Sign in to follow this  
mr6666

new "Roseanne" a sign of the times?

133 posts in this topic

8 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

You're giving her more credit than I think she deserves. There are a lot of "jokes" in the right-wing social bubble (I don't like continuously referring to it as a bubble, but I don't know how else to put it. These people watch Fox News, listen to Rush and Mark Levin and the like, they read Breitbart and other right-wing news sources, and the majority of the people they socialize with, either digitally or in person, do the same.) that compare the Obamas to apes, Susan Rice to apes, Valerie Jarrett, etc. So it becomes a common refrain that loses its shock value to those who read it a lot. There are also many people who don't understand how comparing black people to apes is racist. They are ignorant of the centuries of white thought, in Europe and the US, that blacks were actually sub-human and just another species of ape, which helped to justify their slavery and exploitation.

I agree that I'm giving her more credit for NOT being as clueless as it appears most people here believe she is.

Anyone that is a regular Fox News viewer or Rush etc... is deeply aware of the hyper PC culture.  They know that the use of 'ape' will be condemned.    So to me that is an example of why Barr would NOT be clueless as it relates to potential consequences for comparing Jarrett to an ape.     So I still see an open question here;  why with this knowledge did Barr make the tweet anyway?       To me 'drugs made her NOT think about said consequences' is more likely than she didn't know there would be such consequences.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

So you're saying that she really was so clueless that she believe it was just a 'funny joke' and that there would be no push back for making such a joke.  

Hey,  that could be true,  but man that is being really, really clueless in this hyper sensitive, 'I'm offend, lets boycott', culture.  This is why I mentioned the Starbucks racial sensitivity training as an example of how 'push-back' can happen quickly over things many (e.g. conservatives) view as minor incidences (at best).    

Many of her tweets are also pretty crass and "out there." She probably just thought she could get away with it. She knows about PC but probably didn't realize when she had "crossed the line." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

Many of her tweets are also pretty crass and "out there." She probably just thought she could get away with it. She knows about PC but probably didn't realize when she had "crossed the line." 

Like I said, that could be the case,  but those that accept this are buying what she is selling;  that she said as just a joke with no malice.   So if she really was this clueless,  had no malice, and now has apologized,  shouldn't she be forgiven? 

(yea,  that 'shouldn't she be forgiven' line is messing with you and others here,  so I hope I will be forgiven for even going there!).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Like I said, that could be the case,  but those that accept this are buying what she is selling;  that she said as just a joke with no malice.   So if she really was this clueless,  had no malice, and now has apologized,  shouldn't she be forgiven? 

(yea,  that 'shouldn't she be forgiven' line is messing with you and others here,  so I hope I will be forgiven for even going there!).

 

 

I never said she had no malice. I was saying the opposite. She's used to posting rude insults on her Twitter and got carried away and is now trying to backtrack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

They are ignorant of the centuries of white thought, in Europe and the US, that blacks were actually sub-human and just another species of ape, which helped to justify their slavery and exploitation.

No they're not.

Everybody now knows that black people are fully human. Nobody really believes otherwise.

But that doesn't stop us from noticing that some black people (and white also, but more often black) do resemble apes in their facial structures. We don't say it out loud, but we've all thought it when we've seen it. We've just learned not to say it or else.

Hmm. I wonder if this piece of actual truth will be allowed to stay up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere George Soros is smiling, probably form his underground bunker,

the location from which he controls 95% of the world, graciously leaving

the other 5% to Obama, Jarrett, and the NWO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jakeem said:

The stunning fall of Roseanne has wide implications but the primary damage is to America. By attacking Valerie Jarrett in a gross personal way, Ms. Barr sent a signal to the nation’s *13 million African-Americans that white racism is indeed alive and well.

* 2010 US Census puts this number at over 40 million.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

* 2010 US Census puts this number at over 40 million.

Hey Bill-O, I'm guessing that most African Americans knew that white racism was alive

and well before Roseanne's latest outburst. Read an interesting article about how she

has been tweeting lots of kooky and some racist stuff for a fairly long time now, but

not too many folks were paying attention. And maye Bill-O stills thinks the population 

of America is 100 million.

 

For those clueless enough to believe that all white folks know that black folks are fully

human, all they need to do is take a quick spin around the web. This is from a local

forum and it's hardly the worst post I've seen on it.:

Black unemployment was lowest during slavery and the negroe was good at performing a low intellect repetitive task such as harvesting cotton. The darky was better off when massa supported and fed him, now the Democratic Party feeds, clothes and houses him and he performs no useful function. So much for “progress”. Also when he was kept in the field he did not have time to loot,riot and engage his innate criminal tendencies.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Vautrin said:

For those clueless enough to believe that all white folks know that black folks are fully human, all they need to do is take a quick spin around the web.

All that nasty, angry crap is just acting out. The hate may be real, but the belief that people are not really human is not - not any more than people who profess to be flat-earthers really believe the earth is flat.

Everybody knows inside themselves that these things are not true, no matter what they may say to express their hatreds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, darkblue said:

All that nasty, angry crap is just acting out. The hate may be real, but the belief that people are not really human is not - not any more than people who profess to be flat-earthers really believe the earth is flat.

Everybody knows inside themselves that these things are not true, no matter what they may say to express their hatreds. 

No, most of the time it's real, including the belief that blacks are not really human or are an

inferior type of human. It's few and far between, but it's out there. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Bai has an interesting essay on the subject:

'Roseanne' shows what the media got wrong about Trump voters

[...] 

Ever since the 2016 election, I’ve heard people in Washington and Hollywood talk about how they need to better represent “the Trump voter.” This is, I suppose, a natural reaction to having missed something critical about where the society is headed.

The problem is that anytime you reduce a large chunk of the electorate to a label (“values voters,” “evangelicals,” “Trump voters”), you’re oversimplifying a more complicated reality.

In this case, what we generally think of as Trump voters encompasses two distinct subsets of discontented Americans. There’s overlap, certainly, but not as much as you might think.

The first are economically dislocated Americans: right-leaning or independent voters who harbored (and still harbor) no great love for the president, but whose communities are unrecognizable to them now, mainly because of automation and global competition and all the social ills they wrought, like broken families and addiction.

These voters bitterly detest the political status quo and were willing to take a chance on just about anyone whose last name wasn’t Clinton or Bush.

This group has been ascendant and growing in intensity for decades; some sizable minority of them cast ballots for both Presidents Obama and Trump in successive elections. They do not constitute the bulk of Trump’s support, by any means, but they are the main reason he became president, and to understand where they’re coming from is to understand the most powerful current in American politics.

The second group, roughly speaking, is the culturally affronted crowd you see reflected on social media all the time.

These voters don’t think much about an economic future; they want a time machine that will take them back to an orderly America ruled by white dudes, where you could say whatever you wanted without being labeled a bigot or a sexist, where you didn’t have to worry about gay rights and women’s rights, and where black guys getting dragged out of a coffee shop for no reason was called Wednesday.

I’m a skeptic of reflexive political correctness, as I think a lot of mainstream voters are. The pseudo-intellectual bullying on college campuses today is enough to make any thinking person recoil.

But the cultural right isn’t really opposed to the silly lexicon of liberalism as much as to liberalism itself. What they call PC is really just the modern concept of tolerance.

These voters represent a shrinking slice of the electorate, if you take any kind of long view, and they’re hardly misunderstood. They have the loudest voice in America, in fact — a president who stars in his own round-the-clock reality show, a miner of nostalgia who lives only for their applause.

The problem for coastal liberals who run news and entertainment media is that in trying to speak to the economically disenchanted first group, they inevitably get dragged down into the netherworld of the culturally outraged second.

Which is exactly what happened to ABC with Roseanne Barr.

I didn’t watch the “Roseanne” reboot, but judging from its jokes about black Americans and immigrants, it was aimed squarely at the white Americans who feel robbed of their heritage. (Yes, “Roseanne” had a massive audience for a network sitcom today, but to put this in electoral perspective, Nielsen ratingsearlier this month had it seen by fewer than 7 percent of American households watching TV.)

And so it was a pretty good bet that Roseanne would stumble her way into the hatred and bigotry that lurk all over social media. Entertainers like Trump and Barr go wherever the crowd takes them. They play to their audience, for better or worse.

If you want to draw in the disaffected Americans who voted for Trump but remain trapped between free-market failure on one hand and liberal condescension on the other, then bring back a show like “King of the Hill,” which lampooned cultural elitism in a way these voters viscerally understood.

That show is as relevant to the making of a President Trump as anything still airing today.

But if your plan is to shine a bright light into the darkest, dustiest corner of cultural nostalgia, because you think that explains everything about the Trump phenomenon, then be prepared for what jumps out.

The only America you’ll illuminate is the one that’s going away.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/roseanne-shows-media-got-wrong-trump-voters-090009276.html

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2018 at 12:28 PM, TheCid said:

You can add in right-wing talk radio, which is about 90% of talk radio.  In the old days, we called it propaganda and the weak minded just eat it up.  It reinforces their extremist beliefs and hatreds.

It all went to **** when they got rid of the fairness doctrine, you had to have a balance, now you don't.

Edited by TCMModerator1
Edited for Language
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vautrin said:

No, most of the time it's real, including the belief that blacks are not really human 

Nonsense.

Some people just hate blacks and say the nastiest things they can think of.

Why?

Fear. Most men who hate blacks do so because they fear that black men are sexually superior. They're scared that their women can be taken away from them by a black man.

Nothing creates hate faster or more thoroughly than fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LawrenceA said:

Matt Bai has an interesting essay on the subject:

'Roseanne' shows what the media got wrong about Trump voters

[...] 

Ever since the 2016 election, I’ve heard people in Washington and Hollywood talk about how they need to better represent “the Trump voter.” This is, I suppose, a natural reaction to having missed something critical about where the society is headed.

The problem is that anytime you reduce a large chunk of the electorate to a label (“values voters,” “evangelicals,” “Trump voters”), you’re oversimplifying a more complicated reality.

In this case, what we generally think of as Trump voters encompasses two distinct subsets of discontented Americans. There’s overlap, certainly, but not as much as you might think.

The first are economically dislocated Americans: right-leaning or independent voters who harbored (and still harbor) no great love for the president, but whose communities are unrecognizable to them now, mainly because of automation and global competition and all the social ills they wrought, like broken families and addiction.

These voters bitterly detest the political status quo and were willing to take a chance on just about anyone whose last name wasn’t Clinton or Bush.

This group has been ascendant and growing in intensity for decades; some sizable minority of them cast ballots for both Presidents Obama and Trump in successive elections. They do not constitute the bulk of Trump’s support, by any means, but they are the main reason he became president, and to understand where they’re coming from is to understand the most powerful current in American politics.

The second group, roughly speaking, is the culturally affronted crowd you see reflected on social media all the time.

*These voters don’t think much about an economic future; they want a time machine that will take them back to an orderly America ruled by white dudes, where you could say whatever you wanted without being labeled a bigot or a sexist, where you didn’t have to worry about gay rights and women’s rights, and where black guys getting dragged out of a coffee shop for no reason was called Wednesday.*

 

I’m a skeptic of reflexive political correctness, as I think a lot of mainstream voters are. The pseudo-intellectual bullying on college campuses today is enough to make any thinking person recoil.

But the cultural right isn’t really opposed to the silly lexicon of liberalism as much as to liberalism itself.

*What they call PC is really just the modern concept of tolerance.*

 

These voters represent a shrinking slice of the electorate, if you take any kind of long view, and they’re hardly misunderstood. They have the loudest voice in America, in fact — a president who stars in his own round-the-clock reality show, a miner of nostalgia who lives only for their applause.

The problem for coastal liberals who run news and entertainment media is that in trying to speak to the economically disenchanted first group, they inevitably get dragged down into the netherworld of the culturally outraged second.

Which is exactly what happened to ABC with Roseanne Barr.

I didn’t watch the “Roseanne” reboot, but judging from its jokes about black Americans and immigrants, it was aimed squarely at the white Americans who feel robbed of their heritage. (Yes, “Roseanne” had a massive audience for a network sitcom today, but to put this in electoral perspective, Nielsen ratingsearlier this month had it seen by fewer than 7 percent of American households watching TV.)

And so it was a pretty good bet that Roseanne would stumble her way into the hatred and bigotry that lurk all over social media. Entertainers like Trump and Barr go wherever the crowd takes them. They play to their audience, for better or worse.

If you want to draw in the disaffected Americans who voted for Trump but remain trapped between free-market failure on one hand and liberal condescension on the other, then bring back a show like “King of the Hill,” which lampooned cultural elitism in a way these voters viscerally understood.

That show is as relevant to the making of a President Trump as anything still airing today.

But if your plan is to shine a bright light into the darkest, dustiest corner of cultural nostalgia, because you think that explains everything about the Trump phenomenon, then be prepared for what jumps out.

The only America you’ll illuminate is the one that’s going away.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/roseanne-shows-media-got-wrong-trump-voters-090009276.html

 

Lawrence posted a lot here-- *but it's very true that you can't force some people to have respect for others who they think are inherently below them or to tolerate people who they think aren't worth tolerating.

But the privilege of having the mainstream society-- financially, culturally ,  in general, reinforce the superiority of one group over all others is over and not coming back.

The group that perceives that they lost that privilege are in a state of mourning:

resulting in frustration, anger, hatred and violence.

 

But What's done is done and what's gone is gone.

 

The world progresses on, human potential goes forward.

Those who choose to remain behind will be lost in their own pathological mythology of what never existed in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, darkblue said:

Nonsense.

Some people just hate blacks and say the nastiest things they can think of.

Why?

Fear. Most men who hate blacks do so because they fear that black men are sexually superior. They're scared that their women can be taken away from them by a black man.

Nothing creates hate faster or more thoroughly than fear.

I doubt that is much of a motivation. It may have been part of racist propaganda in the past,

but not much today. Why would there be racists in areas where few black people live. There

are many reasons for hatred of black people by some whites, and I have no doubt that the

blacks are not fully human theory is one among many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is likely more overlap between the economically and culturally

distressed than Bai thinks. And then there were the loyal Republican voters,

who may not have been that enthusiastic about Donny, but would never vote for

a Democrat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

I doubt that is much of a motivation. It may have been part of racist propaganda in the past

No way it's propaganda.

White men believe it now as much as they ever did - and for good reason. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vautrin said:

No, most of the time it's real, including the belief that blacks are not really human or are an

inferior type of human. It's few and far between, but it's out there. 

Watching NBC News, I just saw a white nationalist candidate running for office in Chicago who had some interesting comments to make to the light skinned black reporter interviewing him.

He made the comment to her that all black people are 20% below white people in terms of their IQ.The reporter said she identified as African American and that she had graduated from Harvard. The white nationalist candidate told her  that it must be her white blood that made her so smart. LOL

 The candidate is Arthur Jones and he's running for the 3rd Congressional District Seat representing an area in Chicago and its suburbs.

Jones, a Holocaust denier, is a former leader of the American Nazi Party.

Even though he won the Republican Party's primary race  to represent the party for that 3rd Congressional District Seat, Jones has been denounced by the Republican Party as a Nazi.

The extreme right-wing Jones has no time for Trump either.   in a public Neo-Nazi meeting he said he regretted voting for the SOB, whom he called a  puppet for the Jews and  stridently objected to Trump's Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now comes(and possibly too, in some other thread I'm not aware of) those who claim a "double standard" because SAMANTHA BEE wasn't cancelled because of her insult to Trump's daughter.

I'll agree it was both uncouth and uncalled for, but the difference here is....

Roseanne offended an entire area of ethnicity with her remark, while Bee just insulted an individual.  AND apologized.  Righties are just upset because it was the progeny of their beloved  "fearless leader".

Sepiatone

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, darkblue said:

No way it's propaganda.

White men believe it now as much as they ever did - and for good reason. 

 

It's been a theme of racism for years. The black man is after your wife,

even if your wife looks like a horse. I suppose some dumb, paranoid types

believe it, but they probably believe every man is after their wife, whatever

their race. But the paranoid imaginings of some racists is no reason to elevate

that paranoia to anything higher than what it is. Then why do racists hate

black women too? Maybe because they don't play golf fast enough.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vautrin said:

The paranoid imaginings of some racists is no reason to elevate that paranoia to anything higher than what it is.

Who's elevating? It is what it is. Many white men would rather their wives drop dead than be ****** by a black man and enjoy it. Inferiority complexes, ay.

Quote

Then why do racists hate black women too?

Fear.

Who's not afraid of black women?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vautrin said:

It's been a theme of racism for years. The black man is after your wife,

even if your wife looks like a horse. I suppose some dumb, paranoid types

believe it, but they probably believe every man is after their wife, whatever

their race. But the paranoid imaginings of some racists is no reason to elevate

that paranoia to anything higher than what it is. Then why do racists hate

black women too? Maybe because they don't play golf fast enough.

Emmett Till

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, darkblue said:

 

Who's not afraid of black women?

Well, me for one.  Worked with (and a few times for ) many black women in my almost 30 years with GM, and found nothing to really fear.  Most (if not all) were actually very pleasant people, and many were quite striking and easy on the eyes.  ;)  And truly lived up to the phrase "Black is beautiful".  ;) 

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us