance there was some evidence. But getting into the statistics game is a tricky and should require an more in-depth conversation than the parenthetical one we're having in a Roseanne thread. For instance, if I claim that as of 10 years ago race-relations began to be worsened by a needless culture war, and then you show evidence of some unfortunate trends from 3 years ago, are we to surmise that these were merely the long-term result of the alleged resurgence from 2008, or that they were the result of the culture war itself that riled people on both sides up? So that's the kind of parsing that would be required, and my point was just that no one has hitherto even proposed to look at this issue and get to the bottom of it, and yet the "fact" that racism has been resurgent for 10 years seem to be taken for granted as justification to "escalate" (as D.W. put it) and take out the trash. One commenter on one of the articles you cited to asks whether there was a real uptick in hate crime or whether there was an uptick in reporting of it, which is another axis to examine in such things, and then there's the issue of what the cause of the hate crimes supposedly is. Because at around the time of Obama's inauguration another major thing was going on - the big crash. I find it hard to believe that Obama being black should be automatically assumed to be the sole cause of widespread anger at a time when the economy was being wiped out. Can we even measure the social effects that the crash had?
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: DonaldD on June 04, 2018, 02:29:24 PM
Which is fine - but you will never find the data if you don't actively look for it.  it shouldn't be the responsibility of your interlocutors to educate you on the statistics that are readily available to everybody.

You think there is no statistical evidence for a particular claim?  Then go ahead and show that there is evidence refuting the claim.  Simply stating "well nobody showed me" is not exactly persuasive.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on June 04, 2018, 03:56:06 PM
Then there are the general hate crimes as documented by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Sourced from the FBI: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/11/13/fbi-hate-crimes-reach-5-year-high-2016-jumped-trump-rolled-toward-presidency-0 (https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/11/13/fbi-hate-crimes-reach-5-year-high-2016-jumped-trump-rolled-toward-presidency-0)
Then there was 2017: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2018/2017-year-hate-and-extremism (https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2018/2017-year-hate-and-extremism)

It's true there was a 4.6% increase in hate crimes reported to the FBI in 2016 from 2015.  Of course, the incident rate actually only increased by 2.5%, due ot the fact that a larger number of agencies, covering a larger population, participated in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting program.  The theory presented by the SPLC is that Trump is behind the increase in hate crimes. 

I suppose that is possible.  But what would be the cause of the 12.1% rate increase in 2015 from 2014?  Or the 7.1% rate increase in 2012?  A Look back between 2005 to 2016 show a rate variation between 12.1% to 1.4%.  The average rate change +/- between these years is 6.1%.  I'm sure there are reasons, but without more data I can only presume that there is a natural variance in hate crime incidence that has little to do with elections.  Then again, in 2013, the first year of President Obama's 2nd term, there was a 13.7% rate decrease in the incidence of hate crime. I suppose it's possible that he is solely responsible. 

As for the SPLC's hate group list, they manage their own and define it as they wish. 

Quote
it shouldn't be the responsibility of your interlocutors to educate you on the statistics that are readily available to everybody.

You're welcome. 
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on June 04, 2018, 04:08:56 PM

My observation is that at a certain point (which I guessed was ~10 years ago, and I guess I made a lucky guess since D.W. came up with a definite reason why that timing might be accurate) the narrative that racism is resurgent became prevalent, which is completely different than observing that it did become prevalent. Do you see the difference?

This seems to be the impetus.  If the purpose was to utilize hate crime stats to prove that racism is resurgent over the past 10 years, then I would like to show following document with graph. 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hcv0415.pdf

Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 04, 2018, 04:49:04 PM

My observation is that at a certain point (which I guessed was ~10 years ago, and I guess I made a lucky guess since D.W. came up with a definite reason why that timing might be accurate) the narrative that racism is resurgent became prevalent, which is completely different than observing that it did become prevalent. Do you see the difference?

This seems to be the impetus.  If the purpose was to utilize hate crime stats to prove that racism is resurgent over the past 10 years, then I would like to show following document with graph. 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hcv0415.pdf

I find it interesting that the cutoff is at age 12. Not that a hate crime committed by, or against an 11 year is more or less excusable than a 13 year old, or a 17/18 year old. But the cutoff point seems a bit odd.

Makes me curious at what the incidence rate is for the 18+ demographic, or more particular, the 22+ grouping.

Methinks many of the reported hate crimes are "teenagers being teenagers" and making piss poor decisions as to how they're demonstrating their "Rebel Status." Doesn't make it ok, and it IS an issue that needs to be addressed, but I'm generally going to place a 14YO "Hate Crime" perpetrator, of any ethnic group, into a completely different category than a 20-something.

The should know better, but they're teenagers, they're immortal, invulnerable, know more than those stupid adults do, and consequences aren't something they seriously consider until/unless somebody they know is killed or seriously injured because of it. It just seems to be how they're wired.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 04, 2018, 04:49:59 PM
Quote
What is this fanned flame you speak of? Where was it seen, what evidence do you have that it became suddenly worse or that liberal progress began to go retrograde?
Possibly others could point out incidents that were irrefutable. {*started writing before the data links were posted}  I however, cannot.  (at least not this moment, possibly some will come to me later)  Any single incident I could point to could be dismissed.  As I mentioned before, so many things are entangled here.  Republican v Democrat, Conservative v Progressive and so on.  Others have spoken in recent years about dog whistles, but those, by their very nature are meant to be excusable.  You never really saw or heard it, I did.  It’s not like we didn’t see the same things, we just perceived it differently.  Maybe the habit I have of trying to read between the lines or look past an event or statement to get at the motives is the difference.  Possibly this trait is one more common in, or more likely drives more people towards, a liberal/progressive outlook?  I don’t know.
Quote
But I've never seen on these boards...ever actually...an argument suggesting there has been a resurgence of racism or that the liberal vs conservative cultural clash suddenly began to swing in the reverse direction
This boils down to the comfort level of the “extreme” right, (people most Republicans/conservatives would be quick to point out are not representative of them), to proclaim loudly, things that were typically not said in anything but a “safe space” of like minded racists/bigots.  Is that group growing in numbers?  Probably not.  Are they growing in boldness?  Absolutely. 
So why the reaction then?  Because, as my response above, I (we?  As I don’t speak for “the left”) read into things.  They (subjective) appear to be tolerated.  A lot of this behavior is excused.  I don’t support them because they said X (which is naughty) but because of Y, which I agree with.  Then I see someone like Trump stiring things up, and engaging in behavior that these groups see as encouragement if not agreement.  For every person open about their ugly beliefs, I wonder how many more nod quietly where nobody is there to see?  Is it fair?  Hell no.  So I try to keep it to just wondering, and save my words for those who are obvious about it.
Quote
This is, by the way, the exact stuff Sanders has been railing at for...what...15-20 years? And never did he bring white vs black into it or find the need to paint any bad guy other than corrupt politics.
This is true.  Is this a way of asking, “Why do you feel the need to focus on racism as a bad guy when you are really after those other things?”  If so, I suppose one could look at the narratives that were out there that Sanders was less appealing to minority voters than Hillary was, precisely because he failed to focus on them (enough for some).  I don’t know if that’s accurate or not, but it was out there.  As to why I feel the need, it’s because I believe a unified front will be far more effective.  That with this particular divisive issue / tool in use, that battle of corrupt politics is harder to attack head on.
Quote
What on Earth does any of this have to do with blogging about how white people are racists and if they deny it then it proves they are?
If I ever said that, or inferred it, I apologize.  That drives me crazy as well.  What I have said, is that some who deny it, yet act in specific ways, I suspect of lying.  Or at least of having their priorities so different than mine that they are an obstacle towards resolving the issue.
Quote
Or what does it have to do with the view that racists and Trump are dominating America?
I believe they are dominating our attention, not America.  Though their foothold is stronger than I had previously believed.

Quote
How is any of that a logical response to the things you just mentioned?
If we quit arguing about whether or not we are all equally deserving of what it means to be an American and deserving of all the rights and opportunities that entails, then our ability to fix or improve this nation will be (I believe) an awe inspiring thing.  To be clear, I believe we were (and are still) moving that way.  I see the attempts to highlight and magnify all points of contention to be working against that.  I freely admitted I’m part of that distraction, I just believe I’m on the just side of it...

Quote
You seem to insist, no matter what I say, that my position is that we shouldn't be doing anything about these injustices. No. My position is that I don't want radical groups involves in 'helping' to deal with injustice.
And what you want, doesn’t change that they are out there, and will be out there.  That’s just the way it is.  Instigators and radicals come in every flavor.  Are you saying you prioritize dealing with these radicals (on the left) who are ‘helping’ deal with injustice is a higher priority than dealing with the injustice?  If not, then why bring them up?  If you are just pointing out that they are another obstacle towards bridging the divide, then I agree.  Even if I think most of the attention paid to them is blown out of proportion.  (same as the overt, white supremacists radicals)

Quote
But what's most important is to pinpoint exactly what the fulcrum of the injustice is, and to go after that. Not to go after whoever's a convenient target, or can be lambasted safely (like "the racists"), or other straw man targets.
Here’s where we break.  I haven’t mentioned any straw man targets.  I may talk generally, but am referring to specific things.  Roseanne’s tweet WAS racists.  Some excuse it, or rationalize it or dismiss it, but it’s not a strawman.  Is she a “convenient target”?  I guess…  It’s a high profile person who’s made it a point she is trying to represent a demographic.  Are you saying the best path forward is to ignore the bait?  Even if we honestly believe that if ignored such behavior becomes normalized?  What is it you are suggesting? 


What do you mean I’m after “the wrong people”?  How is ending racism “the wrong cause” even if I have others.  Do you mean, “not the biggest problem in our country?”  Depends on who you ask I suppose.  I’d even agree.  I’ve said it a few times.  I think it is the best tactical move towards the larger objectives.  But hey, I’m a white dude.  I may reprioritize were I not.  :P

You see it as fighting windmills and a strawman because you believe that solving other injustices first will cause racism to sort itself out, or at least be an easier task.  That’s fine, but I don’t see us solving those other injustices without solving racism first; (and to a lesser extent bigotry and sexism.) Maybe that’s just it, a tactical difference of opinion?
But when I strip away racism, bigotry, and sexism, and look at just policy, what I see is an awful lot of those “other injustices” when I look across the aisle.  That’s not to say the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives have clean hands, but they pay a lot more lip service to thwarting those things.  With the “culture war(s)” out of the way, it would be far easier to hold their feet to the fire.
Quote
I need to reiterate that you would be quite mistaken if you think that what you want is for change and what I want is for us to sit on our laurels. I don't see how my posting history could ever suggest that in the first place.
I’m not trying to demonize people or you specifically.  If anything I’m trying to demonstrate the line of thinking that your reasoning provokes, or can provoke. 

Quote
Are you sure you haven't been responding to what you see as a prevalent position you perceive, and just attributing it to me?
On the contrary, I AM doing that exact thing.  Or at the very least, sprinkling those into my responses to you.  I even said as much on one replay when I responded to not only two people but a generalized ‘the other side’, all with “you”. 
I even made it a point that context and trust changes how I interpret what people say. 
Even if we both agree on the “real enemy of change” I don’t like our odds against them right now. 
Quote
hat I specifically said was that no one on Ornery has in the past made a case demonstrating how it's resurgent.
Maybe this is an important distinction.  It may not be as much that there is an objectively defined resurgence, but that a common misconception that things were better than they (apparently) are, motivated/angered a lot of people on the left, when they learned different.  /shrug  Just spit-balling there.
Those replying to me are all making some really good points.  I agree with an awful lot of what you are saying.  I’m absolutely guilty of a lot of the accusations and fit many of the theories you are throwing out.  It may seem counter intuitive, but I find these exchanges useful.  Even if they don’t change my views, they can help me to see new nuances of how I’m being manipulated or people are attempting to manipulate me. 

My hope is that I’m helping others achieve the same.  I seriously believe that even if such a discussion only serves to reinforce your own beliefs, it’s helpful to get an idea of how others may perceive what you say.  Life isn’t fair, and neither is how others judge you.  It doesn’t mean you should ignore that.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Grant on June 04, 2018, 05:20:58 PM
Makes me curious at what the incidence rate is for the 18+ demographic, or more particular, the 22+ grouping.

Methinks many of the reported hate crimes are "teenagers being teenagers" and making piss poor decisions as to how they're demonstrating their "Rebel Status." Doesn't make it ok, and it IS an issue that needs to be addressed, but I'm generally going to place a 14YO "Hate Crime" perpetrator, of any ethnic group, into a completely different category than a 20-something.

The should know better, but they're teenagers, they're immortal, invulnerable, know more than those stupid adults do, and consequences aren't something they seriously consider until/unless somebody they know is killed or seriously injured because of it. It just seems to be how they're wired.

In 2016 83.8% of offenders were over 18.  https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016/topic-pages/offenders

Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: DonaldD on June 04, 2018, 05:29:28 PM
Quote
You're welcome.
I don't think Fenring actually thanked you.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: rightleft22 on June 04, 2018, 05:40:55 PM
Quote
While I think comparing it to the Borg is a bit alarmist. I don’t disagree


I didn’t’ intend the observation be to alarmist though it does beg the question of what is the tipping point on when we ought to be concerned and raise an alarm.
I’m struck at how people are becoming more and more dependent on their smart phones as their memory, and of course memory is a trickster.   I wonder what the impact on becoming dependent on such technology will have on intelligence. Not saying it will be bad or good, probably both... it will be different in though
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 04, 2018, 05:51:51 PM
At least I miss far less birthdays now that Facebook and the like reminds me.  ;)  So in that case, it repairs a deficit rather than atrophying existing talents.  :P
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: yossarian22c on June 04, 2018, 11:58:43 PM
Quote
While I think comparing it to the Borg is a bit alarmist. I don’t disagree


I didn’t’ intend the observation be to alarmist though it does beg the question of what is the tipping point on when we ought to be concerned and raise an alarm.
I’m struck at how people are becoming more and more dependent on their smart phones as their memory, and of course memory is a trickster.   I wonder what the impact on becoming dependent on such technology will have on intelligence. Not saying it will be bad or good, probably both... it will be different in though

I view it less like the Borg and more like an auto-immune disease. Racists and discrimination are a major disease for society but facebook and the media giving so much attention tricks our brains into believing these incidents are much much more frequent than they actually are. Serious people feeling like they are making honest statements talk about how black men are gunned down in the streets by police everyday1.  I've heard commentators on shows lamenting the fact that they had to talk with their sons about the dangers of police interactions. The risk of being shot by the police while not committing any crime is probably 100's or 1,000s (10,000s?) of times less likely than a drug OD or car fatality.

Being exposed to every suspect police shooting, large numbers of examples of racism (and perceived racism) through the media and social media gives people on both sides (racists and activists) the impression that racism is more prevalent and virulent than it actually is. This in my opinion leads to activists reacting too strongly to many statements (for example when political disagreement/opposition of Obama implies racist) and actual racists feeling more emboldened b/c they feel like they are part of a much larger group.


1. I would support legislation that would require all police shootings to be reported to the FBI and either investigated by the FBI or the states BI. Better statistics here would help identify real issues and provide better context to the actual risk. Outside agencies investigation removes any smell of cronyism.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Greg Davidson on June 07, 2018, 10:30:25 AM
Consider the Dixie Chicks in regard to these two comments below, lead singer Natalie Maines said a week or two before the invasion of Iraq in 2003  "We don't want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States (George W. Bush) is from Texas".  And for that they were blacklisted by broadcasting networks for the rest of the Bush term in office. For the imaginary crime of criticizing the President on foreign soil, a crime that went down the memory hole as soon as a Democrat became President.


Quote
I wish there was a list of people who got fired for thought crimes or unacceptable speech, but I don't have one.  Not sure if it began with Spacey or Damore or goes further back, and when things started heating up.  The first one I remember on the forum is the firing of Brendan Eich.  Paula Deen lost her job in 2013 I think.  That's just celebrity/CEO firings.

Quote
The "issue" here, as the more socially conservative side of the nation can fully attest to, is this scenario is NOT reciprocal. If you hold a socially conservative/more traditionalist point of view, and express it publicly, the current social milieu is such that if you're not careful, you could lose your job, and see your career be seriously damaged by it. "And deserve what you get" when it happens to you.

But if you hold a more socially "liberal" or progressive positions, without regard to how "socially acceptable" those positions/attitudes may be where you are,  and an employer attempts "to cut ties" with you because of your public positions. THAT's protected, and suddenly some sacred cow is under attack and the employer is now under threat of boycotts, multi-million dollar crowd-funded lawsuits, and so forth.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 07, 2018, 11:08:18 AM
Greg, that's a good way to look at the reciprocal case. It's not quite equivalent, mind you, owing to what I believe to be the relationship between the MSM and the government. If the White House had it in for someone, for example, I could see this trickling down to major networks blacklisting the person even if they personally hadn't been offended. The media is rarely at arm's length from government. Contrast with someone working in a company which I doubt the government had any contact with, and the move to oust them coming from portions of the general public.

Which raises an important issue, which is that there are many rights guaranteed in the constitution that are about the government being forbidden to infringe on those rights. But the protection of the people from the government doesn't necessarily protect them at all from having those same rights threatened by their fellow man. The government isn't allowed to punish you for exercising speech, but others can, which brings us to part of the issue here. What if the worst tyrant ends up being other people rather than the evil government?
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on June 07, 2018, 11:22:38 AM
We do see conservatives right now threatening to boycott Netflix just because Obama made a deal with them, and they haven't even said anything yet. We've seen the NFL walk their tightrope while conservatives wildly crow about how they are boycotting and delighting in declining ratings. Conservatives smashed their own coffee machines over pulling advertising. They boycotted starbucks and attacked them because of the absence of Christmas on the cups.

If that's not attempted punishment for political views, I'm not sure what else to call it.

Quote
The risk of being shot by the police while not committing any crime is probably 100's or 1,000s (10,000s?) of times less likely than a drug OD or car fatality.

And the risk of being tased by the police? Roughed up by the police? Threatened by the police? Hassled by the police?

This issue is much more broad than that, like throwing people on the ground for talking back at a pool party that got too loud. And I don't have a hard time believing that those incidents are representative of pervasive issues - some racial and some general excessive force.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 12, 2018, 01:04:36 PM
Consider the Dixie Chicks in regard to these two comments below, lead singer Natalie Maines said a week or two before the invasion of Iraq in 2003  "We don't want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States (George W. Bush) is from Texas".  And for that they were blacklisted by broadcasting networks for the rest of the Bush term in office. For the imaginary crime of criticizing the President on foreign soil, a crime that went down the memory hole as soon as a Democrat became President.

The Dixie Chicks were a special case. They weren't the only A-list or even B-list celebrities who came out strongly opposed to the Invasion of Iraq in 2003. Johnny Depp also comes to mind as well, and he clearly didn't suffer for it.

What "screwed" the Dixie Chicks was that they were a Country-music group, and the primary demographic of Country Music listeners are people in rural "Red"(Conservative) America. So their coming out against the Iraq War, something which was widely supported by Conservatives and Rural America, was putting them in direct opposition to their own fan base.

Their fans took exception to it, and the rest is, as you say, is history. They pissed on their own customer base, and they reaped the whirlwind for it.

Johnny Depp, as a counter point, was not and is not a Country music performer, his primary market demographic isn't Rural America, and as such he largely dodged that same pitfall.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Greg Davidson on June 13, 2018, 12:36:56 AM
Quote
Their fans took exception to it, and the rest is, as you say, is history. They pissed on their own customer base, and they reaped the whirlwind for it.

That might be a plausible explanation if the impact had been just based on diminished sales. Instead, they were blacklisted - the large companies controlling airtime on country radio refused to play their music. And they did not piss on their fan base, Natalie Maines simply pointed out what most of the country later realized, President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq was embarrassingly wrong.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Gaoics79 on June 13, 2018, 07:00:29 AM
Quote
That might be a plausible explanation if the impact had been just based on diminished sales. Instead, they were blacklisted - the large companies controlling airtime on country radio refused to play their music. And they did not piss on their fan base, Natalie Maines simply pointed out what most of the country later realized, President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq was embarrassingly wrong.

Did the stations use anticipated fan backlash as a pretext to punish a group for their political beliefs, or was there a legitimate commercial concern? I suspect probably a bit of both. I would suspect the people calling the shots were both politically invested in a certain viewpoint AND offended as fans themselves.

I think they probably would have faced a backlash that translated into weaker sales in some quarters, but whether or not that would have been enough to really put a dent in their bottom line, who knows?

Consumer boycotts are almost mythical, in the sense that everybody talks about them, and many fear them, but it isn't clear that they actually happen. True consumer boycotts are rarer than unicorns.

Thanks to social media, never before in history have we witnessed so many threatened boycotts.

Personally, I'm not worried about celebrities like the Dixie Chicks or Roseanne. It's this idea that some social media outrage, however fleeting, should be automatic justification for firing and blackballing people. This may largely impact celebrities at present, but it's increasingly clear that the phenomenon will spread to rank and file workers in due course. That's the thing that scares me.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 13, 2018, 08:43:41 AM
Quote
but it's increasingly clear that the phenomenon will spread to rank and file workers in due course.
Why do you think this is the case / will be the case?

The only outlier in this vein that comes to mind for me was the google employee who got fired for his views on women in the tech field.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 13, 2018, 09:39:43 AM
Quote
but it's increasingly clear that the phenomenon will spread to rank and file workers in due course.
Why do you think this is the case / will be the case?

The only outlier in this vein that comes to mind for me was the google employee who got fired for his views on women in the tech field.

The issue isn't only about being fired, but about feeling like you have to refrain from discussing personal views in an office setting for fear that you'll be fired for them. Roseanne's comment is probably inapplicable in what I'm saying because she was fired not for a viewpoint per se but for apparently racist language. But the guy at Google was completely an issue of having Wrong Opinions.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 13, 2018, 09:54:37 AM
Sorry if that was unclear, but my question is rather why do you believe this will spread to rank and file workers?

Are you suggesting a rogue tweet, even one more widely agreed to be offensive, would get a bank teller fired?  Maybe an assistant manager at Walmart?  A waitress at a local restaurant? 

So far (in my opinion anyhow) this phenomena is specific to high profile people.  Those with some combination or balance of influence and money.  And, more often than not, those who derive that influence and money through raw popularity/public interest.  People who, to use language from earlier in this discussion, are hard to separate from the "brand" of their job.

So why do you feel that this "trend" is likely to spread to rank and file workers?  Gut feeling?  Anecdotal evidence you've experienced first hand?  I'm curious as I think we need another social media shift (not saying it can't happen) before I would ever find myself in a position to even know (let alone care) about what my waitress or cashier or auto mechanic tweeted or posted about.

I can see some "SJW" employer looking up perspective employees and maybe (bit more of a stretch) continuing to monitor their employee's online behavior; then using "at will employment" laws to bounce people who didn't meet their standards...  But that strikes me as the "nut-job one off" type situation than any looming trend.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 13, 2018, 11:27:38 AM
Quote
Their fans took exception to it, and the rest is, as you say, is history. They pissed on their own customer base, and they reaped the whirlwind for it.

That might be a plausible explanation if the impact had been just based on diminished sales. Instead, they were blacklisted - the large companies controlling airtime on country radio refused to play their music. And they did not piss on their fan base, Natalie Maines simply pointed out what most of the country later realized, President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq was embarrassingly wrong.

IIRC, her full comment was (taken as being) along the lines of her also "being ashamed of anyone who voted for Bush" --Which would be a direct shot at much of her fan base.

Did the stations use anticipated fan backlash as a pretext to punish a group for their political beliefs, or was there a legitimate commercial concern? I suspect probably a bit of both. I would suspect the people calling the shots were both politically invested in a certain viewpoint AND offended as fans themselves.

I think they probably would have faced a backlash that translated into weaker sales in some quarters, but whether or not that would have been enough to really put a dent in their bottom line, who knows?

Consumer boycotts are almost mythical, in the sense that everybody talks about them, and many fear them, but it isn't clear that they actually happen. True consumer boycotts are rarer than unicorns.

Their being blacklisted by the radio stations(loss of residuals) was more likely to be a response to a feared, or actual, advertiser boycott. (Rural) Country music stations are going to be looking at making advertising sales from customers within their broadcast market, which presumably means a "local" business owner of some flavor. Their ears are a bit closer to the ground than most, so any of them hearing a lot of outrage regarding the Dixie Chicks specifically may start placing stipulations/requests for their ads to not be aired anywhere close(time wise) to a Dixie Chicks song for example.

On a more meta-level, you also have the matter of Clear Channel Communications and company, who have been held to hold "a clear conservative bias" who also happen to own a LOT of country music radio stations, who also probably "put a hand in" from a much higher level in the corporate ladder.

Pair that with an angry fan base who declare their intention to buy no more Dixie Chick media, and it makes for a rather disruptive combination for that music group.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 13, 2018, 11:35:07 AM
Sorry if that was unclear, but my question is rather why do you believe this will spread to rank and file workers?

Are you suggesting a rogue tweet, even one more widely agreed to be offensive, would get a bank teller fired?  Maybe an assistant manager at Walmart?  A waitress at a local restaurant?

Yes. Bank teller and local restaurant waitress getting fired because of potential "issues" like the recent Starbucks incident in Philly.

The Walmart Assistant Manager because letting that manager remain isn't just leaving the door open to boycotts, as laughable as those may be, but actual discrimination lawsuits because he or she is serving in a Management capacity.

Quote
So why do you feel that this "trend" is likely to spread to rank and file workers?  Gut feeling?  Anecdotal evidence you've experienced first hand?  I'm curious as I think we need another social media shift (not saying it can't happen) before I would ever find myself in a position to even know (let alone care) about what my waitress or cashier or auto mechanic tweeted or posted about.

Odds of finding out are a different matter from what your range of options are once you know they did so.

In many cases, it probably isn't even the boycott threats that results in people getting terminated. It is the legal advice from the company's lawyers which says to dump them before they become more of a legal liability than they've already made themselves. (For example, that Wal-Mart assistant manager, if they've previously given negative performance reviews, or been party to the termination of employment, of a minority group member)

Quote
I can see some "SJW" employer looking up perspective employees and maybe (bit more of a stretch) continuing to monitor their employee's online behavior; then using "at will employment" laws to bounce people who didn't meet their standards...  But that strikes me as the "nut-job one off" type situation than any looming trend.

See above, I can see non-"SJW" types dumping people who make really poorly phrased "written" statements which could in turn be used against them in a court of law should they continue their associations after having been made aware of them.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDeamon on June 13, 2018, 11:42:41 AM
Quote
but it's increasingly clear that the phenomenon will spread to rank and file workers in due course.
Why do you think this is the case / will be the case?

The only outlier in this vein that comes to mind for me was the google employee who got fired for his views on women in the tech field.

He's the most recent one. There are older reports out there, mostly in regards to feminists taking exceptions to off-handed comments (at conferences no less; by people they have no employment-type relationship with) or other such things made in other venues, bringing them to attention on social media, having the offending party identified, and subsequently run out of their jobs. This was stuff that was starting to happen even before Bush left office, or the creation of the "Social Justice Warrior" meme.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: D.W. on June 13, 2018, 11:49:57 AM
Thanks for the answers.  I'll admit that a lot of these things don't hit my radar the same way.  To be fair, it's probably because most of them strike me as, "Hah, dumbass got what they deserved." and I dismiss them from my mind.  But I had heard of the examples you gave, and can't argue the logic. 

I still don't know as I see it a problem on the rise.  I suppose it's possible as the, umm, political climate has led some to be less... reserved in voicing their opinions than they may have been previously.  That could result in a spike of these incidents.

Or, maybe, this is less about political/social opinions changing, and more about society getting a handle on what it means to live in this new era of techno erosion of our privacy.  (That many willingly contribute to.)  I don't know.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Gaoics79 on June 13, 2018, 12:47:40 PM
Quote
Sorry if that was unclear, but my question is rather why do you believe this will spread to rank and file workers?

Well first because it has. There are examples of it happening already, such as the infamous case of the executive who tweeted a quasi racist joke about AIDS before getting on a plane, to the men who were fired based on a private conversation at a conference that was recorded by a felliw attendee who eavesdropped and broadcast it (she was in turn fired as well if memory serves correctly.)

But as others noted, there is no business known to man, no job lowly enough, where this can't happen. A janitor at a public school, a dishwasher at a prominent restaurant, or even a checkout at Starbucks.- nobody is immune.

This isn't widespread right now, but only because social media, surveillance are still in their infancy. I think as these things become more ubiquitous, the problem will inevitably work its way down the food chain. Today it's the racist tweet of an NBA player, tomorrow it will be the racist tweet of a food vendor at a sports venue, or perhaps a recorded comment on a smartphone posted on a Facebook page with a doxxing and demand that the individual be let go by his employer.

Once this data enters a person's digital history, it becomes impossible to erase and impossible to  ignore. It will stick to you. You apply as to be a busboy at McDonalds - well why would McDonalds ever hire a "racist" or anyone who was ever even accused of it? Does McDonalds condone racism? Well of course not. We are not quite there yet, but it is coming.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 13, 2018, 12:49:55 PM
I watched a televised debate the other day which I believe aired on May 18th, featuring Jordan Peterson and Stephen Fry (an unlikely alliance) on one side with a feminist and black activist on the opposite side (I forget their names). The debate topic was "political correctness" although to Fry's dismay the debate kept veering away from that into racial and identity politics. One of the traps inherent in this setup was that Peterson's opponents kept wanting to debate things they knew he had said in the past rather than sticking strictly to the debate topic and the points Peterson was raising in that forum. However it was nonetheless an enjoyable watch at around 2 hours long and I recommend it (easy to find on Youtube).

I mention it in part to answer D.W., because Fry took it upon himself to articulate why he even agreed to be present, and on the side cautioning about political correctness, since he is otherwise self-described as a bleeding heart liberal in most other matters. At one point, during his repeated efforts to keep the debate on-topic, he stated that as a gay liberal man he is now experiencing for the first time in the last 60 years an atmosphere where he and his friends don't feel comfortable speaking their mind in public and must recuse themselves to say to each other what they really think about things in privacy. He describes it as an atmosphere of fear and that this is something completely new and very palpable.

Assuming he isn't insane and is describing a real thing the question is then how this vague atmosphere translates into real concern about one's job. Granted, he's a celebrity so he stands on a particularly shaky patch of ground, but generally one might suppose that if you're a hard and fast lefty that you've got nothing to worry about. Obviously that isn't the case.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 16, 2018, 01:04:27 PM
"Well first because it has. There are examples of it happening already, such as the infamous case of the executive who tweeted a quasi racist joke about AIDS before getting on a plane, to the men who were fired based on a private conversation at a conference that was recorded by a felllow attendee who eavesdropped and broadcast it (she was in turn fired as well if memory serves correctly.)"

For memory refreshment, "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!" and the other thing was a dongle joke and as you say not even said to the woman but she just overheard it.

"... or even a checkout at Starbucks."

Even if you do nothing wrong you can get fired. The manager at Starbucks was fired for following company policy about loiterers when she asked two black men to either buy something or leave to make space for paying customers.

And then you can even get fired for reporting offensive comments as happened, like Jason mentioned, to the lady who reported the dongle joke even though the guy who made it admitted she was right to report him.

https://www.cnet.com/news/two-people-fired-over-pycon-dongle-joke/

Which is all to say is it maybe all going just a little too far?
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: velcro on June 16, 2018, 05:02:30 PM
Quote
the guy at Google was completely an issue of having Wrong Opinions.
Well, not quite the whole story.  His wrong opinions violated company policy (rightly or wrongly), and he published them very widely, and as an employee of Google.

Quote
Well first because it has. There are examples of it happening already, such as the infamous case of

The plural of anecdote is not data.  "Because it has" is not evidence.

Quote
IIRC, her full comment was (taken as being) along the lines of her also "being ashamed of anyone who voted for Bush" --Which would be a direct shot at much of her fan base.

Didn't see that anywhere.  Do you have a source?

Here's the bottom line:  If you do something that violates company policy* and/or makes it likely your company will lose money, you can expect to be fired.  Maybe they will go easy on you, but that is up to them.

*If the policy violates your rights, or is illegal, then you can sue.  But other than that, they can have any policies they want.

Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 16, 2018, 05:46:47 PM
Quote
the guy at Google was completely an issue of having Wrong Opinions.
Well, not quite the whole story.  His wrong opinions violated company policy (rightly or wrongly), and he published them very widely, and as an employee of Google.

No. You make a circular argument claiming he violated company policy, since the intent of his document was to find ways to fulfill company policy. The entire point of the document was to demonstrate that if diversity is the objective then it's not going to be achieved with current policy, and he made suggests on the various potential causes there might be for why they were going about it the wrong way. He also suggested possible fixes to help with it. So his intent was to find solutions to increase company diversity. That by definition cannot be against company policy since diversity was the company policy.

You also make an inaccurate statement saying he published them widely, which isn't the case. I forget the exact specifics but as I remember he posted them to a very specific location that was only going to be read by a small group of people. It was eventually widely circulated, but not by him. And actually that's the same issue as discussed just about about the "dongle joke" incident, where the entire public debacle begins when someone decides to publicize something not intended for the general public (such as a 'suggestion box' document, or in the case of a joke, a private joke told in a public space to one other person).
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: velcro on June 16, 2018, 08:26:51 PM
Quote
the guy at Google was completely an issue of having Wrong Opinions.
Well, not quite the whole story.  His wrong opinions violated company policy (rightly or wrongly), and he published them very widely, and as an employee of Google.

No. You make a circular argument claiming he violated company policy, since the intent of his document was to find ways to fulfill company policy. ...So his intent was to find solutions to increase company diversity. That by definition cannot be against company policy since diversity was the company policy.

So let's say my intent is to increase diversity, and in my twisted mind, the best way to do that is to paint a big rainbow on everyone's car. With spray paint.  That doesn't come off.  By your logic, that by definition cannot be against company policy since diversity was the company policy, and I was trying to increase diversity.

Obviously, if in your intent to meet company policy you violate company policy, you do not get a get out of jail card for having the proper intent.

I don't know how his opinion was published.  I am willing to stipulate he did not intend to publish it widely.  But that really does not affect the argument.  He violated company policy.

I do know that he made gross generalizations about women that are not true in a huge number of specific cases.  For example, he said women were biologically less able to deal with stress.  Having read that, I would think twice about choosing a woman over a man for a stressful position.  There are two very dangerous aspects.  One, the science is not at all settled for most of his claims, so making policy on it is a bad idea.  There may be trends of differences, but there is no real quantification, and he is asking for quantitative policies.  Two, he is dealing with statistical averages.  On average, Asians are not as tall as Caucasians (I'm not sure that's true, but for purposes of argument).  Would you then make individual decisions about how many Asians you had on your basketball team based on that?  He is ignoring the fact that the women at Google are tremendously self-selected, so the statistics are useless.

So after the memo gets out, women would go to meeting and look around, and know that most men were wondering if she was prone to stress, or bad at math, or whatever females are statistically prone to.  Doesn't matter if she is a PhD fighter pilot, she has two X chromosomes, so the men are going to wonder.  It is human nature, once someone makes that argument.  And James Damore made that argument.  It made a lot of people uncomfortable, and it wasn't even good science.  He didn't back down, so since he created a "hostile environment", they fired him.  He sued, and lost.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 17, 2018, 12:17:32 AM
So let's say my intent is to increase diversity, and in my twisted mind, the best way to do that is to paint a big rainbow on everyone's car. With spray paint.  That doesn't come off.  By your logic, that by definition cannot be against company policy since diversity was the company policy, and I was trying to increase diversity.

Yes, method matters as well as intent. But while it may be against company policy to commit vandalism in the name of diversity, it surely cannot be against company policy to present a well-reasoned and polite argument - right or wrong - that has the intent to try to help the diversity program. What you're saying is that wrong opinions about facts are equivalent to spray painting private property.

Quote
Obviously, if in your intent to meet company policy you violate company policy, you do not get a get out of jail card for having the proper intent.

That is true.

Quote
I don't know how his opinion was published.  I am willing to stipulate he did not intend to publish it widely.  But that really does not affect the argument.  He violated company policy.

It would help to back up your point before re-asserting your conclusion as a premise.

Quote
I do know that he made gross generalizations about women that are not true in a huge number of specific cases.  For example, he said women were biologically less able to deal with stress.

This is not quite right, but helping your point along it's true that he asserted that women are more prone than men to neuroticism, for instance. This sounds highly prejudicial until you realize that he's using a clinical term within a context that has backing in the field. However even if you don't like potentially accurate statistical statements the next point you make doesn't follow:

Quote
Having read that, I would think twice about choosing a woman over a man for a stressful position.  There are two very dangerous aspects.  One, the science is not at all settled for most of his claims, so making policy on it is a bad idea.  There may be trends of differences, but there is no real quantification, and he is asking for quantitative policies.  Two, he is dealing with statistical averages.  On average, Asians are not as tall as Caucasians (I'm not sure that's true, but for purposes of argument).  Would you then make individual decisions about how many Asians you had on your basketball team based on that?  He is ignoring the fact that the women at Google are tremendously self-selected, so the statistics are useless.

You've somewhat misunderstood the data, and totally misunderstood the actual argument. He said nothing about how many women should be in the company based on the facts as he sees them. In fact, it's the company itself suggesting a *should* in terms of numbers of people in terms of diversity. Considering their agenda to meet diversity standards his observation is that they were failing to meet their goal for various reasons involving shortage of supply of women to hire. It has nothing to do with their hiring policy, which no doubt was already skewed heavily in favor of hiring women, all things being equal. He point was that for some reason women don't want to work in that field, and his list of possible reasons was meant to explain that. It has literally nothing to do with the company assessing women based on some statistical inferiority or other such nonsense. What you've done is the same as what some of his colleagues did, which is to take an explanation of why women aren't available for hiring, and choosing to interpret it as an argument about why women shouldn't be hired. It's very easy to find offense when what's actually said it ignored in favor of looking for reasons to be offended.

Quote
So after the memo gets out, women would go to meeting and look around, and know that most men were wondering if she was prone to stress, or bad at math, or whatever females are statistically prone to.  Doesn't matter if she is a PhD fighter pilot, she has two X chromosomes, so the men are going to wonder.  It is human nature, once someone makes that argument.  And James Damore made that argument.  It made a lot of people uncomfortable, and it wasn't even good science.  He didn't back down, so since he created a "hostile environment", they fired him.  He sued, and lost.

Except he didn't make that argument. As I mentioned above, what you're saying is a fallacious reading of his argument. I will certainly grant that it was predictable that people would interpret what he was saying in just the way you suppose, since it's easier to take offense than to carefully study a point that you find disagreeable to make sure it means what you think it means.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on June 17, 2018, 10:20:58 AM
His argument was deeply flawed in a number of ways, it was not well reasoned. Even so, the blowback was after a prolonged period where he kept arguing that there shouldn't even have been a diversity program, because there weren't enough suitable women to fill the appropriate positions.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Seriati on June 18, 2018, 12:26:01 PM
Not sure why you think it wasn't well reasoned.  In a nut shell his argument was as follows:

Our diversity program is not failing because it hasn't encouraged or incentivized women enough, it's failing because the jobs themselves are not one that women choose to take.  His point, which is oft ignored, is that only by changing the way the jobs work can you reasonably expect women to choose them.  He then went into the weeds on current psychological points about how gender impacts preference to try to show what kind of changes need to be made.

This is the logical descendant of the very same management courses that are still taught today by diversity trainers (and that I just heard last week), that tell you things, like "women are better at building consensus" or that women prefer collaborative working arrangements more than competitive.  It's literally what is meant by criticizing the workplace as a "man's world."  It's widely acknowledged that workplaces need to change, and the job isn't just done by having more women.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 18, 2018, 12:56:00 PM
His argument was deeply flawed in a number of ways, it was not well reasoned.

It doesn't matter if it was well-reasoned (i.e. correct) or not. Even an honest attempt at creating a well-reasoned argument, within the bounds of civility and respect should be accepted as a respectable document. You don't have to agree with the argument to agree that he was intending to get at the real problem.

Quote
Even so, the blowback was after a prolonged period where he kept arguing that there shouldn't even have been a diversity program, because there weren't enough suitable women to fill the appropriate positions.

Was he arguing that there shouldn't be a diversity program, or that there shouldn't be one in the form it existed at that time? It's quite different to say "this program shouldn't exist" rather than "no program should exist." You seem to be implying he meant the latter. Are you sure about that?
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on June 18, 2018, 02:41:22 PM
There may have been portions of what he presented that were well reasoned. Perhaps he even meant to make the arguments from a good place.

I won't break it all down, we've been down that road before. Let's say I find it deeply flawed, both in premise, reason, and unsupported opinions.

As for code of conduct violation,

Quote
In a memo to employees, Google CEO Sundar Pichai said the employee who penned a controversial memo that claimed that women had biological issues that prevented them from being as successful as men in tech had violated its Code of Conduct, and that the post had crossed “the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

He added: “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.”

Pichai’s wording appears to indicate that the employee is likely be fired, which some inside and outside the company have been calling for. A Google spokesperson said the company would not confirm any firing of an individual employee, but in the past others have been let go for violating its Code of Conduct.

He should have left out the biology and he might have skated through. There is no known study that examines biological differences, or supports many of his claims about it.

Quote
“First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Seriati on June 18, 2018, 03:16:56 PM
Except TheDrake he NEVER SAID they were unsuited to the work.  He said they would be uninterested in the work.  There's a big difference there, and continuing to present it in that manner - even by a quote - is a bad faith argument.

If you are trying, for diversity sake to get more jewish staff to work at your store, which is more likely to work?  Offering more money, or guaranteeing observant people won't have to work on Saturdays?  The point of his paper, was that women have different preferences - which is an objective truth - and the only error was attributing this to gender as a function of genetics - which is possibly true, though it's not clear if environmental factors are the bigger influence.

If you accept something like the idea that testosterone makes men aggressive (not universally applicable to every man), then how could you not accept an idea that this has a knock on impact in what they like?  What jobs they favor and how they work?

He literally said the program to increase diversity was the wrong way to go, where the jobs themselves are undesirable on a range of factors that women look for in employment.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on June 18, 2018, 03:35:28 PM
I'm not going to rehash it all. The company defines policy, he seems to violate it, and then continued to aggressively argue that the policy shouldn't be their policy. Substitute any non-politically charged topic for this, and you can easily see why he got fired. The real surprise is that they let it go as long as they did.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 18, 2018, 04:11:48 PM
TheDrake, you're saying you've never heard of a biological argument that there's a difference in capability, but I doubt it's true that there are none. In fact, I'd be flabbergasted that each gender didn't have advantages and disadvantages in subtle ways. We literally do not have the same biology. But that being said the preponderance of his focus on differences between males and females were in their psychological attributes, so if you wanted to find backing (or lack thereof) in the field for what he said you'd want to look at psychology studies, not biology studies. We assume, by the way, that psychological results will probably imply there's a biological factor behind it, although that is not necessarily true, and it's mostly beside for the point for the purposes of this discussion.

In any case, how much you like or dislike his reasoning is really beside the point. His argument was much more similar to a meme I've heard quite a lot of so far, and is a leftist one. It goes something like "If you judge a bear and a fish "equally" on their ability to climb a tree the fish will appear to be stupid." The idea is that you need to create the right conditions so that the fish can actually do its thing. There is probably some combination of ability and desire that needs to be separated when looking at a broad meme like this, but the reason I'm mentioning it in relation to the Google memo is that his argument was something like that if you don't have the proper conditions where a woman will thrive then they won't want to come. That can include (but not have to mean!) biological capability, but also psychological fitness, desire, level of interest, etc etc. There can be many axes on which to look at this. His point was that instead of looking at *why women largely don't enter the field* they were focusing on local hiring practices and internal training. It may or may not be useful to look to the internal environment and so I won't vouch for his assessment of those, but it's clear that increasing sensitivity won't do squat if the job itself as it's structured isn't enjoyable for women.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on June 20, 2018, 02:42:47 PM
Of course there are differences. To make his point, you'd have to separate biological from environment. You'd have to prove that the sum of each of these biologically isolated differences makes a material difference in how well you can do a very complex job, or how willing you are to do it. Etc.

Maybe the women don't want to come because of people like him, execs at Uber, etc etc. The job certainly won't be enjoyable for women when men look down on them as inferior or sexually harass them. And the first part of that seems an awful lot like what he was implying. While he takes pains to separate statistics from individuals, it isn't really possible to do that.

That's a much more likely reason to not enter the field, than some bizarre esoteric accusation that they probably just don't like it or aren't suited for it.

He could have carefully examined the reasons behind the dearth of women in engineering. If you google this, you'll find dozens of studies and goals like this one:

Quote
Armed with a $2 million grant from the National Science Foundation awarded in 2015, Sax's team is conducting an unprecedented, large-scale longitudinal study with the ultimate goal of identifying best practices for keeping women and students of color in the field.

“We want to find out how CS departments can instill not only a sense of confidence in computing skills, but a sense of belonging within women and students of color,” Sax says.

While women have made significant gains in many fields, including medicine, business and law, the percentage of women who receive CS degrees is the smallest across all STEM fields, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

Most dishearteningly, the percentage of CS-degree holders who were women peaked in the 1980s at 34% and has been on a downward trend ever since, even though women currently earn 57% of all undergraduate degrees.

“Women are socialized to feel that they can’t fail and that they have to achieve perfection, so when their code doesn’t run, women often feel discouraged about their own abilities,” the project manager says. “Men, on the other hand, are often more aware of the fact that learning programming is a trial-and-error process and don’t see code not running as a reflection of their own skills.”

I'm assuming biology hasn't changed since the 1980s. I'm assuming CS as a profession still requires the same core attributes.

What he did was:

1. Start from a raft of basic stereotypes.
2. Use those to explain away gender disparities in the field.
3. Refuse to acknowledge how such stereotypes might impact his place of work.
4. Refuse to back down when corrected.
5. Act like a martyr on the alter of political correctness and liberal intolerance.

There are lots of things that can be done to improve the profession, but he'll never be part of it.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: LetterRip on June 21, 2018, 12:55:42 PM
Quote
What he did was:

1. Start from a raft of basic stereotypes.
2. Use those to explain away gender disparities in the field.
3. Refuse to acknowledge how such stereotypes might impact his place of work.
4. Refuse to back down when corrected.
5. Act like a martyr on the alter of political correctness and liberal intolerance.

I read his paper and am familiar with the research.  He didn't use any stereotypes - he was referencing the state of the current literature on gender differences (in most ways women and men have fairly minor differences - in the areas he highlighted there are substantial cohen effect size differences - mostly in the 'medium' to 'large' effect sizes).  Here are the effect sizes.

Quote
DAT mechanical reasoning Adolescents - 0.76
Science Adolescents - 0.32
DAT spelling Adolescents - 0.45
DAT language Adolescents - 0.40
Spatial perception All - 0.44
Mental rotation All - 0.73
Spatial visualization All - 0.13
Spatial perception All - 0.44
Mental rotation All - 0.56
Speech production All - 0.33
Progressive matrices Adults - 0.30
Aggression (all types) All - 0.50
Physical aggression All - 0.60
Verbal aggression All - 0.43
Aggression in real-world settings All - 0.30 to 0.63
Physical aggression All - 0.33 to 0.84
Verbal aggression All - 0.09 to 0.55
Helping: Surveillance context Adults - 0.74
Leadership: Democratic vs. autocratic Adults - 0.22 to 0.34
Agreeableness: Tendermindedness Adolescents and adults - 0.91
Computer use: Current All - 0.33
Computer self-efficacy All - 0.41

https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-document-about-diversity-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017/answer/Tom-Musgrove

  Note however that most of his references in his paper weren't to the literature, but popular discussions of the research - which is appropriate given his target audience.

He wasn't "corrected" he was pilloried and wrongfully attacked, and willfully mischaracterized.

Also his proposed actions were quite rational.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 21, 2018, 01:36:39 PM
Also his proposed actions were quite rational.

Even if we were to accept by hypothesis that his proposed actions were off-base, that shouldn't matter in the slightest. An argument made in good faith that's trying to propose solutions should at worst be met with a polite disagreement. "Thank you for your concern but we don't believe your assessment and/or proposals are accurate." The issue (for me) has never been that I insist he's right about everything. The issue is that having a 'wrong opinion' has now become a punishable  offence. And even people here (who are more reasonable than your average bear) seem to be supportive of the firing - over an attempt to discuss reality! It can't be good for anyone to discourage people to honestly give their thoughts in good faith. Why are we teaching lying in the public sphere?
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on June 21, 2018, 01:50:35 PM
Okay, LR, I can back off on that end and admit that I overstated it at best, although there's plenty of indication of bias that has nothing to do with preference and competence.

Quote
One study, conducted by professors at Columbia, Northwestern and the University of Chicago, found that two-thirds of managers selected male job candidates, even when the men did not perform as well as the women on math problems that were part of the application process.

Quote
Many of Damore’s controversial conclusions rest heavily on one recent study and much older, now-discredited research, ignoring reams of data that tell a very different story. The argument that men, especially affluent men, are more focused on their “male” breadwinner role than on their more “female” family roles, does not reflect either research data or observational data.

article (https://www.recode.net/2017/8/11/16127992/google-engineer-memo-research-science-women-biology-tech-james-damore)

And yes, this is also a popular recap and not original studies - I don't have the time to put in the proper legwork.

He still doesn't establish that those traits are positive or negative traits for those jobs.
He doesn't establish that those traits persist in the subpopulation of people qualified for such positions.
I could go on, but I doubt that we'll get anywhere useful on this.

Of course, Google's hiring is also a factor in this. They put a premium on solving puzzles and being clever in isolation, and spend relatively little time evaluating social and communication skills - or they might not have hired Damore in the first place. He might well have gotten traction on some of his ideas if he approached it less belligerently and built support before condemning the people he worked for.

Even people in leadership positions have a hard time effecting cultural change. To expect to do this as a third year engineer at a Fortune 500 with a fiery memo is astonishingly naive and arrogant. It was perfectly appropriate to excise him and replace him with some other Harvard Grad that does well with thought experiments and algorithmic regurgitation.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on June 21, 2018, 01:53:03 PM
I would highly recommend that anyone who doesn't get why Damore was fired should read this book (https://www.amazon.com/Its-All-Politics-Winning-Talent/dp/0385507585).
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 21, 2018, 02:04:41 PM
He still doesn't establish that those traits are positive or negative traits for those jobs.
He doesn't establish that those traits persist in the subpopulation of people qualified for such positions.
I could go on, but I doubt that we'll get anywhere useful on this.

Who cares? The issue is that he based his opinion on real data. If the company thought the data was outdated then they could have replied saying just that. Your arguments against his points are a non sequitur to the discussion we're having. Your claimed he brought in his own bias and didn't base anything he said on facts, and that was inaccurate. Anything else said on the subject is superfluous unless we wanted to have a discussion about women in the workplace rather than a discussion about people being punished for others taking offence.

Quote
Of course, Google's hiring is also a factor in this. They put a premium on solving puzzles and being clever in isolation, and spend relatively little time evaluating social and communication skills - or they might not have hired Damore in the first place.

Have you personally worked with him? How do you know what his social and communication skills are like?

Quote
He might well have gotten traction on some of his ideas if he approached it less belligerently and built support before condemning the people he worked for.
(my bold)

I can't help but feel like you've reduced your position to an ad hominem. He was "belligerent" which is why he's wrong and should be fired. If you can provide even one quote from his memo which strikes you as "belligerent" I'd be interested to see it. I will recant fully if you can provide such an instance. I'll also point out that using a word like "condemning" to describe disagreement with is also quite prejudicial in its connotation. Unless you can point to an instance in the memo that spoke harshly of the administration, or called them a name, or implies a moral lapse on their part? If not, what is "condemning" supposed to mean?

This is the sort of thing that worries me, where "discussion" has been veering towards flaming people who say the wrong things in our culture. Where disagreement is being catagorized as being "belligerent".

Quote
Even people in leadership positions have a hard time effecting cultural change. To expect to do this as a third year engineer at a Fortune 500 with a fiery memo is astonishingly naive and arrogant. It was perfectly appropriate to excise him and replace him with some other Harvard Grad that does well with thought experiments and algorithmic regurgitation.

So firing someone potentially good at their job but not good as effecting cultural change makes sense? Is your issue that he had the gaul to make suggestions at all and not mind his place, or is your issue that his suggestions happened to be wrong in your view? I hope you're not advocating that employees must either agree with their higher-ups or else keep their heads down.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 21, 2018, 02:09:34 PM
I would highly recommend that anyone who doesn't get why Damore was fired should read this book (https://www.amazon.com/Its-All-Politics-Winning-Talent/dp/0385507585).

Incidentally, I don't know that I'll read the book but I did read the outline, and it seems that the book is meant to be descriptive, as in, this is apparently what works. But that's entirely different from being prescriptive, as in, this is how companies should work. I hope you can see the difference between observing that kissing butt and schmoozing gets you ahead and between suggesting what would be a good workplace environment. Toxic and BS things often get you ahead, it's true. So what? If it's merely descriptive there's nothing to discuss, since merely stating the reality doesn't mean it's good. That's sort of the entire basis of activism - to point out the ways in which the system as it currently functions is toxic. And if the idea is that the book's content is prescriptive then I'll point out that it's highly discriminatory to people who aren't as naturally skilled at politics - which can include people on the autism spectrum or with social disorders. So let's hope we're not reading it as prescriptive. The fact that you take the book's premise to be justification for why Damore should be fired...is troubling. It might explain why it happened, but you make it sound like it explains why it should have happened.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on June 21, 2018, 02:38:48 PM
The question is HOW did he attempt change, with an isolated uncollaborative manifesto. His communication skills are poor based on his responses more than the original attempt - as well as seeing his public appearances after the fact. Maybe I can dig up references, but most likely what I see as argumentative and belligerent you might take as passionate advocacy.

The book describes both defense and offense. It has little to do with schmoozing but more about how to recognize when someone is using dirty tricks and how to defend against them - as well as building support for an idea before splashing it out there.

Prior to Damore, they shut down a different discussion with the following, emphasis mine.

Quote
“As both the tech diversity lead at Google and someone who cares deeply about our workplace culture, I respectfully ask that everyone stop engaging on this thread,” Ramaswamy wrote (emphasis his). “Google is not a debate club or a philosophy class. We are a workplace and we have an obligation to make sure our discussions remain respectful. Debates around topics like product excellence can support a wide variety of viewpoints and are great to have. I don’t think the same can be said for debates around sensitive issues such as gender, religion, race, or sexual orientation.”

gizmodo (https://gizmodo.com/ex-google-employees-memo-says-executives-shut-down-pro-1821996513)

Quote
“I guess he saw what I was doing as rabble rousing but I was trying to build the sort of culture,” Altheide told Gizmodo.

The conversation and the email led to Altheide deciding to leave the company, he said. He departed in January 2016. The experience of being reprimanded by an early employee and senior vice president was intimidating, he said. Because of his skillset, he didn’t think it would be feasible to transfer to another role at the company that wouldn’t fall under Holzle’s supervision.

“I’m leaving because I don’t trust Urs. I’m afraid of Urs. He inserted himself into what should have been a conversation with my direct manager, and ‘requested’ I stop doing talking about things he doesn’t want me to talk about,” Altheide wrote.

Doesn't exactly sound like a cult of pro-diversity would come down on an employee advocating for it, does it?
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: LetterRip on June 21, 2018, 02:49:35 PM
TheDrake,

I've read many of the critiques of Damore - they usually ignore evidence or mistate the literature.

Okay, LR, I can back off on that end and admit that I overstated it at best, although there's plenty of indication of bias that has nothing to do with preference and competence.

Most companies that are 'socially conscious' don't really have that issue.  They tend to have the issue that in pursuit of their socially conscious goals - they will hire under-qualified individuals to try and achieving hiring balance.  Then they have the issue that they must either must abandon merit based promotions; or see their under-qualified hires have slower career advancement.

If you have say, 100 female applicants, and 1000 male applicants, and both are normally distributed as far as talent, then you can only hire 10 women for every 100 men.  If you try and 'balance' the hires by hiring more women, then you will bring down the average competence of the woman hires; and increase the average competence of the male hires.  So if you hire top 11% that is 100 men, and 10 women.  Lets say that you instead of 10/110 = 9% women, you want 27% women 30/110.  Then you will be hiring 80 men, and 30 women.  Of those 30 women 22 will be less competent than ALL of your male hires.  Where as previously half of your female hires were more competent than half of your male hires.  So in the first case, we could have expected 10 men promoted for each women promoted.  We can now expect all of the men to be promoted before 22 of the women are promoted in a merit based promotion system.

A big part of the imbalance is because google and other companies hire internationally.  Women generally aren't willing to move away so that they are isolated from their family, but men are - which means that the vast majority of international hires will be male.  Similarly the countries with excellent programming education and large populations (China, India, Russian and former soviet bloc countries) have essentially no Hispanic or African population.  So this skews the number of Hispanic and African (American) employee numbers.

Your article sets up a major strawman,

Quote
We can say flatly that there is no evidence that women’s biology makes them incapable of performing at the highest levels in any STEM fields.

Damore never suggested that was the case.

Quote
Many reputable scientific authorities have weighed in on this question, including a major paper in the journal Science debunking the idea that the brains of males and females are so different that they should be educated in single-sex classrooms.

Something which Damore never suggested.

They set up straw man after straw man.  Damore's writing only dealt with very specific and well established gender differences.  As I said above - in general men and women have very similar brains.  But there are known and significant differences which happen to be those that are consistent with his hypothesis.

Quote
Much of the data that Damore provides in his memo is suspect, outdated or has other problems.

He didn't really provide much data, he generally mentioned findings in passing.  None of which are 'suspect, outdated or has other problems'.

They make wild assertions with no apparent basis,

Quote
He implies that stress and anxiety are personality traits inherent in females, but more likely they are due to the pressures and discrimination women face on the job that men do not.  [...] But what if you don’t make the catch? “Women have a hard time taking on those assignments because you can dive and fail to catch. If a man fails, his buddies dust him off and say, ‘It's not your fault; try again next time.’ A woman fails and is never seen again.”

As support they quote the "Athena Factor" report authors - but mysteriously leave out the finding of the report that supports Damore - "The “diving catch” culture of SET companies disadvantages women, who tend to be risk averse (35% have difficulty with risk). ".    So the reason the 'woman fails and is never seen again' - is because women are risk adverse as a personality trait relative to men.

Quote
Many of Damore’s controversial conclusions rest heavily on one recent study and much older, now-discredited research, ignoring reams of data that tell a very different story.

What BS, see the cohen effect sizes above, and see my link that explores the rest of article.  Everything he said science wise was well founded.  THis is an utter hatch job.

Quote
And yes, this is also a popular recap and not original studies - I don't have the time to put in the proper legwork.

It wasn't a recap, it was a complete hatchet job.  They mischaracterized his paper, did massive amounts of strawmen, and cherry picked research, and even cherry picked form their own sources.

Quote
He still doesn't establish that those traits are positive or negative traits for those jobs.

He was pointing out not as positive/negative traits for the job - but why there would be skew in applicants due to carreer attractiveness vs other opportunities (such as medicine).

Quote
Of course, Google's hiring is also a factor in this. They put a premium on solving puzzles and being clever in isolation

It depends entirely on the position they are hiring for.  When hiring for programmers - they seek people who have adequate mastery of core data structures and algorithms.  It is an essential component of the job.

Quote
and spend relatively little time evaluating social and communication skills - or they might not have hired Damore in the first place.

There aren't really any complex social and communication skills needed for the job they are doing - and the screening they do is adequate.  There was nothing wrong with Damore's communication skills.  He was asked for feedback, and he gave well reasoned and supported arguments - exactly what you want from an engineer.  You don't want engineers who give you what you want to hear regardless of where the evidence points.

Quote
He might well have gotten traction on some of his ideas if he approached it less belligerently and built support before condemning the people he worked for.

He wasn't belligerent, and he absolutely didn't condemn any of the people he worked for or with.

Quote
Even people in leadership positions have a hard time effecting cultural change. To expect to do this as a third year engineer at a Fortune 500 with a fiery memo is astonishingly naive and arrogant. It was perfectly appropriate to excise him and replace him with some other Harvard Grad that does well with thought experiments and algorithmic regurgitation.

That isn't what he did.  His memo wasn't "firey".  It was sent to address that directed to as a request for feedback.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Seriati on June 21, 2018, 03:52:22 PM
Of course there are differences. To make his point, you'd have to separate biological from environment.

Did you read what he wrote?  You may be mis-remembering it.  There's literally no need to separate biology from environment.  It doesn't matter,why someone has a preference, if you are interested in a results based analysis you have to account for it. 

Or to put it another way, even if it's sexist to think women inherently like pink, you'd be a fool not to have a pink product if the majority of women in fact like pink.

Quote
You'd have to prove that the sum of each of these biologically isolated differences makes a material difference in how well you can do a very complex job, or how willing you are to do it. Etc.

Those are two very different concepts.  He never said there was any difference in ability to do the job.  He barely implied their was difference in willingness, he said the JOB ITSELF was unappealing, and therefore there was a difference in the desire to do the job.

No matter what your personal believe about whether it "should" be unappealing, if it is unappealing, your choices are to "fix" women to make the job appealing, or to acknowledge that making it more appealing is a necessity.

Quote
Maybe the women don't want to come because of people like him, execs at Uber, etc etc. The job certainly won't be enjoyable for women when men look down on them as inferior or sexually harass them. And the first part of that seems an awful lot like what he was implying. While he takes pains to separate statistics from individuals, it isn't really possible to do that.

Again, false statement of what he said.  Never implied inferiority or acceptance of harassment.  He took pains to explain which statistics are useful, not to separate them from individuals.  You are reading in a whole lot of nonsense into a rational point.

Honestly, do you disbelieve in market research?  His entire argument rested on market research, not some kind of analysis of superiority or inferiority.

Quote
He could have carefully examined the reasons behind the dearth of women in engineering.

He did.  Seriously, maybe re-read what was written?  He pointed out that the existing programs have not suceeded in increasing women in engineering and suggested the obvious, they were built around what would motivate men to take the job, not around what motivates women and they ignored fundamental unappealing characteristics of the job, on again the "male" assumption, that increasing compensation for instance "cures" such problems.

It is literally impossible to understand how people can believe in current theories on diversity in the work place that are literally based on the uniqueness of perspective of certain groups and the need to account for that, and find a failing in the rather scientific application of the exact same principle here.

Quote
I'm assuming biology hasn't changed since the 1980s. I'm assuming CS as a profession still requires the same core attributes.

But what you are also assuming (and that isn't true) is that CS careers still have unknown characteristics.  Greater familiarity with what you do with a degree increases a student's ability to decide if the want to have that career.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on June 21, 2018, 06:38:21 PM
CS careers have debatable characteristics. Vis a vis "working with things" vs "working with people".

Getting requirements clear requires working with people
Understanding users (whether other engineers or end users or OEM customers) requires working with people
Advocating for a particular approach requires working with people
Teaching others requires working with people
Collaborating in a shared database requires working with people
Performing a constructive code or design review requires working with people
Responding to defect reports from QA or the field requires working with people
-- the days of the hermit hacker are over, unless you are in independent research, which is usually reserved for fellows and veterans on sabbatical

A good communicator would understand that if you're going to make a criticism that lies counter to prevailing company culture, you have to spend a lot more time identifying what is right about current programs before moving into radical proposed change. They also would have avoided using the highly charged "neurotic" term. They would have understood its colloquial connotations and understood it gets in the way of making their point.

I'm not going to go blow for blow on every aspect of his work, you guys obviously have a high degree of certainty on your points of view, as do I.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 21, 2018, 07:50:33 PM
Getting requirements clear requires working with people
Understanding users (whether other engineers or end users or OEM customers) requires working with people
Advocating for a particular approach requires working with people
Teaching others requires working with people
Collaborating in a shared database requires working with people
Performing a constructive code or design review requires working with people
Responding to defect reports from QA or the field requires working with people

It's funny you should frame the job in this manner, because one of the central theses of the memo was that to attract women the workplace should be a more people-oriented place. Ironic that you're using this tack as a means of explaining how off-base he was.

Quote
A good communicator would understand that if you're going to make a criticism that lies counter to prevailing company culture, you have to spend a lot more time identifying what is right about current programs before moving into radical proposed change.

Could you give one single example of a "radical" change he proposed?

Quote
I'm not going to go blow for blow on every aspect of his work, you guys obviously have a high degree of certainty on your points of view, as do I.

I have a high degree of certainty that you've been mischaracterizing the memo; far FAR higher than any option I have of the memo itself. My opinion about the accuracy of his statement can probably be called reserved. My purpose here is to avoid strawmen being used to explain why the marketplace should be an environment of fear.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on June 22, 2018, 09:01:14 AM
Quote
It's funny you should frame the job in this manner, because one of the central theses of the memo was that to attract women the workplace should be a more people-oriented place. Ironic that you're using this tack as a means of explaining how off-base he was.

I didn't catch that all as a central theme, and I've reread quite a bit of it in the course of this discussion. It never appears in his summary of concrete steps to take. He mentioned it in passing, along with a statement that change in society at large might siphon men off to other professions. He doesn't say that they should have training to emphasize such qualities - he barely acknowledges that they have value outside of UI.

Quote
Could you give one single example of a "radical" change he proposed?

Most of his suggestions are a radical departure from standard practice in current Fortune 500 human resources, and especially Google. He suggests to dismantle many existing programs. He has a basis in making these statements, that such programs are discriminatory by using race or gender as a factor in programs. That's not an incremental change, it is a systemic one, and he readily admits that he is advocating for systemic cultural change.

Quote
My purpose here is to avoid strawmen being used to explain why the marketplace should be an environment of fear.

The workplace should be an environment of caution. I wouldn't dream of discussing politics in my place of business, with my coworkers outside of work, or with suppliers and customers. It is unnecessary and potentially detrimental to a positive working relationship. That's not fear, it is prudence.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: JoshCrow on June 22, 2018, 09:59:17 AM
Happy to see a discussion of Damore continuing (although amused to find it in a Roseanne thread).

I was so incensed by the media and public's lack of basic reading comprehension (at best, or downright dishonesty at worst) that I have twice now worked this memo into my professional teaching duties and will continue to do so. I put the contents of the memo directly in front of two classrooms of engineering students (with no small amount of females), along with some other op-ed type perspectives on it. I led a class discussion on the memo (in a course on Professionalism) and found many students aghast that he was fired.

In terms of written responses from the students that I solicited, several of the students described having gone into the reading "angry at it" but having encountered an argument other than what their expectations were. Students appeared to mellow on him after reading his actual words. Many students did not agree with Damore's conclusions, but I encountered virtually zero students who indicated they were still angry or that he was writing in "bad faith". Some of the strongest objections to his firing came from my African-American students, one of whom pulled me aside in the hallway to tell me how unjust it was that the man had been fired for writing this.

I'm going to continue to teach the memo as an example of how the media mischaracterizes arguments that upset mainstream narratives and is poor at parsing out what is actually being argued ("biologically-influenced career choices exist and account for disparities") from what people EXPECT is being argued (i.e. women "biologically unfit" for engineering work and are being hounded out).
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: velcro on June 23, 2018, 08:18:26 AM
So let's say my intent is to increase diversity, and in my twisted mind, the best way to do that is to paint a big rainbow on everyone's car. With spray paint.  That doesn't come off.  By your logic, that by definition cannot be against company policy since diversity was the company policy, and I was trying to increase diversity.

Yes, method matters as well as intent. But while it may be against company policy to commit vandalism in the name of diversity, it surely cannot be against company policy to present a well-reasoned and polite argument - right or wrong - that has the intent to try to help the diversity program. What you're saying is that wrong opinions about facts are equivalent to spray painting private property.

Quote
Obviously, if in your intent to meet company policy you violate company policy, you do not get a get out of jail card for having the proper intent.

That is true.

Quote
I don't know how his opinion was published.  I am willing to stipulate he did not intend to publish it widely.  But that really does not affect the argument.  He violated company policy.

It would help to back up your point before re-asserting your conclusion as a premise.

Quote
What you're saying is that wrong opinions about facts are equivalent to spray painting private property.
 

First, I will clarify. I said "His wrong opinions violated company policy (rightly or wrongly)"  What I should have said was that his statement "advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace” violated company policy (rightly or wrongly).  And so wrong opinions are not equivalent to spray painting. Advancing harmful gender stereotypes is.

Quote
it surely cannot be against company policy to present a well-reasoned and polite argument - right or wrong - that has the intent to try to help the diversity program.

If that well-reasoned (but scientifically and statistically flimsy at best) and polite argument advances harmful gender stereotypes, which his employer said it did, then it surely is against company policy. Or equivalently, a well-reasoned, polite, argument that says certain races just have lower IQs would be against company policy.

Quote
It would help to back up your point before re-asserting your conclusion as a premise.

The sentence you reference did not have a conclusion or a premise.  It was a statement of several facts with no real logical dependence involved.   The fact that he violated company policy, which you relegated to a premise, is very firmly established.

The point is he advanced harmful gender stereotypes.

If I sent an email out to everyone at your place of work claiming to have statistical proof that people with the name Fenring just aren't suited for this line of work, that would create a hostile workplace.  It really doesn't matter if your company were wasting money on outreach to people named Fenring or not. It really doesn't matter if in the same email I repeat over and over again that we shouldn't use this to evaluate individuals.  The email creates a hostile environment for people named Fenring.  Period.  And if there were historical precedent for this type of accusation, then it would be advancing harmful stereotypes.




Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: Fenring on June 23, 2018, 10:54:56 AM
statistical proof that people with the name Fenring just aren't suited for this line of work

If you think this statement is an example of the type of argument made in the memo then you have missed the point, both in our conversation and in the memo. THAT is why you keep insisting he violated company policy. Your argument makes sense; it's just that it's wrong.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: JoshCrow on June 23, 2018, 09:04:18 PM

The point is he advanced harmful gender stereotypes.

If I sent an email out to everyone at your place of work claiming to have statistical proof that people with the name Fenring just aren't suited for this line of work, that would create a hostile workplace.  It really doesn't matter if your company were wasting money on outreach to people named Fenring or not. It really doesn't matter if in the same email I repeat over and over again that we shouldn't use this to evaluate individuals.  The email creates a hostile environment for people named Fenring.  Period.  And if there were historical precedent for this type of accusation, then it would be advancing harmful stereotypes.

As Fenring notes, you can't slip in "aren't suited for this line of work" as a proper analogy for "aren't choosing this line of work" - the former has implications for women/Fenrings already working in that environment, and the latter does not since it is self-evident that any presently employed women/Fenrings have already chosen that line of work and so that comment isn't about them in any meaningful way.

The other argument I would make is that having a policy that expressly forbids someone from putting forth an argument to his coworkers (as he originally did) relevant to the condition of their workplace is, as I understand it, potentially illegal in Damore's case.
Quote
California is an "at-will" state, meaning Google can dismiss an employee for almost any reason. However, Damore says that before he was fired, he filed a complaint, formally known as a charge, with the National Labor Relations Board, which administers some aspects of federal labor law. Under the National Labor Relations Act, it's against federal law to fire someone in retaliation for filing a complaint to the board, lawyers say.

The labor-relations law usually applies to union organizing, says Wagner. But over the years the act has been more broadly interpreted to protect employees who discuss their working conditions with each other.

One last thing about stereotypes: I just learned recently that "the accuracy of stereotypes" is a particularly strong finding from psych research, meaning "they tend to be accurate fairly often". It's a dirty little secret! Most people fail to make the distinction between a stereotype being a tru-ish assessment of things and being a license to discirminate against anyone in the group at hand.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on June 24, 2018, 11:30:30 AM
stereotype - a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.

Whether stereotypes are accurate or not, and generally they run the gamut from unsupported to supported by correlation, they don't really have a place in human resources.

Blacks are lazy.
Women are emotional.
Irish are violent.

All have been used to limit employment, from outright bans to more subtle disadvantage. That's why anything with a whiff of resemblance to such is treated with scorn and disdain and apprehension.

Even positive stereotypes have no place.

Asians are better at math.
Jews are great with money.

Damore does indeed talk about how individual women can be good at their jobs. This is an obvious mechanism that people use. It's like Trump saying "some of them, I assume, are good people". Damore's statements can be wrapped in good statistics all he wants. If such statements are accepted, it can easily lead to interviewers or promotion committees giving extra scrutiny to look for these flaws in candidates applying for those positions, scrutiny not applied to candidates not belonging to that group.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: JoshCrow on June 24, 2018, 07:35:21 PM


Damore does indeed talk about how individual women can be good at their jobs. This is an obvious mechanism that people use. It's like Trump saying "some of them, I assume, are good people". Damore's statements can be wrapped in good statistics all he wants. If such statements are accepted, it can easily lead to interviewers or promotion committees giving extra scrutiny to look for these flaws in candidates applying for those positions, scrutiny not applied to candidates not belonging to that group.

Drake, since you're obviously so concerned about fair hiring practices, what do you say to me calling your bluff on which groups are currently unfairly sought after during hiring, ok? Right now in STEM hiring there is a 2:1 preference for female faculty hires (as shown with gender-swapping resumes) and I'm sure similar stuff going on in the tech world (for evidence, look at the discovery stuff in Damore's current lawsuit against Google). Don't pretend you really care about scrutinizing candidates unfairly - right now there is TREMENDOUS social pressure and incentive to hire underrepresented groups that didn't exist even ten years ago.

I'm guessing your response to this sort of bias will be crickets chirping. Whatever effect you think an undercurrent sexism has on hiring, it is utterly swamped by the (massive, public) drive for diversity goals. If fair hiring was really your game you wouldn't tolerate that, either.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on June 25, 2018, 12:20:33 PM
Has the pendulum swung. Possibly, I'll grant that. An overcorrection may be necessary to achieve a lasting equilibrium.

I'm not aware of any studies showing a female preference, most of the blind resume tests show the opposite.

Ideally, it would be possible to complete a screening process without ever knowing the race or gender of the person being hired. This has been done in orchestra hiring with a surge in female representation as a result.

blind auditions (https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias)

Quote
You could try to do your evaluation without knowing the sex of the person you're evaluating. If you didn't know whether the applicant was a man or a woman, then your biases shouldn't be triggered. Needless to say, it's quite difficult to set up a process that truly is gender blind.

An interview makes it impossible. But even written descriptions of applicants contain hints about the sex of the person. The most obvious, of course, is the name, but there are other subtle indicators there, too.

Letters of recommendation that don't use first names may nonetheless reveal the sex of the person being written about. Women get described as caring about their students or clients, while men are said to have strong relationships with those groups. It's unplanned, it's not intended, but we do it. And when we do, we give different impressions about the qualifications of applicants.

If we could avoid interviews and steer clear of using written profiles to review candidates, maybe we could stay gender neutral. Except, what would then be the basis for our decisions? Here's where the orchestras come into play.

So I accept and embrace a preference in hiring that hopefully offsets bias that is hard to get rid of.

Quote
In the 1970s and 1980s, orchestras began using blind auditions. Candidates are situated on a stage behind a screen to play for a jury that cannot see them. In some orchestras, blind auditions are used just for the preliminary selection while others use it all the way to the end, until a hiring decision is made.

Even when the screen is only used for the preliminary round, it has a powerful impact; researchers have determined that this step alone makes it 50% more likely that a woman will advance to the finals. And the screen has also been demonstrated to be the source of a surge in the number of women being offered positions.

By the way, even a screen doesn't always yield a gender blind event. Screens keep juries from seeing the candidates move into position, but the telltale sounds of a woman's shoes allegedly influenced some jury members such that aspiring musicians were instructed to remove their footwear before coming onto the stage.

So when a woman's shoes can diminish her chance of being hired, forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the incel crowd not being able to land a position because of diversity programs.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: JoshCrow on June 25, 2018, 08:38:16 PM
Has the pendulum swung. Possibly, I'll grant that. An overcorrection may be necessary to achieve a lasting equilibrium.

If the only acceptable endpoint is representation in each job of about 50/50, I think it would be a recipe for misery to get there - not just for men, for everyone. The important thing is, as it ever should be, to ensure that people have equal opportunities to go and work in fields they please (and I'll grant that this can include creating 'welcoming environments', but I think that could simply mean having proper handling of harassment and enough of a critical mass that you're not the only one there "of your group").

Quote
I'm not aware of any studies showing a female preference, most of the blind resume tests show the opposite.

Ideally, it would be possible to complete a screening process without ever knowing the race or gender of the person being hired. This has been done in orchestra hiring with a surge in female representation as a result.

Yes I'm familiar with the success story of orchestras (and it's worth remembering that this was adopted more than 40 years ago, when sexism was far more rampant). Are you familiar with the modern-day failures of this sort of strategy? Remember, the modern context is one in which companies are now invested in playing the diversity game.

For example, in Canada, blind resumes had no effect on hiring of minority applicants for federal jobs.
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/01/24/blind-recruitment-test-showed-no-impact-hiring-process-commission-says/

And in Australia, a rather famous recent study just showed that perversely it had the opposite of its intended effect in a genderless resume trial (stunning the researchers who did the study).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888

My point is, currently the discrimination has overcorrected and attempts to "blind" the application process are actually either ineffective or (worse, from your POV) removing the overcorrection.
Title: Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
Post by: TheDrake on June 26, 2018, 10:57:02 AM
The Canadian study only hid names on resumes, but it is important to note that you are dealing here with a government organization in Canada - I would suggest that is one of the least likely places for discrimination. In the article you linked, it even cites the following:

Quote
A 2012 study by University of Toronto researchers found job applicants with English-sounding names were 35 per cent more likely to receive a call back than those with Indian or Chinese names, which they said suggested an unconscious bias.

Not a gender bias, but bias nonetheless. The Australian study was also about public service. Of course, no competent company is likely to run such an experiment and get the results published.

Interventions That Affect Gender Bias in Hiring: A Systematic Review (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554714/)

This meta paper looks at 27 different studies.

Quote
]All but one study confirmed that male applicants are evaluated more positively than female applicants for employment in male sex-typed jobs. It was easier for men than for women with identical qualifications to be recommended for advancement in the job-acquisition process, such as being granted an interview or being hired.

This wasn't about how many women preferred those jobs, they were applying so they preferred them.

Quote
This systematic review reaffirmed the ubiquity of unconscious stereotypes regarding the behaviors and traits associated with being male or female, the ease with which these stereotypes are activated, and the consequent negative bias against women applicants for jobs historically occupied by men. More important, however, this review documents the capability for mitigating the automatic activation and subsequent application of these biases.

As far as things being better now that back in the 70s and 80s?

Quote
This review covered more than 30 years of publications. More recent studies often built on previous work and tended to employ more sophisticated interventions and analyses, but there was no clear diminution of gender bias in the findings between earlier and more recent studies.