• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Roseanne Cancelled because of tweet

Red Herring

Superwoman
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,503
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Disrespect or criticism of the flag and the military (symbols and institutions) is a quite different matter from the same levelled at an individual, especially when it has nothing to do with what the individual actually did and said, and is based instead on group identity. Some double standards are valid, because the topics or cases they apply to are quite distinct.

This. It's two completely different affairs. The only thing connecting these two events is that they are both part of an ongoing public debate about modern day racism.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,193
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It's all free speech, no matter how disgusting or offensive. But how ABC and the NFL decides to handle either case is entirely up to them. I don't think ABC is in the wrong cancelling her show.
Sure, and kids and adults are all humans, but we have different rules for kids and adults in many cases because of the significant differences between them, acknowledging that sometimes (e.g. teenagers) there is a grey area. Same here. It is reasonable to draw distinctions among elements within a broad category, as long as those distinctions reflect real difference in the nature of the elements and are not arbitrary or inconsistent.

I do think it might have been better if ABC could somehow preserve the show and limit their sanction to Roseanne herself. The show wasn't the problem, nor was anyone else associated with it.
 

Obfuscate

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,907
MBTI Type
iNtP
Enneagram
954
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
They are linked in both being indicative of the person's character.

i don't see why that is relevant to her ability to play a role for a television show... job performance is a better system to judge a person's work... if she has annoying opinions, but she is still able to act, what's the real problem? most people will have an opinion that annoys me at some point, and my opinions are likely to annoy others at some point... i don't see why someone shouldn't be able to go to work over that....perhaps if the opinion was related in a meaningful way to the tasks required it would make sense... like a cop that thought the only way people learned a lesson was after a gunshot wound...
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,193
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
i don't see why that is relevant to her ability to play a role for a television show... job performance is a better system to judge a person's work... if she has annoying opinions, but she is still able to act, what's the real problem? most people will have an opinion that annoys me at some point, and my opinions are likely to annoy others at some point... i don't see why someone shouldn't be able to go to work over that....perhaps if the opinion was related in a meaningful way to the tasks requires it would make sense... like a cop that thought the only way people learned a lesson was after a gunshot wound...
The work of an actor goes beyond what we see on screen. They need to be able to do necessary preparations, meet deadlines, work with others, and serve as a public face for their show, franchise, studio, or whatever. Obviously some opinions and the character traits they reflect will influence these job functions more than others, whether negatively or positively. One employs a whole person, though, meaning that any baggage or negative attitudes come with them along with their skills, talents, and positive attitudes. Sure, they can put out the effort to filter these so they don't show up "on the job", but one can argue that that is effort better spent on the job itself. Plus, IME at least, it is only a matter of time before people show their true colors.
 

Merced

Talk to me.
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
3,596
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
28?
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
i don't see why that is relevant to her ability to play a role for a television show... job performance is a better system to judge a person's work... if she has annoying opinions, but she is still able to act, what's the real problem? most people will have an opinion that annoys me at some point, and my opinions are likely to annoy others at some point... i don't see why someone shouldn't be able to go to work over that....perhaps if the opinion was related in a meaningful way to the tasks required it would make sense... like a cop that thought the only way people learned a lesson was after a gunshot wound...

You say that like overt racism is on the same playing field as liking country music.

It's not about her ability to act, she represents a brand and a product and she violated the rules that come with it.
 

Obfuscate

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,907
MBTI Type
iNtP
Enneagram
954
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The work of an actor goes beyond what we see on screen. They need to be able to do necessary preparations, meet deadlines, work with others, and serve as a public face for their show, franchise, studio, or whatever. Obviously some opinions and the character traits they reflect will influence these job functions more than others, whether negatively or positively. One employs a whole person, though, meaning that any baggage or negative attitudes come with them along with their skills, talents, and positive attitudes. Sure, they can put out the effort to filter these so they don't show up "on the job", but one can argue that that is effort better spent on the job itself. Plus, IME at least, it is only a matter of time before people show their true colors.

the aspects you describe there are job performance....if her output was satisfactory, it doesn't matter if it absorbs some of her attention to maintain that output... if her attitude spills into her time off camera (at work), they could let her know it was unsatisfactory, and fire her on those grounds if it persisted...
 

Obfuscate

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,907
MBTI Type
iNtP
Enneagram
954
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
You say that like overt racism is on the same playing field as liking country music.

It's not about her ability to act, she represents a brand and a product and she violated the rules that come with it.

i was thinking of things like political affiliations, beliefs on criminal justice, abortion, or opinions on matters like these (not music)... i mean that people are bound to disagree on weighty subjects from time to time, but it doesn't mean i am unable to see past these disagreements when it comes to something like buying a product or service unless the proceeds contribute directly to opposing a view i feel strongly about...

as for representing a brand, i can see that as relevant if her job was to speak for the company... however, her job isn't to direct their policies, communicate those policies to the public, or to execute those policies in any capacity outside of those directly tied to her work... or at least that is the way in which i view this....
 

Merced

Talk to me.
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
3,596
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
28?
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
i was thinking of things like political affiliations, beliefs on criminal justice, abortion, or opinions on matters like these (not music)... i mean that people are bound to disagree on weighty subjects from time to time, but it doesn't mean i am unable to see past these disagreements when it comes to something like buying a product or service unless the proceeds contribute directly to opposing a view i feel strongly about...

as for representing a brand, i can see that as relevant if her job was to speak for the company... however, her job isn't to direct their policies, communicate those policies to the public, or to execute those policies in any capacity outside of those directly tied to her work... or at least that is the way in which i view this....

"Don't be racist" is not a partisan issue. She wasn't fired for being conservative. She wasn't fired for having differing opinions. She was fired because she was being flagrantly racist on social media.

And yes, she is a public figure so she is absolutely a representation of the company's values. She is a famous comedian on a large television network. The same way if a nonfamous person was seen posting racist things on their social media and their job found out, she was fired for breaking company policy. It's not uncommon at all. People have been fired for posting pictures of themselves holding a solo cup, behavior offstage is just as important to the quality of her ability to work as it is onstage.

What's the minimum level of quality work a person has to do where being racist is excusable? If she was bad at acting, then would it be okay to fire her for violating company policy?

Edit: Oh my god, this is giving me Bill Cosby defense rage. "Did you even watch the Cosby Show? He couldn'tve raped those girls when he was that funny."
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,592
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Sure, and kids and adults are all humans, but we have different rules for kids and adults in many cases because of the significant differences between them, acknowledging that sometimes (e.g. teenagers) there is a grey area. Same here. It is reasonable to draw distinctions among elements within a broad category, as long as those distinctions reflect real difference in the nature of the elements and are not arbitrary or inconsistent.

I do think it might have been better if ABC could somehow preserve the show and limit their sanction to Roseanne herself. The show wasn't the problem, nor was anyone else associated with it.

I don't know about that. Love her or hate her, she sort of made the show, annoying laugh and all. It's like after firing Charlie Sheen from Two and a Half Men, it just wasn't the same. It would be like firing Sheldon from Big Bang Theory, like All in the Family without Archie, it would be like Family Matters without Urkel. It would probably work without just about any other character (possible exceptions: Dan and Jackie), but I don't see it being successful without the Roseanne character front and center. Best ABC just let's this thing die.

Real irony, despite her off-camera politics, the show seemed to be making genuine attempts at bridging some cultural gaps, healing some political wounds left open after trump's election, for instance in the episode when they meet their Muslim neighbors and become friendly, and when Roseanne tells off the prejudiced checkout girl at the supermarket for making racist comments to the Muslim wife.
 

Red Herring

Superwoman
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,503
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
"Don't be racist" is not a partisan issue. She wasn't fired for being conservative. She wasn't fired for having differing opinions. She was fired because she was being flagrantly racist on social media.

It's sad times we're living in when something so fundamental needs explaining. There used to be a social consensus that certain things were simply unacceptable. Not every utterance is an "opinion" worth protecting and not all opinions are of equal worth.

It scares me what kind of world my kids are likely to be growing up these next few years.i get 1933 deja-vu a lot recently, but that is material for a thread of its own.
 

Deprecator

Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Messages
584
"I apologize to Valerie Jarrett and to all Americans. I am truly sorry for making a bad joke about her politics and her looks. I should have known better. Forgive me-my joke was in bad taste."

— Roseanne Barr (@therealroseanne) May 29, 2018

I like how she doesn't apologize for racism or bigotry, but apologizes for a 'bad joke' about a woman's physical appearance. Of course, when liberals joke about Sarah Sander's appearance, then all of a sudden the dynamic shifts to one where 'conservatives simply can't take a joke'. Like is it okay to joke about a woman's physical appearance? Not okay to joke about a woman's appearance? Only okay to joke about it under certain circumstances? I don't care what we decide so long as we remain consistent when shaming others who don't get on board with our moral standards.

Regardless, I have a lot of respect for people who stand by their publicly declared comments in the midst of controversy, so it's a pity that Roseanne chose to crumble down and apologize as opposed to changing the issue to one about free speech, sensitivity or political correctness. Like just imagine if she had instead stated, "At the time I thought the comment was funny, and in hindsight I should have been more reserved if all it takes is an offhanded remark on twitter to cancel a popular TV show."
 

Obfuscate

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,907
MBTI Type
iNtP
Enneagram
954
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
"Don't be racist" is not a partisan issue. She wasn't fired for being conservative. She wasn't fired for having differing opinions. She was fired because she was being flagrantly racist on social media.

And yes, she is a public figure so she is absolutely a representation of the company's values. She is a famous comedian on a large television network. The same way if a nonfamous person was seen posting racist things on their social media and their job found out, she was fired for breaking company policy. It's not uncommon at all. People have been fired for posting pictures of themselves holding a solo cup, behavior offstage is just as important to the quality of her ability to work as it is onstage.

What's the minimum level of quality work a person has to do where being racist is excusable? If she was bad at acting, then would it be okay to fire her for violating company policy?

Edit: Oh my god, this is giving me Bill Cosby defense rage. "Did you even watch the Cosby Show? He couldn'tve raped those girls when he was that funny."

cosby commited a criminal offense and was dealt with appropriately... roseanne expressed her (stupid) views legally and on her own time... those are drastically different... it isn't about being so good that she can be racist... it isn't about saying that i think she had a reasonable opinion...

there being precedence for this happening isn't relevant... regardless of wether it is a high or low profile instance of this, it is wrong... it would have been wrong two hundred and fifty years ago to fire someone for opposing slavery at a tavern (off work)... it is wrong to fire people for expressing themselves on their own time regardless of how deplorable they may seem to us... she could say she thought we should castrate half of all men because they are literally all child rapists, and still be able to go to work... the point (to me) isn't what was said... she could say she thought hillary clinton was a five headed dragon masquerading as a drag queen... she would still sound like an idiot, and should still be able to go to work... it isn't about rascism being excusable; it is about it being unrelated to her ability to effectively perform her job...
 

Patches

Klingon Warrior Princess
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
5,505
it is about it being unrelated to her ability to effectively perform her job...

I don't think anyone is under the impression she got fired because racism makes you unable to act. The network is a business, and when a representative of your business pisses off the general public, you distance yourself from them ASAP. It happens to more than just actors/actresses.

There's plenty of actors/actresses that are racist as shit, but as long as they keep their racism out of the limelight and stay free from the public backlash, they are employable. It's business.
 

Obfuscate

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,907
MBTI Type
iNtP
Enneagram
954
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I don't think anyone is under the impression she got fired because racism makes you unable to act. The network is a business, and when a representative of your business pisses off the general public, you distance yourself from them ASAP. It happens to more than just actors/actresses.

There's plenty of actors/actresses that are racist as shit, but as long as they keep their racism out of the limelight and stay free from the public backlash, they are employable. It's business.

i understand why it happens... which is why in my initial post in this thread, i expressed a desire to see a change in public behavior... i think the public's response is lame... i feel like work performance ought to be the lens with which a person's career is judged...
 

Patches

Klingon Warrior Princess
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
5,505
i understand why it happens... which is why in my initial post in this thread, i expressed a desire to see a change in public behavior... i think the public's response is lame... i feel like work performance ought to be the lens with which a person's career is judged...

I don't think it's unreasonable to, as the public, support people and businesses that align with your own ideologies.

People down south here will choose Chic-fil-A over any other fast food chain because they have a very openly Christian business statement, (The company's official statement of corporate purpose says that the business exists "To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us.") and is closed on Sundays. What the fuck does chicken have to do with Jesus and politics? Nothing, other than they like that a business is openly religious, and they would like to normalize that behavior by contributing to the success of that business.

Same with the actors/actresses. Except it's an issue of NOT wanting to normalize behavior. You pull your support from the networks and businesses that reflect a world you don't want to live in.


And if you really want to get in depth with it... Major cable networks are lobbyists who impact government change. Do I really want to give my money/viewership to a company that may use that money to support social and political change that doesn't align with my beliefs? Sure don't. The public votes with their dollar. Roseanne just got voted off the island.
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,592
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate. Roseanne's defense was she thought Jarrett was a white lady. I googled some images, and I really couldn't tell her ethnic background at a casual glance. I used to have aunts in New Jersey who looked like her after a summer of tanning, and in some cases, even a darker brown-orange a la the cast of Jersey Shore or George Hamilton--women with European ancestry and no African or Arabic ancestry that I'm aware of; with my pasty Anglo skin, I was always envious of that side of the family's ability to tan. Maybe Barr's full of shit, probably just trying to cover her ass. I dunno.
 

Obfuscate

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,907
MBTI Type
iNtP
Enneagram
954
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I don't think it's unreasonable to, as the public, support people and businesses that align with your own ideologies.

People down south here will choose Chic-fil-A over any other fast food chain because they have a very openly Christian business statement, (The company's official statement of corporate purpose says that the business exists "To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us.") and is closed on Sundays. What the fuck does chicken have to do with Jesus and politics? Nothing, other than they like that a business is openly religious, and they would like to normalize that behavior by contributing to the success of that business.

Same with the actors/actresses. Except it's an issue of NOT wanting to normalize behavior. You pull your support from the networks and businesses that reflect a world you don't want to live in.


And if you really want to get in depth with it... Major cable networks are lobbyists who impact government change. Do I really want to give my money/viewership to a company that may use that money to support social and political change that doesn't align with my beliefs? Sure don't. The public votes with their dollar. Roseanne just got voted off the island.

nearly every possible division of industry lobbies... roseanne (as an individual) supports charities and a variety of causes i do like... Roseanne Barr: Charity Work & Causes - Look to the Stars
 

Deprecator

Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Messages
584
when a representative of your business pisses off the general public, you distance yourself from them ASAP.
I don't think the GOP got your memo.

Regardless, let's not pretend that this has to do with the 'general public' because most people don't really care about what wealthy celebrities are posting on twitter; just like when people react to Trump's comments, it's always a small and very vocal minority who feel the need to express outrage over these types of abrasive and non-politically correct commentary.
 

Obfuscate

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,907
MBTI Type
iNtP
Enneagram
954
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I don't think the GOP got your memo.

Regardless, let's not pretend that this has to do with the 'general public' because most people don't really care about what wealthy celebrities are posting on twitter; just like when people react to Trump's comments, it's always a small and very vocal minority who feel the need to express outrage over these types of abrasive and non-politically correct commentary.

agreed...
 

Edgar

Nerd King Usurper
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
4,266
MBTI Type
INTJ
Instinctual Variant
sx
I was kinda like, "Is that the side you want to be identified with?" Like in the past most companies would think twice about someone with a checkered past. Nowadays there's no guilt nor shame, it seems.

You're only looking at one side. What's happening is just indicative of our current divisive cultural attitude, where everyone picked a far side of the spectrum and there is nothing left in the middle.

Side 1: If you say one mean thing on the internet and will burn you and everyone who ever worked with you.

Side 2: Hey we heard you spew offensive shit! Come on over to us - we're all about that.
 
Top