Roseanne Barr off the air

[The Big Dog]

It's such a shame that Voltaire doesn't even know what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is called, let alone how to interpret it.

Universal! And here I am underquoting things attributed to Voltaire like a sucker..

Good catch.

“That thing he just mentioned is bogus.”

- Vinny Voltaire

 

[Giordano]

Knowingly bogus citation of “freedom of speech.”

Ladies and gentlemen, I might not agree with what you say, but by god, I will fight to the death my right to conclusively declare that a human right so fundamental that it is enshrined in the United Nations Charter of Human Rights is “bogus.”

- attributed to Voltaire.

Oh, I thought that quote was attributed to Oscar Wikde like so many others...

I hope that Voltaire was not declaring his willingness to die just so some scumbag could call another human being an abhorrent, demeaning racial insult. Somehow I always pictured this stirring declaration to refer to a defense of ideas more soul stirring and important to our civilization and to our society than slimy school yard taunts. Maybe issues and discussions that seek to bring out the best in us. Maybe a debate on Marxism vs. capitalism. Or the role of marriage in society. It is important to hear all sides in these types of discussion. The freedom to insult, threaten, debase, and demean others? Not high on my list of things to die for.

And are you certain the UN charter states that any jerk has the right to say any noxious and disgusting thing they wish and never be condemned by any other private citizen or private organization? Didn't you already state your understanding of the difference between frredom from government repercussions and freedom from other people calling a jerk a jerk?

 

[Babbylonian]

Didn't you already state your understanding of the difference between frredom from government repercussions and freedom from other people calling a jerk a jerk?

...and treating a jerk like a jerk.

 

[fuelair]

Oh, I thought that quote was attributed to Oscar Wikde* like so many others...

I hope that Voltaire was not declaring his willingness to die just so some scumbag could call another human being an abhorrent, demeaning racial insult. Somehow I always pictured this stirring declaration to refer to a defense of ideas more soul stirring and important to our civilization and to our society than slimy school yard taunts. Maybe issues and discussions that seek to bring out the best in us. Maybe a debate on Marxism vs. capitalism. Or the role of marriage in society. It is important to hear all sides in these types of discussion. The freedom to insult, threaten, debase, and demean others? Not high on my list of things to die for.

And are you certain the UN charter states that any jerk has the right to say any noxious and disgusting thing they wish and never be condemned by any other private citizen or private organization? Didn't you already state your understanding of the difference between frredom from government repercussions and freedom from other people calling a jerk a jerk?

*Did that asterisked come from Wilkdepedia????????

 

[I Am The Scum]

Knowingly bogus citation of “freedom of speech.”

If you really think that freedom of speech is being transgressed or whatever, then go ahead and tell us what you mean by the term and how you think it applies.

 

[varwoche]

Around Chicago, Valerie has a well deserved reputation as a stooge for the Iranians.

So, do you care to support this "people are saying" smear?

 

[CaptainHowdy]

It's worth to remember that white, thin-lipped Europeans in this respect (lip size) look more like apes than thick-lipped black Africans do. And white people tend to be much hairier than most other ethnic groups (Wikipedia).

So what you're saying is that comparing black people to apes isn't really as offensive as comparing White people to apes because we bear a greater resemblance to apes. So what you're saying is that Bill Maher comparing Trump to an orangutan IS actually as offensive as whatever it is that Rosanne tweeted and that Bill Maher and everybody who works on his show should lose their job. And that black people need to stop getting so angry whenever they are compared to animals. Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Yeah, we don't care if someone is horrible, just if they are breaking the current outrage of the week.

Let's pat ourselves on the back for giving Rosanne the business but be totally cool with the legions of idiots hawking **** from vaginal eggs to autism cures who are doing real direct harm. More important to punish someone for a twitter post.

And I mean why would we try that hard otherwise? No one is going to loudly praise you for that kind of activism, in fact a lot of people would be unhappy with you. And what is activism about if not being part of a group.

This is close to what I've been saying in the offline world: what would we have done to Rosanne if she had actually done something more than hurt somebody's feelings? What if her statement had any real consequences in the real world?

 

[dann]

So what you're saying is that comparing black people to apes isn't really as offensive as comparing White people to apes because we bear a greater resemblance to apes.

Is it? Really? Where do I say that?!

So what you're saying is that Bill Maher comparing Trump to an orangutan IS actually as offensive as whatever it is that Rosanne tweeted and that Bill Maher and everybody who works on his show should lose their job.

Is it?!!! That is a very impressive interpretation because I didn't know about Bill Maher's comparisons of Trump and an orangutan. Was it a particular orangutan or just any old orangutan? And where did I say anything about when or why people should lose their jobs???

And that black people need to stop getting so angry whenever they are compared to animals. Thank you for clearing that up.

And where do I say anything about when or why black people should or shouldn't get angry?
Will you please clear that up for me because I would seriously like to know.

(And if what you're doing is an attempt to emulate a Roseanne Barr Twitter rant, I would also like to know. Maybe I'm just too slow to get your joke!)

 

[Mumbles]

Yes. But it doesn't meet the criteria you gave previously.

Yeah, it does. Harm done to another person, without due cause. Don't know why you're still arguing this one, since you go on to state...

Well, no. It's still harm, even in those cases, it's just justified harm.

So that's that, then.

No, it isn't. The remote and TV are not actors in that scenario.

But the manufacturers did, which is why I didn't say that the person was suing their own television. The tv wasn't flawed in any way, it caught fire do to damage directly caused by the user. Thus, the manufacturer is not at fault (assuming there's no bizarre coincidence with an actual design flaw, of course).

 

[dann]

So what you're saying is that Bill Maher comparing Trump to an orangutan IS actually as offensive as whatever it is that Rosanne tweeted and that Bill Maher and everybody who works on his show should lose their job.

"Whatever it is that Rosanne tweeted": Don't you know what she tweeted, or are you just pretending?
Now, I know for a fact that I've haven't uttered a single syllable stating that Roseanne should (or shouldn't) lose her job, but if I had to consider it seriously - which is difficult for me since I have absolutely nothing to do with decisions like that - it would be something like this:

If it is actually true that her behavior - on Twitter and elsewhere - is due to damage of her pre-frontal cortex combined with her use of Ambien, I have to admit that I've have no experience with Ambien at all, but I once met a woman with that kind of brain damage. I'll call her X. It was on a trip abroad with a group of about 10 Danes, lasting two weeks, which made it difficult to avoid her, which most of us would probably have tried to do under other circumstances. X was 'in your face' all the time, didn't understand hints at all, extremely selfish and focused only on satisfying her own needs. The woman who had to share a room with X was desperate to get away from her. None of us had any previous knowledge of X, but she had told us that when the two weeks were up, she would be joined by a friend, and they would then travel for two weeks on their own before going back to Denmark.
We were all extremely curious about what kind of person could put up with X and spend time with her of her own volition. When she showed up, she turned out to be extremely easy-going, balanced and calm, and she had obviously learned to tackle X in a way that the rest of us couldn't. For instance, one hour before they were to leave, X stated that she wanted to do something that would postpone their departure for at least a couple of hours. She had behaved in a similar manner with the rest of us, which always made us extremely upset: 'Why the hell can't she accept what we've already agreed to do?' But the point was that X actually couldn't.
Her friend, however, didn't get angry at all. Instead, she remained very calm and told her: "Well, you can do that, of course, but you know that if you do that, I will have left when you return."
And X immediately understood. There was no argument at all! 'If I insist on doing this, it has consequences that I'm not interested in so I won't do it.'
At that point, we were all aware of the mistakes we had made when dealing with X as if she were a normal person with normal empathy and able to respond to the subtle signals that most human interaction is based on.

However, I wouldn't know how to handle a woman like Roseanne. In the case in point, a lot of legalities enter into the picture. She would probably be doing much better if she had some kind of guardian that she had to report to before carrying out any kind of decisions. She would probably also be much better off without a twitter account. (Apparently her children tried to make her stop tweeting.)
But I can see why a broadcasting company decides that it is easier to solve the problem by getting rid of her.

By the way, I enjoyed the show back in the eighties. It was refreshing in comparison to the always glib and perfect Cosby world. I haven't watched the new season.

 

[dann]

*Did that asterisked come from Wilkdepedia????????

Are you not familiar with Oscar Wikde and his many famous aphorism?

 

[cullennz]

Funny to watch from miles away the double standard with the latest one talking about Trumps daughter

And they grasping at the moral high ground from both sides

 

[Craig B]

Semantic quibbles. They took actions which have intended negative consequences to her because of her speech. That affects her free speech, regardless of whether you want to call it punishment or not.

There is no right of free speech such that nothing anyone says will have personal or professional consequences for the person saying it.

 

[Checkmite]

Whatever you do, please don't under any circumstances get Bill Maher fired. That would be an utterly devastating and irreversible blow from which progressives would certainly never recover. Please please please don't, I beg all conservatives not to pursue such a nuclear option.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Oh, I thought that quote was attributed to Oscar Wikde like so many others...

Well, as Abraham Lincoln famously said on the eve of Gettysburg "Most quotes on the internet are made up".

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Guess what:

• Personal insults address individuals. Par for the course in democracy. Worst possible outcome: a Twitter duel.
• Hate speech targets groups, using generalizations to taint entire classes of people. Worst possible outcome: pogroms and gas chambers.

Context and past statements both contribute to determining which is which. By no stretch of the imagination are the two contexts, once fleshed out, equivalent. The Fat Lady has a long, long history, a dark one, full of hate speech. On the record; irrespective of white nationalist denials and pink hanky waving. The other lady went overboard, atypically, but does not have that history. Both deserve reprimands, the first much more serious than the other, because, gosh, reasons.

Insults and hate speech ain't the same thing. You'd think them boys'd'ave figured that out by now, what with all that "exceptionalism" and "light on a hill" crap. Maybe that was all fake news?

 

[uke2se]

Guess what:

• Personal insults address individuals. Par for the course in democracy. Worst possible outcome: a Twitter duel.
• Hate speech targets groups, using generalizations to taint entire classes of people. Worst possible outcome: pogroms and gas chambers.

Context and past statements both contribute to determining which is which. By no stretch of the imagination are the two contexts, once fleshed out, equivalent. The Fat Lady has a long, long history, a dark one, full of hate speech. On the record; irrespective of white nationalist denials and pink hanky waving. The other lady went overboard, atypically, but does not have that history. Both deserve reprimands, the first much more serious than the other, because, gosh, reasons.

Insults and hate speech ain't the same thing. You'd think them boys'd'ave figured that out by now, what with all that "exceptionalism" and "light on a hill" crap. Maybe that was all fake news?

There's a benefit to failing to understand any of this: you get to cling on to a conservative world view without being wracked by guilt.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is no right of free speech such that nothing anyone says will have personal or professional consequences for the person saying it.

I didn't say there was.

 

[The Big Dog]

If you really think that freedom of speech is being transgressed or whatever, then go ahead and tell us what you mean by the term and how you think it applies.

Now, now, we was promised a lecture on it.