• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

A Roseanne revival? Really??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, what the hell do Iranian leaders have to do with Muslim Americans? Muslims in America aren’t Iranians, they’re Americans.

On the subject of the NFL, while I disapprove of the rule, the NBA already requires standing for the anthem but also supports its player’s extracurricular activism. I do think the NFL has a similar right to control their brand, just they’ve chosen a brand I want no part of, and done it in the dumbest possible way.
 
Applying a label like "PC" to what's actually a range of ideas and desired standards for discourse itself bears an almost literal similarity to the argument Orwell was making about the use of language in 1984. One of the goals of successive revisions of the Newspeak dictionary was to reduce the number of words in the language and therefore make it impossible to express ideas with nuance or subtlety.

Much of what's decried as "PC" is simply insistence upon courtesy and respect for others. And I think that a tendency toward verbosity, rather than reductive abbreviation of meaning, is something of a hallmark of it for better or worse - you can call "differently abled," as a random example, an insistence upon euphemism or you can see the intent as being to substitute a less dismissive perspective regarding the point of view of people who make use of different assistive devices and services than do the majority of the population.

This reminds me of how I describe PC. TO me it's another word for, good manners. It's about being civil with people even if you don't agree with them. One issue though is PC in real life and PC in fiction and humor. I'm all about good manners in real life but am I hold a different standard when it comes to fiction and humor and actually think in that area it feels more like, censorship. I'm all about giving artist as much freedom to tell their stories or do their jokes because I think that is how the best stuff is usually created. If they ever go to far I see it as more of a learning experience in that they see something that doesn't work than some kind of representation of their personal views. Roseanne on Twitter didn't feel like a artist trying to be funny. It feels like someone trying to pass off a horrible view as a joke to me. The question though is how does anyone ever really know? To me that it was on Twitter which I don't see as a place used to perform art really enhanced that view.. I don't like or respect Twitter or social media all that much to be honest. The things I like I think I could maybe list on one hand. Most of it seems to be either racist doing racist things or people seeking attention.


Jason
 
Also, what the hell do Iranian leaders have to do with Muslim Americans? Muslims in America aren’t Iranians, they’re Americans.

On the subject of the NFL, while I disapprove of the rule, the NBA already requires standing for the anthem but also supports its player’s extracurricular activism. I do think the NFL has a similar right to control their brand, just they’ve chosen a brand I want no part of, and done it in the dumbest possible way.

What I wonder about the standing rule is don't they know that people can find away around that. You might can make someone stand but you just put some tape over your mouth as a methphor for being silenced or that black power salute that was big in the 60's and I think the 70' that those two Olmpicians did that outraged White People back in the day. Heck just standing their with a sign saying, Black Lives Matters, would be away around it. I kind of hope to see this happen.

Jason
 
Um that article is full of crap with regard to:
Despite the fact that Barr has no history of racism, it was immediately attacked as racist, without even welcoming a response. She eventually did respond, stating that it was a joke, which was not enough for ABC not to cancel her show.
^^^
O'RLY?:
http://time.com/5294402/roseanne-cancelled-abc-racist-conspiracy-theory/
Barr’s tweet referencing Jarrett, who she said is what you’d get if the “muslim brotherhood and planet of the apes had a baby,” was not the first time the Roseanne star has made racist comments toward black women. In 2013, Barr said former National Security Advisor Susan Rice was a “big man with swinging ape balls” in a since-deleted tweet.

Barr has also made Islamophobic comments, including an attack on former Hillary Clinton adviser Huma Abedin, whom she called a “jew hater” and “filthy nazi whore” in 2016, according to The Daily Beast.

In 2009, Barr reportedly asked the satirical Jewish publication Heeb magazine to pose dressed as Adolph Hitler in the spread. The writer, Oliver Noble, wrotethat Barr told him she “may, in fact, be the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, whom she has requested to be dressed as for her Heeb photo shoot.”

So, yeah, it's not like she suddenly had one moment here (and didn't really face repercussions to the point she has today for similar actions in her past.)
 
It was a joke, but she didn't realize in how poor of taste it was in until she got fired... I mean she didn't know it was in poor taste because she was high on whatever.

Makes perfect sense to idiots.
 
What do you mean? When I take my bills it makes me hate black people, and when I drink it makes me hate Jews! I mean that's completely normal and a fine excuse right?!?!
 
On the subject of the NFL, while I disapprove of the rule, the NBA already requires standing for the anthem but also supports its player’s extracurricular activism. I do think the NFL has a similar right to control their brand, just they’ve chosen a brand I want no part of, and done it in the dumbest possible way.
Not to divert into the NFL discussion too much, but the issue does become a little more complicated by the fact that a lot of NFL stadiums are publicly funded, to the tune of nearly $7 billion dollars over the past couple decades, which does make them quasi-public entities that may make them more subject to freedom of speech concerns than totally private corporate entities would be. It's all pretty up in the air at this point and the legal wrangling hasn't even begun, though. Plus, Trump used his position as a public official to try and influence their decision and threatened punitive action if they didn't comply (even though as always, he's an idiot, since he doesn't have the legal authority and the NFL no longer gets federal tax breaks anyway) so that further muddies the waters a bit as well.
 
Not to divert into the NFL discussion too much, but the issue does become a little more complicated by the fact that a lot of NFL stadiums are publicly funded, to the tune of nearly $7 billion dollars over the past couple decades, which does make them quasi-public entities that may make them more subject to freedom of speech concerns.

No one brings this up and it drives me crazy. But also the players would never be on the field until after the stupid song was sung until 2009 when the Pentagon started paying the NFL tens of millions a year to force patriotism.
 
No one brings this up and it drives me crazy. But also the players would never be on the field until after the stupid song was sung until 2009 when the Pentagon started paying the NFL tens of millions a year to force patriotism.
Well, yes and no. They wouldn't be on the field during the anthem for primetime games until 2009, but for afternoon games they were, though the networks didn't usually show it previously. But yeah, it was a paid patriotism thing, like you say.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nfl-sideline-anthem/
 
In this whole shameful debacle, it was the maker of Ambien that had the best comeback:

"While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication."

Can you imagine if that ended up on their packaging in the future?
<<Does NOT cause racism. If using this product results in racism, please discontinue use and contact your physician.>>
 
For those who need it explained, comparing black people to monkeys is racist because of the historical context. Therefore, by reduction, comparing an individual black person to monkeys is racist. It is not racist to compare trump to an orangutan, it is, however, offensive (mostly to orangutans) but it is not racist, especially since most of the folks doing said comparison are white. It's like black folks "N word"ing each other.
 
Speaking of the Narcissist-in-Chief, he's weighed in on the issue, and predictably made it all about his own victim status. Just like he used his Memorial Day tweets for self-promotion and whining, because... patriotism.

eKBP3Eg.jpg


He has achieved maximum snowflake.
 
Speaking of the Narcissist-in-Chief, he's weighed in on the issue, and predictably made it all about his own victim status. Just like he used his Memorial Day tweets for self-promotion and whining, because... patriotism.

eKBP3Eg.jpg


He has achieved maximum snowflake.

He's right though.
 
Speaking of the Narcissist-in-Chief, he's weighed in on the issue, and predictably made it all about his own victim status. Just like he used his Memorial Day tweets for self-promotion and whining, because... patriotism.

eKBP3Eg.jpg


He has achieved maximum snowflake.
He's right though.
It's impressive that you've determined that without even knowing what he's referring to, since he didn't give any examples, just whined about being picked on, which is rich coming from someone with his twitter history and history of abusive behavior in general. Is he complaining about unfavorable news stories? Jimmy Kimmel mocking him?

And if it is about jokes about him, since when is mocking him exclusively comparable to using longstanding racial slurs against black people that implies they are subhuman? Roseanne didn't just insult Valerie Jarrett with the ape comparison, she insulted all black people. And Trump doesn't care about racism (in fact he encourages and participates in it), so he instead chose to cry about what a victim he is, because he's a man-child.
 
Not content with just damaging her own career and that of her coworkers, now Roseanne is attempting to throw Whoopi Goldberg under the bus by re-tweeting fake photoshopped pics of her wearing a t-shirt of Trump committing suicide:

eMsTpSz.jpg


Shocking that she's going after another black person.
 
It's impressive that you've determined that without even knowing what he's referring to, since he didn't give any examples, just whined about being picked on, which is rich coming from someone with his twitter history and history of abusive behavior in general. Is he complaining about unfavorable news stories? Jimmy Kimmel mocking him?

And if it is about jokes about him, since when is mocking him exclusively comparable to using longstanding racial slurs against black people that implies they are subhuman? Roseanne didn't just insult Valerie Jarrett with the ape comparison, she insulted all black people. And Trump doesn't care about racism (in fact he encourages and participates in it), so he instead chose to cry about what a victim he is, because he's a man-child.
He said 'horrible statements made and said about him on ABC'. That is from what you provided.

Is he wrong?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top