Roseanne Returns and Leaves Again

[Pink Ranger]

If you're saying that Roseann would not have been censured about using the "C-word," you're probably correct. That said, one defense of Samantha Bee was that she was Canadian, and that *supposedly* Canadians use the term in a more flagrant manner.

Ironically, it's possible that Roseann did not know that Jarrett was of African-American ancestry. Not that comparing a Muslim-American to an ape is good either, but it's possible there would not have been as much of a firestorm.

For the record, that's completely untrue. In Canadian English, that word is as bad as it is in the U.S.

 

[terry78]

[YT]hnewjEEUs1c[/YT]

 

[Lead Cenobite]

It'll be very obvious and they'll need a reason Roseanne is gone. But saving jobs is fine by me.

She has an affair with the Wellman dude from season 9 and abandons the family.

 

[Lily Adler]

Like James Brolin would want her now.

 

[Aximili86]

For the record, that's completely untrue. In Canadian English, that word is as bad as it is in the U.S.

Plus it's not like Bee just dropped it on a whim on the spot - it was likely scripted, and it obviously got past a bunch of American editors and censors and legal before being put to air.

Not that that's in any way diminishing what Barr did, she had to be canned, out on her ass immediately. Doesn't rise to that level to me with Bee, but it was pretty *****ing bad what Bee did all the same.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Bee did nothing wrong outside of choosing the wrong word on the wrong cable network. Her point was more then correct. Ivanka is an awful person, who lie all the time, and while she is talking about how happy she is with her kid on a Sunday morning, she supports her evil father and his policy of separating kids from their own parents.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah, that is not how points work. Also, I think most of America would agree with Bee on this one. Especially after learning the facts. Which are what matter:

[YT]-nn_VCZL0ZA[/YT]

A lot more concern for children and refugees in general being treated like this because of the President, as opposed to someone using a bad word.

 

[Gold Samurai]

Sarah Gilbert and the creators pitched Darlene to ABC yesterday (or the day before). x

Roseanne is back to (re)tweeting racist and insensitive things.

She also says she's "livid" that the cast would do the show without her, and it would "fail miserably."

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Livid? Its her fault.

 

[Teelie]

It sounds like the series won't go forward easily with Roseanne throwing a fit about how they would dare to go on without her (thus saving 200 jobs she herself cost in the first place).

 

[Aximili86]

Bee did nothing wrong outside of choosing the wrong word on the wrong cable network. Her point was more then correct. Ivanka is an awful person, who lie all the time, and while she is talking about how happy she is with her kid on a Sunday morning, she supports her evil father and his policy of separating kids from their own parents.

You're so out-there with some of this stuff man, out of touch with the way most people see things. It doesn't matter what the point being made was, the second you stoop to calling someone a "****" you've lost the debate.

Exact same way Trump does when he takes his ball and goes home, or starts screaming "Fake News!" at someone, or whatever-the-hell.

She could have very easily chosen to make her point without getting down in the gutter using a woman giving her kid a kiss as an excuse to rave about "she doesn't care about families! the ****!".

She didn't, therefore she's in the wrong, it's that simple.

It's not the same thing as Roseanne, she shouldn't be fired over it. But you know damn well most people would be, on most networks, even if they'd issued an apology. At least they would up until November of 2016, when it became "anything goes, ends justifies the means!".

 

[ouroboros]

Yeah, that is not how points work. Also, I think most of America would agree with Bee on this one. Especially after learning the facts. Which are what matter:

[YT]-nn_VCZL0ZA[/YT]

A lot more concern for children and refugees in general being treated like this because of the President, as opposed to someone using a bad word.

While I would agree that there are more substantial issues afoot than bad language, bad language has been a concern in the political arena for awhile, even before Trump. Trump's vulgarity has exacerbated that concern, of course, but if the media is going to attack him on his vulgarity, then everyone's is up for examination, including that of comedians.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You're so out-there with some of this stuff man, out of touch with the way most people see things. It doesn't matter what the point being made was, the second you stoop to calling someone a "****" you've lost the debate.

Exact same way Trump does when he takes his ball and goes home, or starts screaming "Fake News!" at someone, or whatever-the-hell.

She could have very easily chosen to make her point without getting down in the gutter using a woman giving her kid a kiss as an excuse to rave about "she doesn't care about families! the ****!".

She didn't, therefore she's in the wrong, it's that simple.

It's not the same thing as Roseanne, she shouldn't be fired over it. But you know damn well most people would be, on most networks, even if they'd issued an apology. At least they would up until November of 2016, when it became "anything goes, ends justifies the means!".

I am perfectly in touch. If what you were saying is true, how is Trump President? Sam Bee is in the right and is 99% of the time. But then again, she seems to actually care about human beings and not the use of a word she has used regularly on the show since it debuted. If your concern is the use of that word and not what is happening to these children, perhaps it is an issue of proprieties.

[YT]cPAqgjqSDos[/YT]

 

[ouroboros]

I listened to Bee's quasi-apology and thought it was marked by her tendency to move goalposts and wrap herself in a sanctity she has not really earned, certainly not for saying "the c-word."

I personally would not even have minded if she'd hurled the insult at someone who was actually responsible for the current approach to immigration law (which, I understand, deals with various rulings that predate anything Trump engineered). But why did Bee decide that Ivanka, a non-political figure, was somehow implicated in current immigration policy? Ivanka functions largely as a family-figurehead. She has no power as such, she is not responsible for current immigration law or the execution thereof. But Sam Bee probably knew that she'd get no press for attacking some moldy Supreme Court Justice, and thus she went after a more high-profile target.

 

[Sithborg]

Ivanka is a political figure. She and her husband are officially advisers to the president. She has a god damn white house office. She doesn't get the same benefits that Melania, Baron, and Tiffany get.

 

[Kane52630]

that Ivanka, a non-political figure

 

[Aximili86]

I am perfectly in touch. If what you were saying is true, how is Trump President?

You do this all the time in the politics section. Trump's said a bunch of out-of-line ****, yes. And the consensus is in a better world we'd all turn on him for doing it and he'd never have been voted in, right?

So, yes, agreed. Surely if Bee's a better person than Trump (and she is), you hold her to a higher standard. If Trump's the barometer, then basically anything goes and we're all ****ed.

This is the network that broadcasts Conan and a bunch of whitebread tame family-focused sitcoms. In any other environment other than this "Trump's-the-devil-so-anything-goes-in-terms-of-opposing-him" one, nobody's keeping their job on TBS after dropping that word on-air, it's really that simple. Comedy Central would never fire someone over this, TBS sure as balls would.

But...spawn-of-satan is the target, so it's cool, right? Nice to see that moral inconsistency at play.

The chick on the Big Bang Theory over at CBS or whatever pulls this, she and her entire show are dead and buried. And that's how it should be, guy or girl doesn't matter, there's stuff you don't say on TV. Bee's just lucky she directed it at Ivanka and not some random person she doesn't like in any other context.

 

[ouroboros]

Ivanka is a political figure. She and her husband are officially advisers to the president. She has a god damn white house office. She doesn't get the same benefits that Melania, Baron, and Tiffany get.

In political terms those "adviser" posts are just featherbedding. I highly doubt that they tell Daddy anything without knowing that it's something he wants to hear.

And such faux positions definitely don't have anything to do with immigration law, so the question remains, why did Bee attack Ivanka? Why not call the Ninth Circuit Court a bunch of *****s? Because she knows her audience doesn't care about a bunch of judges.

 

[Sithborg]

Because she posted something inane about spending time with her kid when the current US policy is to forcibly separate kids from their parents, no matter what, at the border. At the same time the news about HHS losing track of 1500 migrant kids.

You don't get sent as a representative to other nations and get to use the "leave the president's kid alone".

 

[Teelie]

I listened to Bee's quasi-apology and thought it was marked by her tendency to move goalposts and wrap herself in a sanctity she has not really earned, certainly not for saying "the c-word."

I personally would not even have minded if she'd hurled the insult at someone who was actually responsible for the current approach to immigration law (which, I understand, deals with various rulings that predate anything Trump engineered). But why did Bee decide that Ivanka, a non-political figure, was somehow implicated in current immigration policy? Ivanka functions largely as a family-figurehead. She has no power as such, she is not responsible for current immigration law or the execution thereof. But Sam Bee probably knew that she'd get no press for attacking some moldy Supreme Court Justice, and thus she went after a more high-profile target.

Ivanka is a political figure. She and her husband are officially advisers to the president. She has a god damn white house office. She doesn't get the same benefits that Melania, Baron, and Tiffany get.

I don't care for Bee's pseudo-apology either but Ivanka is a political figure and the daughter of the President but political figure trumps being presidential daughter in this case and it is exactly why it was a bad idea for Trump to crony his children into positions of power and influence and why it is never done.

Ivanka is fair game. Bee went over the line and her lackluster apology/borderline insult response still could have been better. Had she called any other political figure that and made a similar pithy apology it would be no different except to defenders of the Trumps who will say Ivanka didn't deserve a smackdown for her tone deafness (which she needed, even though Bee could have restrained her "taking back" of the word to make it).

 

[Aximili86]

She's fair game for criticism, absolutely. There'd be nothing at all wrong with Bee's story, other than dropping that word.

She did, she didn't have to, therefore she's in the wrong. It's not complex.

 

[ouroboros]

Because she posted something inane about spending time with her kid when the current US policy is to forcibly separate kids from their parents, no matter what, at the border. At the same time the news about HHS losing track of 1500 migrant kids.

You don't get sent as a representative to other nations and get to use the "leave the president's kid alone".

What's inane about a parent wanting to spend time with her kid? You might want to specify what you found inane about Ivanka's post, because I'm not seeing any harm in her "cuddle pic."

If she says something that actually is inane, that's fair game. But I see that Bee was not alone in drawing an unfair correlation between Ivanka cuddling her kid and what the government has done to sequester the kids of people applying for sanctuary-- and therefore Bee knew that there was a number of non-celebrity Twitter haters who just wanted to burn Ivanka about anything.

If the argument is that Ivanka is responsible for everything that happens during Trump's reign, then does that mean that each of us is wholly responsible for the acts of those we work for? I imagine a lot of people would not think so. Possibly many people would make that responsibility a special case for examples of nepotism, which Ivanka certainly is. But that's a false line of logic.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

What's inane about a parent wanting to spend time with her kid? You might want to specify what you found inane about Ivanka's post, because I'm not seeing any harm in her "cuddle pic."

If she says something that actually is inane, that's fair game. But I see that Bee was not alone in drawing an unfair correlation between Ivanka cuddling her kid and what the government has done to sequester the kids of people applying for sanctuary-- and therefore Bee knew that there was a number of non-celebrity Twitter haters who just wanted to burn Ivanka about anything.

If the argument is that Ivanka is responsible for everything that happens during Trump's reign, then does that mean that each of us is wholly responsible for the acts of those we work for? I imagine a lot of people would not think so. Possibly many people would make that responsibility a special case for examples of nepotism, which Ivanka certainly is. But that's a false line of logic.

That is the exact point. Nothing is wrong with it. So watching her father empower someone to rip apart refugee families, while she acts like nothing is wrong and supports her awful father while she tries to act like she cares says it all.

 

[ouroboros]

She's fair game for criticism, absolutely. There'd be nothing at all wrong with Bee's story, other than dropping that word.

She did, she didn't have to, therefore she's in the wrong. It's not complex.

I personally had less problem with the "c-word" aspect of Bee's attack, even though it was stupid, than the even stupider idea of asking Ivanka to seduce her daddy and somehow making him do whatever liberals deem to be the "decent thing."

That's not wit; that's just an attempt to defame. It's on the same level as Bob Guccione printing a fake ad in which he claimed that Jerry Falwell committed incest.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I personally had less problem with the "c-word" aspect of Bee's attack, even though it was stupid, than the even stupider idea of asking Ivanka to seduce her daddy and somehow making him do whatever liberals deem to be the "decent thing."

That's not wit; that's just an attempt to defame. It's on the same level as Bob Guccione printing a fake ad in which he claimed that Jerry Falwell committed incest.

We all know Trump is attracted to his daughter. We have seen the creepy photos. This is the man who admitted he'd bang his daughter if they weren't related.