• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Roseanne Reboot

 
 
 
Tom Sawyer said:
There's not much more wrong with calling Obama a horse than there is calling McConnell a turtle. She does kind of look like the horse there. It's considered more out of line to make fun of a woman's appearance, again because of the historical context surrounding doing so regarding a woman's value being tied to how attractive she is, but it's still a far cry from comparing black people to apes.

Nobody over 12 is unaware of this.
Click to expand...
I agree. Getting caught by the camera making a goofy face is one thing. But ripping someone on physical features is in bad taste in most instances and flat out racist in others. I never felt comfortable with people making fun of Chris Christie's size either.
 
The reaction of the right to Roseanne Barr's cancellation has gone in several directions. One is to act coy about the use of the apes and monkeys as a slur against African Americans. This is similar to the way they try to justify use of the N-word by whites on the grounds that black people use the term in rap music or banter amongst themselves. The reality is that Roseanne Barr knew Valerie Jarrett's race very well, and she threw in the Muslim slur because she knew that VJ had been born in Iran.

See How the right is defending Roseanne Barr's racist tweets for a survey of the methods being used to whitewash her behavior.

But many vocal rightwing personalities were quick to rush to Roseanne’s defense, often employing, as Lahren acknowledged, a variety of mental gymnastics to argue that the comedian’s tweets weren’t racist.

Singer Ted Nugent, said: “So Roseanne referencing a movie title is racist. Lying dishonest soulless freaks from Planet of the Apes.”

Barr’s tweet had said the former Obama White House adviser Valerie Jarrett was the “baby” of “Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes”.

Nugent’s denial of the racist connotations of comparing an African American woman to an ape was common among avowed Trump supporters. Bill Mitchell, one of Trump’s most prolific supporters on social media, tweeted that, in the Planet of the Apes, the apes were superior and so comparing Jarrett to an ape was not racist. Mitchell deleted the tweet shortly after posting it.

The assertion that Roseanne’s tweets were not racist were also accompanied by cries of political correctness gone mad. Mark Dice, a rightwing conspiracy theorist with 317,000 Twitter followers snarked: “Time to ban monkey bars from all school playgrounds, because they’re ‘racist’ too, I guess. RE: Roseanne fired by ABC.”

During a Fox News panel, Noelle Nikpour, a Republican strategist, said the comedian was fired because “we live in a politically correct world right now”. And Alex Jones, who is currently being sued for spreading a conspiracy theory that Sandy Hook was a hoax, railed against the “THOUGHT POLICE”.
Click to expand...
 
thebeave said:
Many have said that Mitch McConnell kinda looks like a turtle. Can't say I disagree. Is he owed an apology?

View attachment 15925
Click to expand...

In addition to what Tom said, McConnell's comparison to a turtle is based upon his personal looks as an individual which objectively resemble a turtle moreso than most humans. People are rarely ever compared to turtles. It was his particular features that made it come to people's mind. I'm sure there are individuals that might particularly evoke images of non-human primates. But Jarrett doesn't look like an Ape any more than Roseanne or most humans. Only a racist would look at her and think she is particularly ape-like in the way McConnell is unusually turtle-like. So the comparison to an Ape is clearly based on nothing but well known racist trope that all African Americans are more ape-like in appearance, which is just a way of implying they are subhuman and apelike mentally and psychologically.

Rosanne didn't simply insult Jarrett's looks, she demeaned an entire race and her prior history makes it beyond doubt that it was intentional and meant to imply all the things that racists mean to when they make that comparison.
 
Jarrett looks like a monchichi which is kind of endearing. Looks youthful, happy and kind.

51Zgavqs0JL._US500_.jpg
 
As with everything else about the Trump occupation, I always wonder who these people think they're fooling? Or, simpler, who are they talking to? Are there Trump supporters out there who don't think he's a racist or that Roseanne wasn't being racist? Very clearly, Nugent knows she was being racist, so who is he trying to fool into thinking she wasn't being racist? Other racists?

Do they think that by denying it, we will all go, "Oh, ok. Sorry. I guess we misunderstood. Thanks!"?
 
Koyaanisqatsi said:
As with everything else about the Trump occupation, I always wonder who these people think they're fooling? Or, simpler, who are they talking to? Are there Trump supporters out there who don't think he's a racist or that Roseanne wasn't being racist? Very clearly, Nugent knows she was being racist, so who is he trying to fool into thinking she wasn't being racist? Other racists?

Do they think that by denying it, we will all go, "Oh, ok. Sorry. I guess we misunderstood. Thanks!"?
Click to expand...

He's basically telling his tribe "If you get in an argument with the other tribe about the value of 2+2, here's how you argue 2+2=5 in a way that might possibly anger them, thereby allowing you to win the argument."
 
Koyaanisqatsi said:
As with everything else about the Trump occupation, I always wonder who these people think they're fooling? Or, simpler, who are they talking to? Are there Trump supporters out there who don't think he's a racist or that Roseanne wasn't being racist? Very clearly, Nugent knows she was being racist, so who is he trying to fool into thinking she wasn't being racist? Other racists?

Do they think that by denying it, we will all go, "Oh, ok. Sorry. I guess we misunderstood. Thanks!"?
Click to expand...

I see it as more about reassuring themselves that they themselves are not racist and that they don't deserve the opprobrium associated with the thoughts and feelings they have about various groups of people. They are certainly driven by anger at being marginalized socially. That may be why they love Trump so much--because he seems to lend social legitimacy to them. And, frankly, I think Trump is having that general effect on the US. He is making open hostility to minority racial and ethnic groups more normal.
 
The people who try to defend this kind of crap by saying "Well, if it's not OK to call A a B, would it be OK to call X a Y then?", I refer to as childish, because their question indicates that they are working (or wish to work) at stage one of Kholberg's stages of moral development (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development).

The question 'If that's against the rules, then what about this?', depends on the implication that immorality is a matter of breaking an arbitrary rule, and that if one can establish what the set of rules are, one might then be able to behave in a 'correct' fashion, and avoid punishment or censure (claims of 'Political Correctness' fall into a similar category, with the idea that there is a set of 'correct' behaviours).

Adults don't handle morality by defining specific rules for every circumstance. They use universal ethical principles to navigate social situations, and these principles lead to highly nuanced behaviour (such as it being only a mild insult to call G W Bush a monkey, but completely unacceptable to use the same epithet for Michelle Obama).

Hence the calls to grow up.
 
bilby said:
The people who try to defend this kind of crap by saying "Well, if it's not OK to call A a B, would it be OK to call X a Y then?", I refer to as childish, because their question indicates that they are working (or wish to work) at stage one of Kholberg's stages of moral development (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development).

The question 'If that's against the rules, then what about this?', depends on the implication that immorality is a matter of breaking an arbitrary rule, and that if one can establish what the set of rules are, one might then be able to behave in a 'correct' fashion, and avoid punishment or censure (claims of 'Political Correctness' fall into a similar category, with the idea that there is a set of 'correct' behaviours).

Adults don't handle morality by defining specific rules for every circumstance. They use universal ethical principles to navigate social situations, and these principles lead to highly nuanced behaviour (such as it being only a mild insult to call G W Bush a monkey, but completely unacceptable to use the same epithet for Michelle Obama).

Hence the calls to grow up.
Click to expand...

Like with any other toddler, calls to "grow up" tend only to exacerbate the infantile behavior. "It seems to piss them off, so I'll do it even more".
 
Copernicus said:
Koyaanisqatsi said:
As with everything else about the Trump occupation, I always wonder who these people think they're fooling? Or, simpler, who are they talking to? Are there Trump supporters out there who don't think he's a racist or that Roseanne wasn't being racist? Very clearly, Nugent knows she was being racist, so who is he trying to fool into thinking she wasn't being racist? Other racists?

Do they think that by denying it, we will all go, "Oh, ok. Sorry. I guess we misunderstood. Thanks!"?
Click to expand...

I see it as more about reassuring themselves that they themselves are not racist and that they don't deserve the opprobrium associated with the thoughts and feelings they have about various groups of people. They are certainly driven by anger at being marginalized socially. That may be why they love Trump so much--because he seems to lend social legitimacy to them. And, frankly, I think Trump is having that general effect on the US. He is making open hostility to minority racial and ethnic groups more normal.
Click to expand...

True, but the reason they are being marginalized socially is because they are racists, so they are reassuring themselves that they are not racists by affirming that they are racists. It’s DK run amok.
 


This is very telling.

Roseanne Barr called David Parkman (a YouTube personality) a "bully" and blocked him on Twitter.

Here's the thing, the reason she's in deep shit right now is because she said something far worse than David Parkman said about her. She said something really racist. He pointed out that she was wrong to try and blame it on Ambien (or "explain it" or whatever she wants to call her excuse).

It's the same song and dance we've seen over and over. They can't take a fraction of what they dish out to others, as is the case with all bullies.

"Haw haw! That black chick is an ape!"
"Wow that's racist."
"I said it because I was on Ambien."
"Don't blame the Ambien."
"I wasn't blaming, I was explaining! YOU HURT MY FEEWINGS! BULLY! WAAAAAAAAH!"
 
Added to all of this, of course, is that Roseanne is mentally ill. Also, ABC made a calculation, basically, that they could make some good money off of this before Roseanne lost her shit. They moved swiftly to end things, but in the end, these were all calculated business decisions, and to me in no way indicative of any moral thought regarding the matter by the network. In fact, one could argue they took advantage of someone who was mentally ill and would likely cause a scene during a time period in which Americans are deeply divided in regards to Trump.
 
Media, liberals, and conservatives are so full of hypocrisy I just do not give a shit. FIX, CNN, and MSNBC have lost any credulity and have reduces themselves to 24 hour tabloid gossip.

I was walking through a park yesterday. A group of teens, black and white, were listening to music that reduced to screaming nigger over and over. The culture has lost civility, Roseanne doesn't even register as remarkable.

Congress tosses around taunts and insults like grammar school kids. Trump vialled someone's wife ugly in a debate.

I've listened to black comedians on cable, they should be as offensive to other blacks as anyone else can be. The idea of the 1st Amendment is speech regardless if it makes somebody uncomfortable. Limited by calls to violence or harm.

What is next? Being fired by an employer for making remarks in private life the company does not like? It is already happening.

For shits and giggles, anybody remember the short lived Richard Pryor show? The Smothers Brothers Show, censorship, and cancelation? George Carlin on the radio vs the FCC? WBAI in NYC as I remember.
 
I don't think Roseanne is mentally ill in the strict clinical sense, but she did have some aggravating factors that made her be in a mentally unhealthy state.

Conspiracy websites (not just politically radical, but ones with crazy unfactual information)
Social media boosting, dopamine rushes from the stimulation and uncertainty of responses (like a slot machine)
Addled brain hardware from medical drugs and maybe alcohol in addition to aging (damn life sucks)

The racism has probably been there since childhood, but the mental damage from all the above made the filtering processes garbage and she let it slip out.

What I really want to see are some brain scans of people playing the slots or making real edgy tweets on twitter and waiting for responses do see how their brains light up.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Biploar and Dissociative Identity Disorder. She probably is mentally ill in the strictest clinical sense. If she weren't funny she'd probably be a bag lady talking to herself.
Click to expand...

Are you sure of this?

Having a moderate or high level addictive personality and social media and medical drugs could lead a certain fraction of people to be kooky like Barr without any underlying heavy mental problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom