Roseanne reboot...

[+ tassojunior]

Calling a black person a monkey is not about racism?

 

Israeli Chief Rabbi Calls Black People Monkeys

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-cheif-rabbi-black-people-monkeys-yitzhak-yosef-talmud-sephardic-a8267666.html

 

Shameful anti-Semitism against Roseanne for expressing her religion.

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by tassojunior

[marylander1940]

Israeli Chief Rabbi Calls Black People Monkeys

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-cheif-rabbi-black-people-monkeys-yitzhak-yosef-talmud-sephardic-a8267666.html

 

Shameful anti-Semitism against Roseanne for expressing her religion.

 

 

 

@mike carey Ain't that whataboutism?

[mike carey]

@mike carey Ain't that whataboutism?

Let it go. (And this post is itself whataboutism. I made one comment about the issue. The deflection in that case was material to the thread and I was engaged in the thread. That doesn't mean I need to comment every time it arises. I wasn't engaged in this thread, and indeed I hadn't even read the post in question.)

 

But since you asked, I'm not sure it is. Whataboutism is trying to silence one criticism because the person making it wasn't criticising something else. This seems to be a wild series of non-sequiturs, (whether seriously or for ironic effect), saying that the chief rabbi called blacks monkeys therefore that was Jewish religious belief therefore criticising her for calling blacks monkeys is anti-Semetic.

[marylander1940]

Let it go. (And this post is itself whataboutism. I made one comment about the issue. The deflection in that case was material to the thread and I was engaged in the thread. That doesn't mean I need to comment every time it arises. I wasn't engaged in this thread, and indeed I hadn't even read the post in question.)

 

But since you asked, I'm not sure it is. Whataboutism is trying to silence one criticism because the person making it wasn't criticising something else. This seems to be a wild series of non-sequiturs, (whether seriously or for ironic effect), saying that the chief rabbi called blacks monkeys therefore that was Jewish religious belief therefore criticising her for calling blacks monkeys is anti-Semetic.

 

I can let it go, can you?

 

Thanks for the definition, it's an expression I've heard several times when it comes to Trump's pardons compared to Clinton's and Obama's.

[+ tassojunior]

Let it go. (And this post is itself whataboutism. I made one comment about the issue. The deflection in that case was material to the thread and I was engaged in the thread. That doesn't mean I need to comment every time it arises. I wasn't engaged in this thread, and indeed I hadn't even read the post in question.)

 

But since you asked, I'm not sure it is. Whataboutism is trying to silence one criticism because t2 famous people have done it, in the headlines, in one month is he person making it wasn't criticising something else. This seems to be a wild series of non-sequiturs, (whether seriously or for ironic effect), saying that the chief rabbi called blacks monkeys therefore that was Jewish religious belief therefore criticising her for calling blacks monkeys is anti-Semitic.

 

This is not Whataboutism, this is the same language: calling black people monkeys.

The fact that two important figures have done so in the headlines in the same month is noteworthy.

The difference in the consequences is shocking, with the Chief Rabbi being given the role of greeting and blessing the emissaries from the US.

The irony is, as a Jew, she could have claimed this as a religious belief based on the Chief Rabbi's teachings.

It's not good PR to keep Roseanne, and it's not good PR for Judaism to keep, much less honor, this Chief Rabbi.

Edited June 2, 2018 by tassojunior

[mike carey]

This is not Whataboutism, this is the same language: calling black people monkeys.

The fact that two important figures have done so in the headlines in the same month is noteworthy.

The difference in the consequences is shocking, with the Chief Rabbi being given the role of greeting and blessing the emissaries from the US.

The irony is, as a Jew, she could have claimed this as a religious belief based on the Chief Rabbi's teachings.

It's not good PR to keep Roseanne, and it's not good PR for Judaism to keep, much less honor, this Chief Rabbi.

Sorry if I wasn't being clear, I agree that what you cite is not whataboutism. In the post you quoted I made a comment about what-about and then in the second para talked about the monkey issue. I agree with the interpretation of the issue you made (mine, about using the quote of the chief rabbi to ascribe anti-Semitism to Ms Barr's critics [although she did not claim that defence] is another way to interpret it and the two interpretations are not mutually exclusive).

 

As I saw it, both he and Roseanne received mixed reviews, with supporters and condemners, and even among the condemners there was not agreement on the appropriate response. So the court of public opinion did not let the chief rabbi off. I also agree on the PR issue, but the imperatives that flow from bad publicity are different for commercial organisations than for religious bodies or political parties. With ABC it was purely the money and so they sacked her. Religions and political parties have believers who will allow them a free pass, so there is no imperative to sanction the chief rabbi (and IIRC the more liberal branches of Judaism in Israel who are more likely to be critical have no say in his appointment), just as evangelicals accepted the irreligious pronouncements of 45 and enough of the GOP have accepted his political missteps. The biggest exception I can think of is the loss of authority of the Catholic church in some countries as a result of child sexual abuse (witness two referendums in Ireland), but even that was so gradual that the church didn't notice it was happening.

[+ Avalon]

I just heard on the top-of-the-hour radio news that ABC is considering bringing back the show without Roseanne.

[+ WilliamM]

[TruthBTold]

Michael Moore came out with a missive about his friendship with Rosanne and the recent events plus . . . .

 

Trump-Roseanne 2020...a letter from Michael Moore

 

I have known Roseanne Barr for over 25 years. I've known her as Roseanne Barr, Roseanne Arnold, just "Roseanne", then back to Roseanne Barr. I've spent time in her home, criss-crossed the country with her to help remove George W. Bush from the White House, appeared on her shows, been there for her when she needed something, and connected her with one of my producers who did an insightful, one-of-a-kind documentary into the genius and the tragedy that is Roseanne Barr.

 

On Tuesday Roseanne posted hateful, slanderous tweets directed at four people: George Soros, Valerie Jarrett, Chelsea Clinton and me. A few hours later, she was fired by ABC.

 

For the past few years, Roseanne has been posting the craziest stuff on Twitter, like claiming Hillary was part of a child sex abuse ring being run out of a DC pizza place. She's claimed that the Clintons have murdered people. And anyone who criticizes Benjamin Netanyahu is a "nazi."

 

Roseanne seems to be suffering from some sort of madness. It's more than just saying she's a racist. She operates in the same sewer of lies, conspiracy theories and bigotry that's been rising in America for years and that has now succeeded in electing our current president. Totally nuts.

 

Here's who's not crazy: Donald J. Trump.

 

Trump, though he shows all the signs of being absolutely bonkers, is not insane. He's the real deal. His racism and hate is real, it's well thought-out, he's the true master of manipulation, a brilliant performance artist, and an evil genius. He outsmarted a nation of liberals and Democrats and won the White House by losing the actual vote of the people. He neutered and then destroyed the Grand Old Republican Party. He knows exactly what he is doing.

 

Roseanne, on the other hand, is a person who long ago broke through and brought an authentic voice of working women and men to television via one of the greatest TV series of all time. It was groundbreaking because the TV industry had historically either ignored, ridiculed or patronized those of us who grew up in the working class. Roseanne changed that.

 

But she is also a damaged soul. Most people don't know that she has suffered her entire life from a massive head injury she received during a serious car accident when she was a child. Her brain injuries were immense and she spent months in the hospital struggling to recover.

 

I also have no idea what it was like to grow up, as she did, as a Jewish girl in Salt Lake City. Not a tolerant state, to be sure. She told me how her parents, who owned an apartment building, were asked by the U.S. government after World War II if they would be willing to house Holocaust survivors who had come to the U.S. as refugees. Her parents took dozens in, and Roseanne's childhood was spent with these survivors as her "family." "The stories they told me," she said, "were filled with unimaginable horror. I've always wondered what effect that had on me as a little girl."

 

Now, sadly, for the past few years, Roseanne has been in a downward spiral, ranting like crazy on Twitter, spreading conspiracy theories, attacking the people she used to love, supporting Trump, and being just an outright hateful and racist person. It has been a difficult decline to witness. She has repeatedly attacked me, and on Tuesday, after calling George Soros a "Nazi" (he's a Jew and a Holocaust survivor), Valerie Jarrett an offspring "of the Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes," and saying that Chelsea was "married to" a Nazi relative of George Soros, she then retweeted a disgusting new word for me because I have spoken out against the Netanyahu government and its killing of Palestinians -- "#JewHater". Nonstop insanity and sickness.

 

I guess there might be 20 million Americans (out of 320 million) who probably agree with her. She has thrown down with the lowest of the low, and who knows if she’ll ever recover from this descent into her own personal hell.

 

To close, I want to say just how great the new Roseanne show was. It was funny but brutal to watch because it showed how our system of greed has hurt millions of families like the Connors of Illinois. On the final episode last week, Roseanne was addicted to opioids because she couldn't afford the knee surgery she needed, so she suffered along in agonizing pain. Dan, her husband, in order to raise money for her surgery, decided to take a non-union job -- and Roseanne berates him for doing so and letting his union brothers and sisters down. There are a couple quick knocks on Trump, making it clear that the real Roseanne was not writing or running this show. For the past 9 weeks, the new Roseanne show has shined a powerful and necessary light on what it means to be working class in 2018. Her blended family on this new series was white and black and LGBTQ, and her generous neighbors next door were Muslims who forced her to confront her own bigotry.

 

If only her art could have helped her in her real life.

 

(Also, let me say this: There's no reason the show has to go just because she's gone. Over the years, TV has found ways to bring Bobby Ewing back from the dead on “Dallas”, forced us to accept the two Darrins on “Bewitched”, and found ways for hit shows to survive when their stars bolted after a year or two [David Caruso on "NYPD Blue", Pernell Roberts on "Bonanza"]. The smart people who were writing this Roseanne series can surely find a way to let the non-bigoted portion of the America's working class [which I can tell you is the VAST majority] have their voice heard on network television. Why should it be silenced by one lost soul?)

[+ WilliamM]

Daily Comment The New Yorker

The Proper Response to Roseanne—and to Trump

 

 

By Jelani Cobb

 

2:00 P.M.

 

 

Michelle Obama famously noted that “when they go low, we go high.” The question, in the wake of “Roseanne” ’s cancellation and Trump’s victimized response, is how does that work out in real life?

 

Photograph by Damon Winter / NYT / Redux

Roseanne Barr’s decision on Tuesday to post a tweet comparing a former adviser to President Obama, Valerie Jarrett, to an ape ranks among the predictable developments in an era marked by uncertainty and the unexpected. This was not the first time that Barr has trafficked in social-media racism or directed a simian comparison at an African-American closely connected to the Obama Administration. She has also directed anti-Semitic barbs at George Soros and promoted conspiracy theories pushed by the far left and the far right. ABC moved quickly to cancel Barr’s show, even though it was the top-rated program of the season. Channing Dungey, the president of ABC Entertainment Group, issued a statement calling Barr’s language “abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values,” and Bob Iger, the C.E.O. of Disney, which owns ABC, called Jarrett to apologize. ABC’s decision was praised as an example of placing values before money, though the largely unasked question was why, given Barr’s track record in recent years, the network didn’t see rebooting “Roseanne” as a violation of those values in the first place.

 

Donald Trump, who congratulated Roseanne for her high ratings, said nothing about the egregious racism that led to the show’s cancellation. He did, however, deploy his own hallucinatory sense of victimization. Why, he asked, had ABC not apologized for the “HORRIBLE” things it has said about him? That statement functioned on two levels: first, in implying that the network had tolerated equivalent offenses when directed at him, he deflected the idea that Roseanne had done anything beyond bounds. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the current White House press secretary, followed up on this line in a briefing on Wednesday, when she asked, “Where was Bob Iger’s apology to the White House staff for Jemele Hill calling the President and anyone associated with him a white supremacist?”(Actually, Hill, a commentator on ESPN, which is also owned by Disney, didn’t say that everyone associated with Trump is a supremacist, just that he surrounded himself with them.) The second level of Trump’s remark was that, in pointing to his own wounds, he resorted to the aged, reactionary cliché that the real racists are not bigoted whites but, rather, black people who point out said bigotry.

 

Roseanne apologized for her joke, on Wednesday, and declared that she was leaving Twitter. But then, again predictably, she resumed tweeting and mused about her options. She had initially told her more than eight hundred thousand followers not to defend her, but they seem to have persuaded her after all that she had been wronged. “You guys,” she told them, “make me feel like fighting back.”

 

Jarrett, for her part, suggested using the incident as a “teaching moment.” Then, on Saturday, she sent out an e-mail message saying, “When we elect people who continually demean others — those of another race, or religion, or gender, or identity, or sexual orientation — and reach for an America in the past instead of one in the future, the results hurt us all,” and urging people to vote in November.

 

All this is central to the relief with which some conservatives greeted the news that Samantha Bee, during a monologue on Wednesday, on her television show “Full Frontal,” called Trump’s daughter Ivanka a “feckless cunt.” In a single profane stroke, the conversation was shifted from Barr’s racism and Trump’s narcissism to the supposed double standard that applies to liberals guilty of unacceptable behavior. Sarah Huckabee Sanders noted that “the collective silence by the left and its media allies is appalling.” Bee apologized, conceding that her joke had “crossed a line.” Her apology, though, served to highlight the chasm between her contrition and the complete absence of the concept in Trump’s public behavior. Trump weighed in on Friday, tweeting, “Why aren’t they firing no talent Samantha Bee for the horrible language used on her low ratings show?”

 

Yet it’s not the case that indefensible humor directed at Trump has gone unpunished. CNN dispatched Kathy Griffin after she posed for a photo holding a replica of Trump’s severed head. Her career has yet to recover from the tailspin that image initiated. Thus we have a circumstance in which Trump, who has obliterated the norms of propriety in the most powerful office in the land, nonetheless complains about indecency among his opponents. He hypocritically shouts about hypocrisy.

 

L’affaire Barr would be just another border skirmish in the culture war did it not point to a larger question that seems to have vexed many since Trump’s ascent: Has his antagonism toward norms freed his opponents to flout those same rules, or is it more important than ever that they be upheld? It was the subtext of debates as far flung as whether Al Franken should have been pushed to resign, given that Trump himself has been accused of far worse behavior, or whether it was appropriate to pummel neo-Nazis in Berkeley, given Trump’s even-handed sentiments regarding Charlottesville, and in the reaction to Michelle Wolf’s blistering ridicule of Sarah Huckabee Sanders, at the White House Correspondents Dinner. Michelle Obama famously noted that “when they go low, we go high,” a line the Hillary Clinton borrowed on the campaign trail. The question, among hundreds that arose in response to the 2016 election, is how does that work out in real life?

 

As my colleague Emily Nussbaum has pointed out, Trump’s insult-comic persona allowed him to portray the groups and the individualswhom he was attacking as dour, humorless marks, who were so fixated on his demise that they treated his jokes as policy statements. The flip side of this has been Trump’s own gossamer-skinned inclinations, the way that he consistently complains about “unfairness” in his Twitter rhetoric. To the outsider, he appears as the classic bully, capable of dishing it out, incapable of taking it. To the truest of his believers, however, he is cast in heroic terms, pointing out his wounds to show how deeply he has suffered on their behalf—a vulgar Jesus showing off his stigmata at the golf club.

 

Trump’s response to Roseanne was dictated not just by his narcissism but also by his instinctive antagonism toward the old system of norms. It has become common to cast Trump as hostile toward democracy, but his hostilities, like his appetites, are far more basic. They are not aimed at undermining democracy but the norms of decency and accountability that make democracy possible. Samantha Bee was right to apologize; CNN was right to part ways with Griffin. After Charlottesville, the alt-right has been impeded by lawsuits, not by well-aimed left hooks. That Roseanne Barr seems to have decided that maybe she was wronged only affirms the wisdom of ABC’s decision. The threat is not that Trumpism will destroy our sense of decency but rather that it may goad Americans into doing it for him.

[+ glutes]

[+ Avalon]

Looks like the reboot is a go!

 

https://www.out.com/entertainment/2018/6/22/abc-greenlights-roseanne-less-roseanne-spinoff

[Nvr2Thick]

Looks like the reboot is a go!

 

https://www.out.com/entertainment/2018/6/22/abc-greenlights-roseanne-less-roseanne-spinoff

 

If Valerie Harper is up for it I think it would be great to cast her as a new female character who eventually becomes a love interest for Dan. If not, possibly Sandy Duncan or Betty Buckley.

[+ Avalon]

If Valerie Harper is up for it I think it would be great to cast her as a new female character who eventually becomes a love interest for Dan. If not, possibly Sandy Duncan or Betty Buckley.

 

LOL!!!!

[+ glutes]

[Nvr2Thick]

 

Even at 1:09 I'm not gonna watch it. Please give us the summary. Did she mean to say "wouldn't" too?

[bigvalboy]

Even at 1:09 I'm not gonna watch it. Please give us the summary. Did she mean to say "wouldn't" too?

 

Let me help you out. Here's a recap. Roseanne screaming at the end: "I thought the bitch was white, God Damnit, I thought the bitch was white, FUCK"

 

What a wackadoodle...

[thickornotatall]

Let me help you out. Here's a recap. Roseanne screaming at the end: "I thought the bitch was white, God Damnit, I thought the bitch was white, FUCK"

 

What a wackadoodle...

A no talent big mouth broad

[Populist Fury]

ABC execs regretting Roseanne's abrupt firing...

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6261259/ABC-fears-Conners-flop-without-Roseanne-Barr.html

 

 

Well, duh! Of course it was a knee-jerk reaction to her Jarrett/Soros attacks. All the crazy random sh*t she'd tweeted out for years never got her in trouble with them until she attacked powerful Democrats that morning.

 

Very Stalinist behavior on their part also the way they tried to completely erase her from their archives, as if she & the old seasons never existed. I'm hoping the president of ABC suffers the consequences of her actions if this new upcoming season w/o Roseanne flops.

[+ Avalon]

ABC execs regretting Roseanne's abrupt firing...

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6261259/ABC-fears-Conners-flop-without-Roseanne-Barr.html

 

 

Well, duh! Of course it was a knee-jerk reaction to her Jarrett/Soros attacks. All the crazy random sh*t she'd tweeted out for years never got her in trouble with them until she attacked powerful Democrats that morning.

 

Very Stalinist behavior on their part also the way they tried to completely erase her from their archives, as if she & the old seasons never existed. I'm hoping the president of ABC suffers the consequences of her actions if this new upcoming season w/o Roseanne flops.

 

Maybe they could do a reboot. They could begin this season again. Maybe Dan could step out of the shower and walk into the bedroom and find Roseanne in bed.

[+ purplekow]

ABC execs regretting Roseanne's abrupt firing...

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6261259/ABC-fears-Conners-flop-without-Roseanne-Barr.html

 

 

Well, duh! Of course it was a knee-jerk reaction to her Jarrett/Soros attacks. All the crazy random sh*t she'd tweeted out for years never got her in trouble with them until she attacked powerful Democrats that morning.

 

Very Stalinist behavior on their part also the way they tried to completely erase her from their archives, as if she & the old seasons never existed. I'm hoping the president of ABC suffers the consequences of her actions if this new upcoming season w/o Roseanne flops.

 

Are you are saying that remarks made in a public forum by a public person which potentially impacts her employers in a negative way, only should have consequences once the effect it known, so it should be delayed and tenative?

Or are you saying she long ago passed the point of public decency in her posting and that this was very late in coming?

It seems if it is the first, would you ever expect employers to hold employees to a standard of behavior which does not negatively impact the company directly but which is offensive to the sensibilities of a large portion of their potential clients?

If if is the second, you should be applauding the ABC exces for finally waking up. In either case, hopefully Roseanne has finally learned the lesson that the late anorexic matriarch of the Republican Nancy Reagan preached, "Just say No to Drugs,"

Edited October 17, 2018 by purplekow