Roseanne Barr off the air

They could follow the route that NBC used after their dispute with Valerie Harper in the 80s. She was killed off on of her own show, "Valerie", which became "Valerie's Family" for a while, with Sandy Duncan as the original character's sister, and then it became "The Hogan Family".
I feel that it could not be accomplished with this here and now. We are seeing complete excism nowadays. A person immediately becomes a cancer and every trace of them is removed as if done with a scalpel. ABC will not continue the show because it is related to Roseanne.

I feel that things that "worked out okay" in the 80s will not work at all now. Society and culture has changed and certain doors are now shut.

Barr still has a career because she has talents but it won't be on network television. She would now pack the house in live stand-up comedy and theater but only when it's marketed at a narrow demographic.
 
Bigotry is bigotry. You shouldn't get a free pass just because your particular brand of irrational hatred isn't "racist".

It's been a while, but wasn't Maher's orangutan joke based on Trump's bad hair combined with his avowed birtherism?

I guess you could widen the definition of bigotry to cover any comment about someone you don't agree with, but when people are acting stupid about birth certificates, it seems fair game to ask stupid rhetorical questions about their own birth certificates. (The best part I remember was Trump saying it wasn't a joke. He just doesn't get the implications of that at all.)

At that point, though just about every comment about any politician becomes bigotry. Stretches the word past any real meaning.

Either way, Maher's stunt seems a far stretch different than calling a minority woman the offspring of an ape. So I have to agree with Fudbucker, it is more than just a difference of degree, it's categorical difference.
 
Barr still has a career because she has talents but it won't be on network television. She would now pack the house in live stand-up comedy and theater but only when it's marketed at a narrow demographic.

She is worth about 80 million

I doubt she is too worried

If it starts to hit the low 10s of millions I'm sure she can get a reality show on some cable channel to document her day to day poverty stricken plight

And tonnes will watch
 
Are they that culturally tone-deaf and stupid as to not know the difference between the two? Either that, or they don't care about the difference. Either way, they're deplorable.

Well, someone in this thread has compared it to the Kathy Griffin episode...
 
It's been a while, but wasn't Maher's orangutan joke based on Trump's bad hair combined with his avowed birtherism?
The Trump orangutan joke wouldn't and couldn't exist at all if it weren't for the color of his hair. He doesn't have an "orangutan hairstyle" - he has what people believe to be an orangutan hair color along with there being lots of that hair. Also people seem to think he has an orange skin color which orangutans do not have.

But his hair and skin color really aren't like an orangutan.
 
She is worth about 80 million

I doubt she is too worried

If it starts to hit the low 10s of millions I'm sure she can get a reality show on some cable channel to document her day to day poverty stricken plight

And tonnes will watch
You changed the subject from her earning potential to her current net worth. She still has tremendous earning potential when marketed towards a particular American demographic.
 
If only they had another movie currently out that's set to make over $2 billion worldwide...

Oh, Disney will be just fine, but still it was not a good week for their image with one of their biggest franchises laying an egg and having to fire the star of a successful sitcom because of racism.
 
And that's when the shows are usually at their cringiest. "ABC presents: A very special episode of Home Improvement..."

Not always, 'Scrubs' for example did some very good episodes around serious issues, John C McGinley's Dr Cox, a dysfunctional alcoholic periodically driven to the point of breakdown by his inability to save everyone, a multiple fatality caused by infected transplant organs, a patient who suicides after a 'cry for help' attempt is mistaken for an accident, and the line "Look in that room, do you think anyone else is going back to work today" spring to mind.

Not to say that good drama and acting is an every day occurrence, but it is there at times.
 
For a sufficiently wide definition of bombing.

I would say losing quite a bit of money is bombing, which Solo seems likely to do.
You do know it cost at least 250 Million to make (because of having to reshoot most of the movie) which means it has take in 500 Million to break even (Disney only gets half the box office take) and seems as though Solo will fall well short of that.
ANybody who see "a film took in X amount of dollars so it's doing fine" without taking things like the film's cost into account is pretty silly.
 
It reminds me of the period when Disney animated movies were being written off as failures because they were making a lot of money, but not as much as "The Lion King".

Solo seems likely to not make back it's cost and lose money.
I know the idea of a SW movie actually losing money is hard for geeks to comprehend, but that seems to be what will happen with Solo.
 
Bigotry is bigotry. You shouldn't get a free pass just because your particular brand of irrational hatred isn't "racist".
A little historical context is useful here.

In general people consider a comment aimed at a minority (such as the use of the N-word or comparing someone to an ape) because in North America the majority of the political and socioeconomic power has rested with people who's skin color is white. This has been the case for, well, centuries and continues to this day.

Now, it is true that it is possible to discriminate against a white person. There is also racial slang that is targeted at white people (calling them 'cracker' for example). But the fact that people of my color have held power for so long means that such discrimination doesn't hold the significance that discrimination against minorities does.
 
Bigotry is bigotry. You shouldn't get a free pass just because your particular brand of irrational hatred isn't "racist".

Odd then that you and most conservatives give Trump a pass for that same ridiculous standard of bigotry on a daily basis.
 
A little historical context is useful here.

In general people consider a comment aimed at a minority (such as the use of the N-word or comparing someone to an ape) because in North America the majority of the political and socioeconomic power has rested with people who's skin color is white. This has been the case for, well, centuries and continues to this day.

Now, it is true that it is possible to discriminate against a white person. There is also racial slang that is targeted at white people (calling them 'cracker' for example). But the fact that people of my color have held power for so long means that such discrimination doesn't hold the significance that discrimination against minorities does.

Well, there's also the simple fact that referring to black (and Native American) people as animals has been used to justify viewing them as property or vermin, and thus to rationalize chattel slavery, war, genocide, lynchings, etc, in the distant and recent past.

When someone sells off Baron and Ivanka into slavery, and kills the rest of that wretched family, then we're possibly getting *close* to something similar. As opposed to, you know, telling a joke with no such history. Assuming that Barr was actually telling some sort of joke, and not just being a hateful conspiracy theorist.

She was being a hateful conspiracy theorist.

Now, I certainly hope that conservatives don't start using Maher's obvious hatred of muslims, his overuse of "the N-word", and the like against him. Again, as a black guy on the left, I just have no idea what I would do were Bill Maher to lose his show - that would cut so, so deep...
 
Well, there's also the simple fact that referring to black (and Native American) people as animals has been used to justify viewing them as property or vermin, and thus to rationalize chattel slavery, war, genocide, lynchings, etc, in the distant and recent past.
Barr said that she thought that Jarrett was white. It seems important to determine if that's true because she might also have some history of referring to certain white people as being like certain animals. Has she ever called a white policeman a pig? She's pretty old now so we might have to look deep into the microfiche to see if she's ever said that a particular white person appears to her to be like a particular animal.

If she has ever done that then it points towards her not so much being a racist but rather one who links anybody bothering her to some animal.
 
I think I can see both sides.

I just mentioned this debate to Karen. Her first reaction was that both instances are equally childish name-calling and should be treated equally.

But then saw that calling our grandchild with climbing abilities “a little monkey” was perfectly innocent. To say the same about a black child could be offensive, even if not meant that way.

As an aside, Karen agreed to be my monkey as part of our wedding vows. Monkey is a slang term for a motorcycle sidecar passenger. Zero racial component as far as I know.
 
I don't like Donald Trump because I think that he's an anti-intellectual buffoon.

But when people refer to him as an orangutan they are specifically talking about him resembling that ape and nobody really proposes that that person is consciously or subconsciously referring to the white race as being orangutans. Then you move to Roseanne Barr saying that Valerie Jarrett is like a cross of a Muslim and Planet of the Apes and you suddenly have something that is supposed to refer to the entire black race, or whatever racism is supposed to be.

Why can't Roseanne be talking about a specific person instead of a whole race? It seems anti-intellectual to reflexively label her as a racist without entertaining the bigger picture of the cultural trap that is set when a white person says negative things about a black person.

There really may be something like everyday racism against white people if whites have to be very careful about their words. Importantly, non-racist white people may have to be extra careful because they may live in a world of everyday racism aimed at them.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but Deadpool 2 more than made up for it.

Really, Disney has gotten so massive and owns so many properties that I doubt this is more than a minor financial irritation for them.

I agree it's not a biggie finiancally, but it is something of a blow to their image.And Image is very important to the Disney.
BTW, Deadpool 2 is a Fox film.(Deadpool is part of the X Men franchise, which Fox has the screen rights to). Throght the licencing agreement, Disney will get a share of Deadpool's 2 take, but not anywhere near as much as it would have had DP2 been a Marvel Studio film.
But if the Disneyl/Fox deal goes through,and Disney acquires Fox studios, it will be a different story for Deadpool 3. Disney gets to keep all the loot then.
 
I don't like Donald Trump because I think that he's an anti-intellectual buffoon.

But when people refer to him as an orangutan they are specifically talking about him resembling that ape and nobody really proposes that that person is consciously or subconsciously referring to the white race as being orangutans. Then you move to Roseanne Barr saying that Valerie Jarrett is like a cross of a Muslim and Planet of the Apes and you suddenly have something that is supposed to refer to the entire black race, or whatever racism is supposed to be.

Why can't Roseanne be talking about a specific person instead of a whole race? It seems anti-intellectual to reflexively label her as a racist without entertaining the bigger picture of the cultural trap that is set when a white person says negative things about a black person.

There really may be something like everyday racism against white people if whites have to be very careful about their words. Importantly, non-racist white people may have to be extra careful because they may live in a world of everyday racism aimed at them.
What a load of nonsense. There are any number of insults Barr could have used against Jarrett that would have had no racial or ethnic connotations whatsoever. She didn't choose any of those.

Also, why can't you accept Barr's tacit admissions that her remark was racist in nature? She's offered apologies and claimed herself that the remark is indefensible. But, I guess that won't stop others from continuing to try to defend her while claiming white victimhood.
 

Back
Top Bottom