Roseanne canceled by ABC

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Because of a racist tweet.

Oh well, she did something stupid and is paying the price.

[Millhouse]

Pretty much a straightforward thing, and dont see how anyone can defend her tweet or say ABC was wrong in cancelling the show due to it (that isnt a racist themselves).

[Nebuchadnezzar]

What would be funny is if they killed her off, say by overdosing on pain pills, and continued on with the show.

[hollodero]

(05-29-2018, 06:23 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Pretty much a straightforward thing, and dont see how anyone can defend her tweet or say ABC was wrong in cancelling the show due to it (that isnt a racist themselves).

She did apologize though. Maybe I'm too soft on that, but as soon as someone admits to wrongdoing and asks for forgiveness, I'm usually in favour of granting that.

Might be that the tweets were too much, because they were quite much indeed. I still could live with her show not being cancelled. This is also about the people that enjoy watching it.

[Belsnickel]

My thing is wondering what they expected. I mean, this wasn't at all surprising to me.

[6andcounting]

[Bengalzona]

Roseanne has always been an extremist. It's her way of getting the attention she craves. Even when she was supposedly in the Democrat/liberal camp, she was always more of a liability to the cause than an asset due to her "over the edge antics" (remember the National Anthem flop?). Ultimately, I don't think she is committed to any real cause outside of her own personal glorification. Now, she throws black people "under the bus" to get an additional 15 minutes of fame.

If it were just that, it would be easily ignored and her relegated to the Hollywood trash heap of has-been stars doing anything for attention. But in our current climate of racist renewal, this is not forgivable or forgettable. There is real harm to some in this message indirectly. Racism is not okay and it is not the "latest fad".

I am glad Wanda Sykes and ABC have seen the light.

While I did like her old TV show, I never have liked Roseanne as a person or as a celebrity. Not back in the day when I was a Republican and even less today that I am a Democrat. IMO, she is a walking fart.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(05-29-2018, 08:06 PM)TBengalzona Wrote: Roseanne has always been an extremist. It's her way of getting the attention she craves. Even when she was supposedly in the Democrat/liberal camp, she was always more of a liability to the cause than an asset due to her "over the edge antics" (remember the National Anthem flop?). Ultimately, I don't think she is committed to any real cause outside of her own personal glorification. Now, she throws black people "under the bus" to get an additional 15 minutes of fame.

If it were just that, it would be easily ignored and her relegated to the Hollywood trash heap of has-been stars doing anything for attention. But in our current climate of racist renewal, this is not forgivable or forgettable. There is real harm to some in this message indirectly. Racism is not okay and it is not the "latest fad".

I am glad Wanda Sykes and ABC have seen the light.

While I did like her old TV show, I never have liked Roseanne as a person or as a celebrity. Not back in the day when I was a Republican and even less today that I am a Democrat. IMO, she is a walking fart.

She was a Democrat, is a Democrat and always will be a Democrat...just like Donald Trump, lol. She and he just aren't as far left as most on the left these days.

[Bengalzona]

(05-29-2018, 08:54 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: She was a Democrat, is a Democrat and always will be a Democrat...just like Donald Trump, lol. She and he just aren't as far left as most on the left these days.

Now THAT is humor!

[*bfine32*]

A couple things:

The comments were not funny and absolutely should have led to her dismissal from the show

Wanda Sykes is about the last person I would look at to be the champion of PC comments.

[Belsnickel]

(05-29-2018, 09:00 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Now THAT is humor!

I think Neb is right about one thing, in that Trump and Roseanne have similar political leanings. But those leanings are more about not having any actual political ideology than anything else. Both of them are conspiracy theory pushing assholes that don't really know much of anything about politics or government.

[Bengalzona]

(05-29-2018, 09:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think Neb is right about one thing, in that Trump and Roseanne have similar political leanings. But those leanings are more about not having any actual political ideology than anything else. Both of them are conspiracy theory pushing assholes that don't really know much of anything about politics or government.

I think their political party is the "Self Party", which technically should make them like every other politician, right?

[Belsnickel]

(05-29-2018, 09:11 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I think their political party is the "Self Party", which technically should make them like every other politician, right?

Eh, I would disagree. I'm not saying they don't exist among the usual politicians, but the majority (I believe) have a viewpoint that what they are doing is best for their constituency and that is guided by a political ideology.

[Griever]

(05-29-2018, 09:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: A couple things:

The comments were not funny and absolutely should have led to her dismissal from the show

Wanda Sykes is about the last person I would look at to be the champion of PC comments.

Oh shit we agree on something

[*bfine32*]

(05-29-2018, 09:26 PM)Griever Wrote: Oh shit we agree on something

Well then, you can rest assured you are correct on this matter

[HarleyDog]

(05-29-2018, 09:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, I would disagree. I'm not saying they don't exist among the usual politicians, but the majority (I believe) have a viewpoint that what they are doing is best for their constituency and that is guided by a political ideology.

Not singling you out because (in my mind) I reply to more of your posts than others when I somehow drift over here, but I think that’s a little too passive. Anytime you vote in regards to pocket lining and special interests instead of your heart when you know the real truth which is happening in this country is a crime by human morality.

I won’t say all politicians do this because I simply can’t do that. However, I would challenge anyone to name 1. Just saying.

[*bfine32*]

(05-29-2018, 10:04 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Not singling you out because (in my mind) I reply to more of your posts than others when I somehow drift over here, but I think that’s a little too passive. Anytime you vote in regards to pocket lining and special interests instead of your heart when you know the real truth which is happening in this country is a crime by human morality.

I won’t say all politicians do this because I simply can’t do that. However, I would challenge anyone to name 1. Just saying.

I would suggest Rand Paul. Dude often goes against party/ popular opinion. Also the dude does some pro bono eye surgery to needy folks. 

My hope is folks unite and realize he offers the best compromise candidate out there. 

[Benton]

(05-29-2018, 10:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would suggest Rand Paul. Dude often goes against party/ popular opinion. Also the dude does some pro bono eye surgery to needy folks. 

My hope is folks unite and realize he offers the best compromise candidate out there. 

I was a big rand supporter up until the recent tax deal.

Cutting taxes to top earners and increasing the deficit? He’s as bad as the rest of them.

[Dill]

(05-29-2018, 10:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would suggest Rand Paul. Dude often goes against party/ popular opinion. Also the dude does some pro bono eye surgery to needy folks. 

My hope is folks unite and realize he offers the best compromise candidate out there. 

Good plagiarist too.  Better than Biden.

[Bengalzona]

(05-29-2018, 09:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, I would disagree. I'm not saying they don't exist among the usual politicians, but the majority (I believe) have a viewpoint that what they are doing is best for their constituency and that is guided by a political ideology.

The problem with the "doing what is best for your constituency" usually starts with the hubristic declaration by a politician that they themselves and their ideas "are what is best for the constituency". I'll stand by what I said about the "self party". The selection of a political ideology is usually an aftereffect of a politician making the personal choice that "they are best". This is why many politicians do not personally feel that changing parties is such a big deal.

As a result, anything that is required to put them in the highest position of power that they can attain is therefore "what is best for the constituency", as decided by... they themselves. And that usually starts with campaign funding from special interests, corporations or industries, who in turn become "what is best for the constituency".

You do see where this all goes, right?