#3 rated TV show Roseanne cancelled

[D.W.]

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.

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.

[velcro]

"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.

[Grant]

"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. 

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. 

[TheDeamon]

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.

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.

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.

[Gaoics79]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[D.W.]

Honestly I could care less about racists.

Then this topic is not relevant to you. 

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.

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.

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. 

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.

[Fenring]

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.

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).

[D.W.]

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. 

[Fenring]

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.

[D.W.]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[D.W.]

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 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.

[Fenring]

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. 

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!

[TheDeamon]

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 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.

[D.W.]

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. 

[NobleHunter]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[D.W.]

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. 

[Fenring]

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.

[D.W.]

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.

[D.W.]

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?

[Fenring]

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.

[D.W.]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[D.W.]

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.

[Wayward Son]

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."

[TheDeamon]

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.

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.

[Fenring]

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.

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.

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.

[Grant]

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:

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. 

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. 

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:

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[Wayward Son]

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?

[D.W.]

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.

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.

[Grant]

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. 

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? 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

[Fenring]

We aren’t talking past each other though, not really.

We sort of still are, because -

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.

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[Grant]

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". 

[TheDeamon]

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.

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)

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.

Perhaps the most respected authority:

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)

[TheDeamon]

We aren’t talking past each other though, not really.

We sort of still are, because -

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.

[D.W.]

"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?

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.

[D.W.]

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?

[Grant]

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

[D.W.]

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. 

[Grant]

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. 

[TheDeamon]

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. 

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.

[D.W.]

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!

[D.W.]

P.S. regifted the hang glider.

[Grant]

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. 

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:

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. 

[Grant]

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.