Author Topic: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled  (Read 16152 times)

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
#3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« 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.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #1 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.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #2 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.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #3 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.

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #4 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

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #5 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.

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #6 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". 


Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #7 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.

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #8 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. 

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #9 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.

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #10 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".

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #11 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. 

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #12 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.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #13 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.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #14 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.

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #15 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.

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #16 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. 

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #17 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.

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #18 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.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #19 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.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #20 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.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2018, 08:02:12 AM by TheDeamon »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #21 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.

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #22 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. 


TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #23 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.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #24 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. 

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #25 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.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #26 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. 

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #27 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 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.

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #28 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.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #29 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).

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #30 on: May 31, 2018, 02:36:29 PM »
SAG and similar unions and associations would never go for it, I would guess.

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #31 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.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2018, 02:41:28 PM by jasonr »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #32 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.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #33 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.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #34 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.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #35 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.

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #36 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.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #37 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.

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #38 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.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #39 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?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #40 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

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.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #41 on: May 31, 2018, 04:27:33 PM »
Roseanne busted through 3 & 4 like a rampaging ape (from the Muslim Brotherhood).

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #42 on: May 31, 2018, 04:42:08 PM »
The distinction between personal and business accounts is meaningless in this context.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #43 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..

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #44 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. 

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #45 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.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #46 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."

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #47 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.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #48 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...
« Last Edit: May 31, 2018, 09:00:17 PM by D.W. »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: #3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled
« Reply #49 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.