• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Samantha Bee and Roseanne Barr

T

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
35,230
Reaction score
5,685
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Roseanne Barr tweeted a racist slur on an adviser of Obama. Samantha Bee referred to Ivanka Trump as a "feckless c***," on-air!

Barr apologised. Bee apologised.

Barr got fired, along with all her co-stars and co-workers behind the scene (show cancelled). Bee got off scott-free. Apologists for Bee say, it's not the same.

Samantha Bee's message was right even if her word wasn't
Click to expand...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/opin...ght-even-if-her-word-wasnt-drexler/index.html


Never mind that innocent casts and co-workers were penalized, they'd lost their incomes over ABC's decision. They're casualties of this irrational climate we live in now. Couldn't they have simply fined Barr?

Apoloigists say:

Barr had randomly tweeted racist comments over the years. Isn't this the same one who'd used vulgar language, and vulgar gestures (crotch-grabbing).

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/30/entertainment/roseanne-controversial-moments/index.html


Have they considered the mental health of Barr?



The apologists say, Bee is a stand-up comic. But Barr is a comic, too!
Bee's platform for comedy may target Trump and his policies.....but, why should that make her any different than any other comic?
In other words, Bee is being given a pass............because her target is Trump!


There! There is your bias!
 
Last edited:
It's not the same. They work for different organizations who decided to deal with them differently.
 
Is this a rant? Who’s the moron?
 
People are overthinking this and making it about a double standard. But the decisions made by the respective networks were likely economic ones. Liberals and conservatives alike watched Rosanne. If enough people were going to abandon watching her show due to her rhetoric then the fiscally wise decision is to replace the show with one that will attract more viewers. On the other hand, Bee’s audience is a more politically homogenous one. Her atttacking a member of the Trump clan wasn’t likely to hurt the bottom line so they kept trucking along like normal.
 
Aren't you among the people who believe a company should be able to arbitrarily fire their workers or treat them however they please? ABC decided they don't want that kind of employee and exercised their freedom, TNT didn't have a problem. You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to be free from the consequences from your employer. It's that simple.
 
Where's the consideration that it's two completely different networks with two completely different executives?

If one doesn't like racists to be associated with their brand, they will fire the racist. If the other one doesn't mind if the word **** is used on their television shows, they will not fire the person. It's up to you to decide then with network you want to watch and support, no?
 
tosca1 said:
Roseanne Barr tweeted a racist slur on an adviser of Obama. Samantha Bee referred to Ivanka Trump as a "feckless c***," on-air!

Barr apologised. Bee apologised.

Barr got fired, along with all her co-stars and co-workers behind the scene (show cancelled). Bee got off scott-free. Apologists for Bee say, it's not the same.


https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/opin...ght-even-if-her-word-wasnt-drexler/index.html


Never mind that innocent casts and co-workers were penalized, they'd lost their incomes over ABC's decision. They're casualties of this irrational climate we live in now. Couldn't they have simply fined Barr?

Apoloigists say:

Barr had randomly tweeted racist comments over the years. Isn't this the same one who'd used vulgar language, and vulgar gestures (crotch-grabbing).

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/30/entertainment/roseanne-controversial-moments/index.html


Have they considered the mental health of Barr?



The apologists say, Bee is a stand-up comic. But Barr is a comic, too!
Bee's platform for comedy may target Trump and his policies.....but, why should that make her any different than any other comic?
In other words, Bee is being given a pass............because her target is Trump!


There! There is your bias!
Click to expand...

It is amazing you managed to find one whole "apologist"...

Bee "got off scott-free" and Roseanne didn't because they work for different employers, with different values. Because their shows are different, and in different time slots, with different expectations.

And for the record, I personally put the comments of both at about the same level of offensiveness. And I further support the rights of their employers to terminate, reprimand of otherwise handle the situations as they choose.
 
tosca1 said:
Roseanne Barr tweeted a racist slur on an adviser of Obama. Samantha Bee referred to Ivanka Trump as a "feckless c***," on-air!

Barr apologised. Bee apologised.

Barr got fired, along with all her co-stars and co-workers behind the scene (show cancelled). Bee got off scott-free. Apologists for Bee say, it's not the same.


https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/opin...ght-even-if-her-word-wasnt-drexler/index.html


Never mind that innocent casts and co-workers were penalized, they'd lost their incomes over ABC's decision. They're casualties of this irrational climate we live in now. Couldn't they have simply fined Barr?

Apoloigists say:

Barr had randomly tweeted racist comments over the years. Isn't this the same one who'd used vulgar language, and vulgar gestures (crotch-grabbing).

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/30/entertainment/roseanne-controversial-moments/index.html


Have they considered the mental health of Barr?



The apologists say, Bee is a stand-up comic. But Barr is a comic, too!
Bee's platform for comedy may target Trump and his policies.....but, why should that make her any different than any other comic?
In other words, Bee is being given a pass............because her target is Trump!


There! There is your bias!
Click to expand...

context
kɒntɛkst
noun
the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.
 
My take:
Some people have gotten way too thin skinned. Some people put way to much emphasis on what some celebrity / comic states. Both comics made statements I felt were crude.
I don't follow either one. Like I don't follow President Trump and his tweets.

People say stupid inappropriate things all the time. So is the world a better place and racism reduced because RB was fired? Would the world be a better place and name called be reduced is SB was to be fired? Nope. Get a life and staff off my lawn. :mrgreen:
 
I think we're seeing a difference between belittling those in government, and using racist taunts at private citizens. While neither is good, my suspicion is society in general weighs the racist epitaph a bit higher.

Regardless though, it comes down to free-market decisions. ABC believes the damage from Barr would be higher than TBS believes the damage from Bee may be.
 
tosca1 said:
Roseanne Barr tweeted a racist slur on an adviser of Obama. Samantha Bee referred to Ivanka Trump as a "feckless c***," on-air!

Barr apologised. Bee apologised.

Barr got fired, along with all her co-stars and co-workers behind the scene (show cancelled). Bee got off scott-free. Apologists for Bee say, it's not the same.


https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/opin...ght-even-if-her-word-wasnt-drexler/index.html


Never mind that innocent casts and co-workers were penalized, they'd lost their incomes over ABC's decision. They're casualties of this irrational climate we live in now. Couldn't they have simply fined Barr?

Apoloigists say:

Barr had randomly tweeted racist comments over the years. Isn't this the same one who'd used vulgar language, and vulgar gestures (crotch-grabbing).

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/30/entertainment/roseanne-controversial-moments/index.html


Have they considered the mental health of Barr?



The apologists say, Bee is a stand-up comic. But Barr is a comic, too!
Bee's platform for comedy may target Trump and his policies.....but, why should that make her any different than any other comic?
In other words, Bee is being given a pass............because her target is Trump!


There! There is your bias!
Click to expand...
I believe there is some truth in this, as we do tend to give more leeway to citizens verbally attacking the government than each other. This is due in part to the 1stA protections awarded the citizenry in relation to government, and SCOTUS has indeed weighed-in to that effect in libel & defamation cases with the NYT ruling.

So yes, that general motif does pervade our society I believe, and I think I agree with it.
 
tosca1 said:
There! There is your bias![/B]
Click to expand...

Actually the BIAS are those people that think Rosanne should get a free pass for her comments, yet want a football player taking a knee during the National Anthem to be fined and/or fired.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
People are overthinking this and making it about a double standard. But the decisions made by the respective networks were likely economic ones. Liberals and conservatives alike watched Rosanne. If enough people were going to abandon watching her show due to her rhetoric then the fiscally wise decision is to replace the show with one that will attract more viewers. On the other hand, Bee’s audience is a more politically homogenous one. Her atttacking a member of the Trump clan wasn’t likely to hurt the bottom line so they kept trucking along like normal.
Click to expand...
Exactly!

ABC dumped Barr. Breitbart would give her a raise!
 
tosca1 said:
Roseanne Barr tweeted a racist slur on an adviser of Obama. Samantha Bee referred to Ivanka Trump as a "feckless c***," on-air!

Barr apologised. Bee apologised.

Barr got fired, along with all her co-stars and co-workers behind the scene (show cancelled). Bee got off scott-free. Apologists for Bee say, it's not the same.


https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/opin...ght-even-if-her-word-wasnt-drexler/index.html


Never mind that innocent casts and co-workers were penalized, they'd lost their incomes over ABC's decision. They're casualties of this irrational climate we live in now. Couldn't they have simply fined Barr?

Apoloigists say:

Barr had randomly tweeted racist comments over the years. Isn't this the same one who'd used vulgar language, and vulgar gestures (crotch-grabbing).

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/30/entertainment/roseanne-controversial-moments/index.html


Have they considered the mental health of Barr?



The apologists say, Bee is a stand-up comic. But Barr is a comic, too!
Bee's platform for comedy may target Trump and his policies.....but, why should that make her any different than any other comic?
In other words, Bee is being given a pass............because her target is Trump!


There! There is your bias!
Click to expand...

Barr --> Racist remark made by a white woman about a black woman.
Bee --> Not a racist/sexist remark made by a woman about another woman.


Apparently you don't get that:
  • (Seemingly) Racist Remarks: They're never good things to utter, but, like it or not (I suspect most folks, race notwithstanding, don't like it):
    • Blacks (or whatever racial minority one wants to insert) --> Get to say anything about blacks because for whatever the remark sounds like or seems to imply, it's safe to assume that blacks aren't racists against other blacks on account of their being black.
    • Whites --> Don't get to say anything about blacks (other minorities) because whites have a 400+ year long track record of being racists and doing all sorts of hateful things as a result of having that mentality, that even today, the extent to which whites (as a segment of society) have disabused themselves of racist sentiments is unclear. At the individual level, it's damn near impossible for non-whites to know whether the white individual with whom they're dealing is being equitable to them.

      Watch the video from ~7:50 onward:


  • (Seemingly) Sexist Remarks:
    • Women --> Get to say what they want about women because it's safe to assume that women aren't biased against other women on account of their being women.
    • Men --> Don't get to say anything they want about women because men have a long history of lording it over women on account of women being not male. Just as minorities have no good way to know whether they're being treated equitably by any given white person, women often can't abstractly know whether they're being treated equitably by individual men with whom they interact.
  • Other types of "ist" remarks --> Same concepts as noted above.
  • Non-"ist" remarks --> These remarks are in poor taste and/or rude, but that's all they are.

In consideration of the above, Ms. Bee's status as a woman is what makes her remark be merely a vulgar, rude, "whatever" one rather than an "ist" remark. Were she as a man to have called Ivanka "feckless," she'd may have been fired for I don't think men get to arbitrarily and summarily denigrate a woman's value in the workplace.
 
Last edited:
Praxas said:
Actually the BIAS are those people that think Rosanne should get a free pass for her comments, yet want a football player taking a knee during the National Anthem to be fined and/or fired.
Click to expand...


Only certain players...........:bomb:
 
Praxas said:
Actually the BIAS are those people that think Rosanne should get a free pass for her comments, yet want a football player taking a knee during the National Anthem to be fined and/or fired.
Click to expand...
True.

And now we have Trump weighing-in on it, which means we have government getting involved in free-speech issues trying to silence Bee. That is far more dangerous than a comedian using profanity! In fact, I wonder if Bee might have some 1stA recourse here.
 
mike2810 said:
My take:
Some people have gotten way too thin skinned. Some people put way to much emphasis on what some celebrity / comic states. Both comics made statements I felt were crude.
I don't follow either one. Like I don't follow President Trump and his tweets.

People say stupid inappropriate things all the time. So is the world a better place and racism reduced because RB was fired? Would the world be a better place and name called be reduced is SB was to be fired? Nope. Get a life and staff off my lawn. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

It is really getting ridiculous. I think it is almost entirely due to social media. It used to be that when an entertainer said something offensive the only people who heard it were usually just people who watched that entertainer say it. They would get upset or not and move on. But now EVERYONE hears it and wants to comment on it, which just blows the story up. I don’t think most the people getting outraged over things said by the comedians/actors even watched their shows to begin with.

What is the big deal with being offended? I have been offended many times. Not once did being offended actually harm me. It is a very unhealthy trend we are seeing.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Aren't you among the people who believe a company should be able to arbitrarily fire their workers or treat them however they please? ABC decided they don't want that kind of employee and exercised their freedom, TNT didn't have a problem. You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to be free from the consequences from your employer. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

This doesn't actually make any sense.

You correctly note that free speech doesn't insulate you from the consequences of your speech, or from criticism of your speech.

But you also seem to think that the right to hire or fire at will insulates you from criticism of your decisions to do so, or at least that one is hypocritical for believing in that right and criticizing an exercise of that right at the same time, which is what she did. She never said they shouldn't have that right.
 
Chomsky said:
True.

And now we have Trump weighing-in on it, which means we have government getting involved in free-speech issues trying to silence Bee. That is far more dangerous than a comedian using profanity! In fact, I wonder if Bee might have some 1stA recourse here.
Click to expand...

Nope. President Trump is not attempting to stop free speech. He has the rights of every other American who has the unfettered liberty to comment when they see a double standard. Nothing dangerous about it at all.
 
trixare4kids said:
Nope. President Trump is not attempting to stop free speech. He has the rights of every other American who has the unfettered liberty to comment when they see a double standard. Nothing dangerous about it at all.
Click to expand...
I don't believe this is necessarily true, because he is no longer a private citizen but rather the acting head of our government.

I think it would come down to whether his Tweets are legally determined to be official pronouncements, or found to be a private matter.

I'm leaning towards his Tweets being official, and I base this upon the recent court case where it was found he cannot delete comments from his Twitter account, as you & I can as private citizens.

So that's how I arrived at my statement wondering if Bee might have 1stA protection here. I can't say for sure, but based upon the earlier judges ruling she indeed may. I think she should try.
 
tosca1 said:
Roseanne Barr tweeted a racist slur on an adviser of Obama. Samantha Bee referred to Ivanka Trump as a "feckless c***," on-air!

Barr apologised. Bee apologised.

Barr got fired, along with all her co-stars and co-workers behind the scene (show cancelled). Bee got off scott-free. Apologists for Bee say, it's not the same.


https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/opin...ght-even-if-her-word-wasnt-drexler/index.html


Never mind that innocent casts and co-workers were penalized, they'd lost their incomes over ABC's decision. They're casualties of this irrational climate we live in now. Couldn't they have simply fined Barr?

Apoloigists say:

Barr had randomly tweeted racist comments over the years. Isn't this the same one who'd used vulgar language, and vulgar gestures (crotch-grabbing).

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/30/entertainment/roseanne-controversial-moments/index.html


Have they considered the mental health of Barr?



The apologists say, Bee is a stand-up comic. But Barr is a comic, too!
Bee's platform for comedy may target Trump and his policies.....but, why should that make her any different than any other comic?
In other words, Bee is being given a pass............because her target is Trump!


There! There is your bias!
Click to expand...

Ronseanne's ex husband says he wasn't surprised she got fired. He said he always knew it would end this way over a tweet. She apparently believes in all kinds of conspiracy theories and tweets offensive stuff. She even thinks Parkland didn't happen and the kids are crisis actors.

It seems ABC didn't want to keep taking hits because of her tweeting.

Bee's situation isn't over. Advertisers have pulled out.
 
Chomsky said:
I think we're seeing a difference between belittling those in government, and using racist taunts at private citizens. While neither is good, my suspicion is society in general weighs the racist epitaph a bit higher.

Regardless though, it comes down to free-market decisions. ABC believes the damage from Barr would be higher than TBS believes the damage from Bee may be.
Click to expand...

Why, I wonder?

Wouldn't have...anything to do with the targets....would it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom