Author Topic: ABC cancels the #1 show on TV (Roseanne)  (Read 4708 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: ABC cancels the #1 show on TV (Roseanne)
« Reply #75 on: May 30, 2018, 11:39:38 AM »

Offline TomHeinsohn

  • NCE
  • Marcus Smart
  • Posts: 209
  • Tommy Points: 30

I ask again, what damage was done by Roseanne's tweet that was not done by its proliferation in media reports about it? I think this is an important point to consider. I'm not defending the comment, I'm criticizing the basis for its power/harm.

If the comment itself is harmful, why is it being spread beyond its original influence? If the comment is not harmful in itself, but rather the context or intent is important, why is there so little room for explanation? Why is it willfully obtuse to question the intent or context? If it's the context/intent that matters, shouldn't we examine the context/intent? The intent seems to be assumed by the very comment itself. The fact that it was made proves its insensitive, perhaps malicious intent. But that seems to indicate the comment is inherintly powerful regardless of intent. If this is the case, why can a media report the comment, introducing it to more people than those who were originally aware of it, without criticism?

Note: I don't expect anyone to truly care about this. But I think the discussion would be beneficial and ultimately more powerful than the comment, no matter its intent, could ever be.

This is very poor logic. You argue that proliferation of media reports is to blame. I argue that proliferation of media reports of racist acts by individuals is beneficial because it shows people, especially people of color, that we as a society find this unacceptable. You may argue that words don't matter, but it is words that ultimately led to the attempted extermination of the Jewish people, and it was words that justified the owning of blacks as slaves. To continue to publish this show is a de-facto endorsement of racism and was never going to be an option for ABC. All that is accomplished by arguing semantics or ascribing blame to the media is defense of racism. In the words of Mike Ditka, stop it.

Re: ABC cancels the #1 show on TV (Roseanne)
« Reply #76 on: May 30, 2018, 11:47:20 AM »

Offline crownsy

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8469
  • Tommy Points: 157
I think it's a possibility  Roseanne didn't even knew Valerie Jarret was black




I still don't think anyone should be compared to apes. Maher was out of line too

ahhh the ol' I didn't know she was black when I called her a monkey defense. K.

Look, this isn't even a Left vs Right thing for me, it's human decency.

before you die on the ol' Roseanne wouldn't mean something like that! hill

other things that would need to be explained about her before I'll give her any sort of the benefit of the doubt you want people to

1. She's a 9/11 truther. Care to explain if you agree with her that it was an inside false flag operation?

2. She also believes the Boston Marathon bombing was a false flag

3.  She is VERY anti semetic. like, VERY VERY anti semetic


The simple truth her is she is and always has been a awful person. she got hammered (oh sorry, it was ambien that made her due it as of this morning in a tweet she has since deleted) and posted some good ol' drunken posts (she posted the racial slur right in the middle of a anti semetic rant btw, not like it came out of no where with no context)

Their is a double standard in media, this is not proof of that. She is a horrid person, and all she needed to do to continue to make this show is ya know, not put a racial slur on a public forum while very likely intoxicated.

If people want obermann gone as well, go nuts, he's another trash human being.
“I will hurt you for this. A day will come when you think you’re safe and happy and your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth. And you will know the debt is paid.” – Tyrion

Re: ABC cancels the #1 show on TV (Roseanne)
« Reply #77 on: May 30, 2018, 11:57:05 AM »

Offline gift

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1477
  • Tommy Points: 142

I ask again, what damage was done by Roseanne's tweet that was not done by its proliferation in media reports about it? I think this is an important point to consider. I'm not defending the comment, I'm criticizing the basis for its power/harm.

If the comment itself is harmful, why is it being spread beyond its original influence? If the comment is not harmful in itself, but rather the context or intent is important, why is there so little room for explanation? Why is it willfully obtuse to question the intent or context? If it's the context/intent that matters, shouldn't we examine the context/intent? The intent seems to be assumed by the very comment itself. The fact that it was made proves its insensitive, perhaps malicious intent. But that seems to indicate the comment is inherintly powerful regardless of intent. If this is the case, why can a media report the comment, introducing it to more people than those who were originally aware of it, without criticism?

Note: I don't expect anyone to truly care about this. But I think the discussion would be beneficial and ultimately more powerful than the comment, no matter its intent, could ever be.

This is very poor logic. You argue that proliferation of media reports is to blame. I argue that proliferation of media reports of racist acts by individuals is beneficial because it shows people, especially people of color, that we as a society find this unacceptable. You may argue that words don't matter, but it is words that ultimately led to the attempted extermination of the Jewish people, and it was words that justified the owning of blacks as slaves. To continue to publish this show is a de-facto endorsement of racism and was never going to be an option for ABC. All that is accomplished by arguing semantics or ascribing blame to the media is defense of racism. In the words of Mike Ditka, stop it.

I didn't argue that media reports are to blame. I asked questions. I think you are not thinking deeply enough to understand that it is not semantics.

For the record, I have never liked Roseanne and I don't defend the tweet. It makes sense that the show was cancelled. I watched maybe 3 episodes of the old show in my life. Never saw the new one. Re-read my post with that in mind and you might take my thoughts more seriously, and less defensively.

I understand the argument that reporting on terrible actions or events can be beneficial. But we have to establish what harm was done by an action and then evaluate how the action created that harm, and then determine how the media report differs from that action.

In this case, the action was a sequence of words. So the media report was the very same action as the original offense.

And I left open the option to re-evaluate the original statement based on intent/context. My problem is that context/intent is being assumed based upon the statement itself. In that case, the media report should be the same.

It is not an easy argument to parse, I'll give you that. But it is a real and valuable one.

Re: ABC cancels the #1 show on TV (Roseanne)
« Reply #78 on: May 30, 2018, 12:01:47 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24082
  • Tommy Points: 1058
  • What a Pub Should Be
Did not realize she thought the Boston marathon bombings were a false flag but that makes me despise her even more.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: ABC cancels the #1 show on TV (Roseanne)
« Reply #79 on: May 30, 2018, 12:04:38 PM »

Offline trickybilly

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3566
  • Tommy Points: 373
Of course she should be fired...really Idiotic tweet....

But, ABC/ESPN just hired that Huge ****bag, Keith Olbermann---His tweets are some the worst things you'll ever read.

Neither should have a job on television.

Come on man, you can't pique my curiosity without a link. I just googled around quickly and didn't see anything comparable from Olbermann. I have no opinion on Olbermann, just wondering what he said. Yes, I'm taking your bait.  ;D

https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1001549187572555776

That's a collage of Olbermann tweets in which he insults Trump. There is nothing remotely racist in those tweets. Vulgarity is fine, racism is not.

Part of me kind of understands people who can't see the difference. The other part realizes they are probably white and have never experienced actual racism, or they have had their white privilege lampooned and have decided they want to be able to justify the odd cruel joke (even if they are not actually doing it maliciously) so they say "what's the difference"? Ugh, does it have to be spelled out for you? Really?
"Gimme the ball, gimme the ball". Freddy Quimby, 1994.

Re: ABC cancels the #1 show on TV (Roseanne)
« Reply #80 on: May 30, 2018, 12:05:37 PM »

Offline TomHeinsohn

  • NCE
  • Marcus Smart
  • Posts: 209
  • Tommy Points: 30

I ask again, what damage was done by Roseanne's tweet that was not done by its proliferation in media reports about it? I think this is an important point to consider. I'm not defending the comment, I'm criticizing the basis for its power/harm.

If the comment itself is harmful, why is it being spread beyond its original influence? If the comment is not harmful in itself, but rather the context or intent is important, why is there so little room for explanation? Why is it willfully obtuse to question the intent or context? If it's the context/intent that matters, shouldn't we examine the context/intent? The intent seems to be assumed by the very comment itself. The fact that it was made proves its insensitive, perhaps malicious intent. But that seems to indicate the comment is inherintly powerful regardless of intent. If this is the case, why can a media report the comment, introducing it to more people than those who were originally aware of it, without criticism?

Note: I don't expect anyone to truly care about this. But I think the discussion would be beneficial and ultimately more powerful than the comment, no matter its intent, could ever be.

This is very poor logic. You argue that proliferation of media reports is to blame. I argue that proliferation of media reports of racist acts by individuals is beneficial because it shows people, especially people of color, that we as a society find this unacceptable. You may argue that words don't matter, but it is words that ultimately led to the attempted extermination of the Jewish people, and it was words that justified the owning of blacks as slaves. To continue to publish this show is a de-facto endorsement of racism and was never going to be an option for ABC. All that is accomplished by arguing semantics or ascribing blame to the media is defense of racism. In the words of Mike Ditka, stop it.

I didn't argue that media reports are to blame. I asked questions. I think you are not thinking deeply enough to understand that it is not semantics.

For the record, I have never liked Roseanne and I don't defend the tweet. It makes sense that the show was cancelled. I watched maybe 3 episodes of the old show in my life. Never saw the new one. Re-read my post with that in mind and you might take my thoughts more seriously, and less defensively.

I understand the argument that reporting on terrible actions or events can be beneficial. But we have to establish what harm was done by an action and then evaluate how the action created that harm, and then determine how the media report differs from that action.

In this case, the action was a sequence of words. So the media report was the very same action as the original offense.

And I left open the option to re-evaluate the original statement based on intent/context. My problem is that context/intent is being assumed based upon the statement itself. In that case, the media report should be the same.

It is not an easy argument to parse, I'll give you that. But it is a real and valuable one.

Sure it's a real argument. Valuable? I'm not so sure. With all due respect, what you're saying is rather banal, so it's not as if I was unable to understand it. Nobody is making the argument that the sequence of words that were tweeted was some sort of syntactical brown note that, when read, induce physical or emotional symptoms in people. It's not like "the entertainment" from the novel Infinite Jest that kills people when they see it. What you're arguing is something that literally nobody who favors the firing is arguing. You're attempting to muddle what is so clear, and unwittingly supporting racism. This is such a simple issue; RB said racist things, ABC doesn't want to provide de-facto support for a racist, ipso facto she was fired. Done. End of story.

Re: ABC cancels the #1 show on TV (Roseanne)
« Reply #81 on: May 30, 2018, 12:33:30 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41706
  • Tommy Points: 2358
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
https://twitter.com/elizlanders/status/1001830931668393984

Ambien fires back!

“The drug maker of Ambien responds to Roseanne Barr:

"...While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication,” Ashleigh Koss, Head of Media Relations, North America, Sanofi US tells @Cnn”

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: ABC cancels the #1 show on TV (Roseanne)
« Reply #82 on: May 30, 2018, 12:49:27 PM »

Offline hodgy03038

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2546
  • Tommy Points: 43
  • Marcus Smart #1 Fan
https://twitter.com/elizlanders/status/1001830931668393984

Ambien fires back!

“The drug maker of Ambien responds to Roseanne Barr:

"...While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication,” Ashleigh Koss, Head of Media Relations, North America, Sanofi US tells @Cnn”

That is hilarious!!


Hey Jaylen. I lost 519 Tommy Points betting on you guys and lost

Re: ABC cancels the #1 show on TV (Roseanne)
« Reply #83 on: May 30, 2018, 12:52:34 PM »

Offline CelticsElite

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7521
  • Tommy Points: 517
Roseanne probably didn't know the person was black so not sure how it can be definitively concluded to be racism if that's even a possibility

Re: ABC cancels the #1 show on TV (Roseanne)
« Reply #84 on: May 30, 2018, 12:55:21 PM »

Offline TomHeinsohn

  • NCE
  • Marcus Smart
  • Posts: 209
  • Tommy Points: 30
Roseanne probably didn't know the person was black so not sure how it can be definitively concluded to be racism if that's even a possibility

Intent is unimportant in cases where people call a black woman an ape.

Re: ABC cancels the #1 show on TV (Roseanne)
« Reply #85 on: May 30, 2018, 12:55:44 PM »

Offline JHTruth

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2254
  • Tommy Points: 108

I ask again, what damage was done by Roseanne's tweet that was not done by its proliferation in media reports about it? I think this is an important point to consider. I'm not defending the comment, I'm criticizing the basis for its power/harm.

If the comment itself is harmful, why is it being spread beyond its original influence? If the comment is not harmful in itself, but rather the context or intent is important, why is there so little room for explanation? Why is it willfully obtuse to question the intent or context? If it's the context/intent that matters, shouldn't we examine the context/intent? The intent seems to be assumed by the very comment itself. The fact that it was made proves its insensitive, perhaps malicious intent. But that seems to indicate the comment is inherintly powerful regardless of intent. If this is the case, why can a media report the comment, introducing it to more people than those who were originally aware of it, without criticism?

Note: I don't expect anyone to truly care about this. But I think the discussion would be beneficial and ultimately more powerful than the comment, no matter its intent, could ever be.

Well my friend you clearly don't live in our current political climate where every somewhat un-PC social media post by anyone to the right of Stalin has to be breathlessly reported at every news outlet known to humanity and their career burned to the ground.

Not defending her tweet nor do I watch her show, but the reality is she had a huge hit show that was often supportive of Trump and the types of people that vote for him and so the second she gave them the ammo they cut her down like cannon fodder. Just the way it is..

Re: ABC cancels the #1 show on TV (Roseanne)
« Reply #86 on: May 30, 2018, 01:20:46 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35567
  • Tommy Points: -27757
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Roseanne probably didn't know the person was black so not sure how it can be definitively concluded to be racism if that's even a possibility

Intent is unimportant in cases where people call a black woman an ape.

I think intent is strongly implied when somebody calls a black person an ape.

But, if there’s proof to the contrary, and the intent was actually innocent, I think it’s very important.  That’s not so in Roseanne’s case, but I think intent almost always matters.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: ABC cancels the #1 show on TV (Roseanne)
« Reply #87 on: May 30, 2018, 01:24:58 PM »

Offline CelticsElite

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7521
  • Tommy Points: 517
Roseanne probably didn't know the person was black so not sure how it can be definitively concluded to be racism if that's even a possibility

Intent is unimportant in cases where people call a black woman an ape.
again, prove Roseanne knew it was a black woman

Re: ABC cancels the #1 show on TV (Roseanne)
« Reply #88 on: May 30, 2018, 01:32:45 PM »

Offline colincb

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3538
  • Tommy Points: 296
  • Sick of all the winning
I think it's a possibility  Roseanne didn't even knew Valerie Jarret was black




I still don't think anyone should be compared to apes. Maher was out of line too

ahhh the ol' I didn't know she was black when I called her a monkey defense. K.

Look, this isn't even a Left vs Right thing for me, it's human decency.

before you die on the ol' Roseanne wouldn't mean something like that! hill

other things that would need to be explained about her before I'll give her any sort of the benefit of the doubt you want people to

1. She's a 9/11 truther. Care to explain if you agree with her that it was an inside false flag operation?

2. She also believes the Boston Marathon bombing was a false flag

3.  She is VERY anti semetic. like, VERY VERY anti semetic


The simple truth her is she is and always has been a awful person. she got hammered (oh sorry, it was ambien that made her due it as of this morning in a tweet she has since deleted) and posted some good ol' drunken posts (she posted the racial slur right in the middle of a anti semetic rant btw, not like it came out of no where with no context)

Their is a double standard in media, this is not proof of that. She is a horrid person, and all she needed to do to continue to make this show is ya know, not put a racial slur on a public forum while very likely intoxicated.

If people want obermann gone as well, go nuts, he's another trash human being.

Barr was also a Pizzagate promoter (i.e., Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager had ties to a human trafficking ring being run out of a pizza shop in Washington, D.C.) The sheer stupidity of this idea didn't stop a wingnut from shooting the pizza shop up.

She was also in on the Seth Rich murder conspiracy story beloved by the Trump fringe that Fox News had to retract and get sued for after citing FBI reports that the FBI said did not exist. Nice vetting. Barr's 's also supported conspiracy theories that implicated GOP opponents of Trump. She's a hardcore Trump supporter and they push this conspiracy garbage all the time.
This is all about money laundering.

Re: ABC cancels the #1 show on TV (Roseanne)
« Reply #89 on: May 30, 2018, 01:35:00 PM »

Offline crownsy

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8469
  • Tommy Points: 157
Roseanne probably didn't know the person was black so not sure how it can be definitively concluded to be racism if that's even a possibility

Intent is unimportant in cases where people call a black woman an ape.
again, prove Roseanne knew it was a black woman

No.

 I don't think when you call a black person a racial slur we need to fact check to see if you had actual knowledge that the person was black to qualify it as a "vetted" racial slur my man, particularly when it comes in the middle of a drunken anti-semetic rant.

Also, I'm getting a little weirded out by your assertions that this women doesn't "look black enough" to be the target of a racial slur.

 That's your hill to die on, and you are welcome to it.

“I will hurt you for this. A day will come when you think you’re safe and happy and your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth. And you will know the debt is paid.” – Tyrion