Roseanne Barr off the air

Hlafordlaes said:
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?
Click to expand...

Hate speech - "Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity."

"A Person"

Last time I checked the c word is a slur specific to gender
 
I should add that to some people calling one person the wrong pronoun is hate speech
 
zorro99 said:
ABC made the right call
Click to expand...

Meh. Like I keep saying, they most likely saw this coming, and used their pre-written escape plan before things got out of hand and cut into profits. They deserve no applause.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. This is wrong. To the extent that speech targeting groups can contribute to violence against those groups, speech targeting individuals can contribute to violence against individuals. So a Twitter duel is hardly the worst possible outcome. Much worse is possible, including murder.
 
As a personal, potentially erroneous, biased curiosa: One would think that academics had better tone or handle of remarks than the average blue-collar Sven. I've been around both all of my life, and while academics *can* dress up for dinner a bit better in this sense... I've rarely met more a more casually rude or insultive lot. I haven't been around celebrities as much, though perhaps it is notably because of a hubris of sorts? Self-entitlement etc? That being said, I generally preferred the company of academics, at least until I decided I didn't really prefer the company of people too often in general. :p
 
Mumbles said:
Meh. Like I keep saying, they most likely saw this coming, and used their pre-written escape plan before things got out of hand and cut into profits. They deserve no applause.
Click to expand...
I should hope they did. Racist or not, she's a nut, her saying or doing something deeply offensive to some group was practically inevitable.
 
Did I miss something? There are government actions being taken against Rosanne art because of this? No? Oh, it's just people using an unbelievably moronic interpretation of the US Constitution in order to apologize for an idiot bigot being treated like an idiot by private entities who are under no compulsion to respect "freedom of speech" from a contracted worker.
 
Ziggurat said:
To the extent that speech targeting groups can contribute to violence against those groups, speech targeting individuals can contribute to violence against individuals.
Click to expand...

Unsubstantiated assertion.
 
lomiller said:
Unsubstantiated assertion.
Click to expand...

First off, why do I need to substantiate something which is an obvious logical possibility? All one need to do to see that it's a possibility is think about it.

Second, are you really under the impression that this has never happened? That speech about an individual has never lead to violence against that individual? That would be an extraordinary assertion, and would itself require extraordinary evidence. It would be passing strange if speech could affect behavior towards groups but not towards individuals. What theory of human behavior could possibly support such a belief? It makes no sense.

Lastly, the coup de grace. A single example suffices to show that it's possible. So I refer you to the case of Matthew Apperson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom