Television

Roseanne’s Racist Tweet Leads Almost Immediately to Show’s Cancellation

The show navigated a fascinating complicated world of ideological diversity. Its star was not so adept.

|

'Roseanne' cast
ABC

This morning Roseanne star Roseanne Barr crudely tweeted that Valerie Jarrett, a former aide to President Barack Obama, is like the "Muslim brotherhood and Planet of the Apes had a baby." She deleted the tweet, but it represented a line of bonkers behavior that ABC would no longer accept. By the afternoon, the president of ABC Entertainment, Channing Dungey, put out a statement that the show would not be coming back for a new season.

The Roseanne reboot's first season of ended just a week ago as a ratings hit for the network. Dungey said in the release, "Roseanne's Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show."

Roseanne has a lengthy history of outrageous statements, behavior, tweets, and conspiracy-mongering, but a statement that cannot be dismissed as anything but a racist slur no matter how hard you squint is something the network would be hard-pressed to ignore.

It's also unfortunate that her inability to show any sort of personal restraint doomed the show. I watched most (but not all) of the first season of the Roseanne reboot, and it's important to note that both Roseanne the character and Roseanne the show did not operate with the same attitude as Roseanne the real-life woman.

While both Roseannes are big supporters of President Donald Trump, the show was very thoughtful in its portrayal of a wide variety of ideological perspectives and how these family members navigated them, mostly through amusing bickering matches. Because of the show's rich history and years of character work, these political divides didn't feel like fronts; they felt lived-in and real. The conflicts played out as though they involved real people, not social-media constructs trying to score points off their eternal enemies. The show was not about which side was right and which side was wrong but how families deal with real-world problems as they move forward through their lives.

In a short review of the reboot for the July issue of Reason magazine, I wrote: "Like most of us, they live, and live through, their differences, an accomplishment the show's more ideological critics don't seem to give people much credit for." It's a shame the real-world Roseanne justified the outrage of her ideological critics. The show deserved much more thoughtful critique.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

395 responses to “Roseanne’s Racist Tweet Leads Almost Immediately to Show’s Cancellation

  1. If you do not control the forum, do not ever give them an excuse over something this kind of stupid.

  2. “Muslim brotherhood and Planet of the Apes had a baby.”

    I’m offended Roseanne was too dumb to know the Revolutionary Guards, or perhaps Hezbollah would be more appropriate here.

    1. I assumed she was drunk and confused Valerie Jarrett with Michelle Obama.

      1. wonder if O ever did…

        1. Michelle Obama, First Lady?

          Doubtful.

      2. Michelle is very attractive especially for her age while Jarrett is actually strange looking.

        1. With the lights out . . .

          1. Michelle Obama is attractive and for 54 she is very attractive. So Trump’s first wife was not nearly as attractive as Michelle at 54…which is why Trump divorced her.

      3. So brave of someone with a fake alias to say something racist like that. Why dont you say it with your real name?

        For the record, I think Roseanne shouldnt have been canceled. Maybe they could have not renewed it, but let the season play out.

      4. You are confused; Valerie Jarrett is a deadly serious (KEY) operator; hand in glove with Soros! She has an actual assigned task in the planned destruction of the USA (with destabilization as the current goal). MO is just comic relief, along for the ride, and sometimes providing cover for whoever needs it at the time, and having a role as Barry’s wife.

        1. BRILLIANT satire!
          But some here will believe it.

    2. Have you seen the Charlton Heston version? Just sayin…

      1. Jarrett is indeed strange looking but how stupid must someone be to tweet what Rosanne tweeted??

        1. I guess Trump is not the only one who does not actually read what he just wrote before sending it off into the Twitterverse.

        2. Very. And extraordinarily. The worst part is, apart from the self-inflicted probably career-ending damage done to herself, she sank the cast members as well. They will all spend the rest of their lives distancing themselves from Roseanne’s idiocy.

    3. Only real racists can see this as a racist comment.

  3. I count nine other cast members in that photo.

    One mouthy bitch cost all of them their jobs, not to mention all the production staff.

    1. The orginal premise of the show wad based on ber comedy act. The show would not have existed in the first place without her. It is the danger and reward of working with an outrageous personality.

    2. My impression was the mouthy bitch is the main draw of the show.
      Looks like ABC would rather not make money.

      1. Of course it makes more sense to beg forgiveness from anonymous groups of progtards bitching and crying on the internet.

        I’m waiting for th day when someone finally has the balls to tell them to fuck off.

        1. That guy is the president now

      2. If Roseanne did not understand the current climate, all the more reason she should know well enough to keep her alligator mouth shut.

    3. She probably owns rights to the show, meaning that couldn’t just kill off her character and keep going. Dump Roseanne Barr and you have to dump Roseanne the show.

      1. ABC would have to kill the show anyway. It has no core without her.

    4. Funny, the NETWORK could careless about those people or anyone else working on the show. A bit of off color humor and the LEFT looses it’s mind…

      1. A bit of off color humor and the LEFT looses it’s mind…

        Get an education. Start with standard English.

        Perhaps use education to try to develop some character.

        1. Funny you would say that. Being an uneducated, bigoted progtard.

          1. Take it easy… the Rev is incredibly insecure

            1. Using both a belt *and* suspenders might help with that.

    5. I’m glad not to be judged by you! You have missed the entire point!

  4. I never watched one second of this reboot, but I’m glad it’s gone now. I agreed with journalist Kurt Eichenwald’s opinion: the show should never have aired in the first place, considering those anti-Semitic photos of Roseanne putting “gingerbread people” into an oven.

    1. The photo bit was done by Jewish satirists.

    2. Judging from OpenBordersLiberal-tarian’s previous posts, I’m going to assume he actually meant “I agreed with Kurt Waldheim’s opinion about putting people into an oven”.

  5. Keith Obermann is still employed tho, right?

    1. Sort of; you have to look for him, I think. I haven’t.

      1. Last month, he filled in for Michael Wilbon on Pardon the Interruption for a few days.

        1. He was surprisingly sane. I think he may have been explicitly told to tone it down.

          1. I saw that. And he was. He seemed very humbled and self aware. It was like aliens had kidnapped him and replaced him with some kind of replicant.

            Before he lost his mind and decided to be a political comentator, Olberman was really good. That guy knows more about baseball and its history in particular than anyone on TV. Olberman and Dan Patrick made SportsCenter into an institution. ESPN has never been able to replicate what they did. I would love to see Olberman forget politics and just be a sportscaster again.

          2. Well, many psychopaths can indeed hide their insanity well from time to time.

        2. ESPN just brought him back to do a special SportsCenter, but I don’t know if it’s a one-off or an ongoing thing.

  6. I suspect the actors that played the (now grown) kids are pissed as hell that their meal ticket just got canceled.

    1. It was funny to see how much hotter fake Becky turned out compared to original Becky.

      Also, Sarah Gilbert has to go run the CIA now so she’s got something at least.

  7. It will be interesting to see what sort of offers she gets to take her show to another platform, given that these “values” ABC speaks of are normally denominated in dollars and cents in Hollywood.

    1. Will the rest of the cast follow?

    2. I doubt she owns the rights to the character.

      1. Yes she does. TV programs are made by independent production companies and then marketed to the networks in most cases. Rosanne invented the character and the show. I would be very surprised if she didn’t retain ownership in either of her deals with ABC. Remember, she was a stand up comedian before the show. Had she gave the rights to the character to ABC, she could not have gone back to doing stand up had the original show failed.

        1. The bigger issue are the other stars and the writers. It’s a team sport. You might own the ball and bat, but if the other kids don’t want to play with you, you’re not playing baseball.

          1. Yeah but they are under contract. They can quit but I bet it would cost them some money.

            1. Screen actor contracts aren’t like normal contracts is my general understanding, so yeah it would probably cost them a lot: potentially even membership in their little ‘guild’.

              Otherwise your cast and actors would have too much leverage to simply tank the entire operation halfway or three quarters of the way through shooting. They leave, they just cost you reshooting everything they were already in, or you have to rewrite to kill them off etc. and not every actors has the money to pay back the potentially millions of dollars in cost to reshoot.

              I can’t say I know the specifics, but it’s a different world in more ways than one.

    3. I would think she would get a lot and would be in a very good negotiating position since she can say the reboot is popular. If the market works as it should, that is what should happen. But, I am skeptical it will work that way. I hope it does but I will be surprised.

    4. That was initially my thought as well, but which network or service will pick her up?

  8. “..While both Roseannes are big supporters of President Donald Trump, the show was very thoughtful in its portrayal of a wide variety of ideological perspectives and how these family members navigated them, mostly through amusing bickering matches….”

    Certainly can NOT have any sit-com sympathetic to Trump.

    1. “While both Roseannes are big supporters”

      I assume that is a fat joke?

      1. It’s an IQ test. The real Rosanne and her character on the show, also named Roseanne.

    2. We hadn’t yet gotten to the episode where Roseanne has an epiphany and admits she should have voted for Hillary.

  9. It is funny how the very same people killing the NFL last week over telling their players to stop antagonizing their customers are not going to be praising ABC here. If there are any free speech issues implicated in either instance, they are implicated in this not the NFL.

    The NFL never silenced anyone. They just said that players couldn’t use their jobs as a platform to give views that antagonized their customers. Players are still free to say what they like off the job. Here, Rosanne said something in her private capacity on a forum that had nothing to do with her show. Also, no one was deprived of the ability to see a message or buy a product as a result of the NFL’s decision. You can still get the message elsewhere. The people who like Rosanne’s show and don’t care what she said can no longer watch it. Moreover, the NFL was losing money because of the protests. Here, ABC didn’t even wait to see if it would lose money and chances are it won’t. I can’t believe the people who watch this show don’t know Rosanne is a crank and will stop watching because of this.

    1. Don’t worry, chemjeff will be here in a jiffy to condemn ABC’s censorious conduct.

      If he’s not here soon, its because he volunteered to attend today’s mandatory diversity training for all Starbucks employees.

      1. No need to wait…

        John|5.29.18 @ 3:42PM|#

        …But if it doesn’t, then that is a problem. The vast majority of media content is controlled by a few companies. If it is the case that those companies can collectively run anyone they choose out of the industry and deprive audiences of the ability to see their product even though providing that product makes money, isn’t that a real threat to free expression? Yeah, you can say anything you want. But if that something offends the comparatively few people who control the major media, you will not be given a platform to do anything even if the public at large is willing to pay for it or watch it.

      2. Good Lord. My criticism of the NFL’s decision had nothing to do with so-called censorship.

        It was mostly about trying to force athletes into fake display of patriotism; the corrupt connection between the military and NFL; and the creepy submission to the government’s demand (in the form of Trump tweets) to be more patriotic.

        None of these three factors apply in this Roseanne case.

        Like with the NFL case, ABC has every right to treat its employees according to the strict letter of their contracts so long as their rights aren’t violated. If it’s contractually valid and legal for the NFL management to force its employees to stand for the National Anthem, then they have the right to do so no matter the merits, or lack thereof, of that particular decision. If it’s contractually valid and legal for ABC management to cancel Roseanne’s sitcom, they have the right to do so matter the merits, or lack thereof, of that particular decision.

        1. Just admit that on Memorial day you spent it all abusing bed ridden WW2 veterans by claiming that the holocaust didn’t happen and so their fight was in vain.

          Just admit it.

        2. If it’s contractually valid and legal for the NFL management to force its employees to stand for the National Anthem …

          NFL rules do not “force its employees to stand for the National Anthem”. The policy is:

          This season, all league and team personnel shall stand and show respect for the flag and the anthem. Personnel who choose not to stand for the anthem may stay in the locker room until after the anthem has been performed.

    2. Third time’s a charm, eh?

    3. “It is funny how the very same people killing the NFL last week over telling their players to stop antagonizing their customers are not going to be praising ABC here.”

      It’s PC culture run amok in both instances. ABC has the right to fire Roseanne but only because they assume her fans are so delicate that they won’t watch her because she said something offensive.

      I watch the NFL even though players that kneel because football is entertaining. I watched Roseanne because it was funny, and would still do so even after this if someone else picks up the show.

      1. But this situation is different because of the things I mentioned. If it were the case that keeping her would cost ABC money, then you can’t blame ABC. And no one has to watch a show. If Rosanne offended her audience, well too bad. This is only an issue if she didn’t offend her audience and ABC canceled her anyway because they can’t handle the idea of someone saying something they don’t like even away from their job.

        Even then, it is still not the same as the NFL because here Rosanne said things on her own time and in her private capacity. There, the players are insisting on using their employers’ time and platform to put out a message that alienates the NFL’s customers. Surely you can see the difference there. In both cases, no one is required to watch the product and refusing to do so is an act of free speech as well. Refusing to watch a product made by someone you can’t stand is not PC run amok. So the only way this is a problem is if it wasn’t going to effect her ratings. And my guess it that it would not have.

        1. “If it were the case that keeping her would cost ABC money, then you can’t blame ABC.”

          Both sides are all about money, and they acted in their own brand’s interest (perceived or not). The NFL perceived that their ratings drop last season was due to the kneeling controversy so they have a right to defend their brand image. ABC likely perceived that they would lose advertisements on Roseanne and possibly other shows unless they disciplined Roseanne (or maybe they were already contacted by their ad-buying customers), and they have a right to protect their brand image.

          But the reason that the NFL and ABC both felt the need to take actions are the same in my opinion. It’s all about brand image (perception or reality). In either case, the quality of the entertainment doesn’t change because of the actions of Roseanne or Kaepernick. If fans could get over their hurt feelings in either case, they’d find that they got just as much enjoyment out of watching either show after the controversy as before the controversy. But modern PC butt-hurt mentality prevents people from realizing that they can both enjoy someone’s professional act and disagree with that person’s politics. That was the point of Reason’s stance against the NFL controversy, and it applies equally here.

          1. In either case, the quality of the entertainment doesn’t change because of the actions of Roseanne or Kaepernick.

            No. The pregame show and anthem and all that is part of the entertainment you buy from the NFL. This would be analogous to the NFL case if Rosanne had said this on the show instead of on her own time. No one is saying the NFL players can’t do and say what they want on their own time.

            I understand that you have an almost compulsive need to see this as the same. You lack the honesty and the moral courage to call an issue as it is if doing so involves admitting that the left might actually be more wrong than the right. But, sometimes life doesn’t fit your narratives.

            1. Nobody watches the NFL because of the pregame. This would be analogous if Roseanne had posted her tweet in the credits at the end of the show (which nobody watches) and someone who happened to be looking for a reason to be pissed off at her read it and made a big deal out of it, just like the right wing talk shows did.

              1. Nobody watches the NFL because of the pregame.

                No one watches it for the extra points either. But the extra points are none the less a part of the game, just like the pregame show is.

                This would be analogous if Roseanne had posted her tweet in the credits at the end of the show (which nobody watches) and someone who happened to be looking for a reason to be pissed off at her read it and made a big deal out of it, just like the right wing talk shows did.

                And that is a good analogy as well. And it makes it totally different. Whether anyone watches it or not, the credits are running on ABC’s network and whatever Rosanne says in them she is using ABC’s platform to say it. That would make ABC much more justified in firing her than they are for firing her over something she said on another platform in her own time.

                1. I find it simplest to not watch the NFL at all. Saves me the trouble of distinguishing between the pre-game, game, and overtime.

                  1. I’d be OK if they just focused on the cheerleaders.

        2. “But this situation is different because of the things I mentioned.”

          Also, this situation is different because you don’t agree with the race-baiting left but you do agree with the flag-waiving right. That was Reason’s whole point in the NFL articles.

          The fact that you’re living up to Reason’s version of the hypocritical “Patriotically Correct” right wing is quite ironic, no?

          1. Just as ironic as reason finding this “justified.” After all, these aren’t conservative snowflakes this time.

          2. Also, this situation is different because you don’t agree with the race-baiting left but you do agree with the flag-waiving right. That was Reason’s whole point in the NFL articles.

            No. I don’t watch the show and think what Rosanne said was racist and offensive. And I continued to watch the NFL in spite of the protests. I personally didn’t care about the protests but certainly understand how some people would and don’t blame the NFL for catering to its customers.

            So why don’t you try telling the truth and thinking for once instead of just assuming everyone but you is just some kind of partisan. It does not persuade anyone and just makes you look stupid.

            1. I don’t think everyone is some kind of partisan tribalist. I think that you are though based on your entire body of work on this website.

              1. And you are wrong about that, as this example shows. Maybe you should learn something from this and try thinking a little harder about what I say next time instead of assuming anyone who disagrees with you must just be a tribalist. You know, try being thoughtful and learning something for once instead of just being an asshole. Just a thought.

                1. But you called the people who are making a big deal out of this “SJWs” down thread. I assume that was meant as a pejorative term.

                  Did you call the people on the right who made a big deal out of Kaepernick’s protest something pejorative as well?

                  1. But you called the people who are making a big deal out of this “SJWs” down thread. I assume that was meant as a pejorative term.

                    I think that demanding the show be canceled because of this is classic SJW. Calling Rosanne out for saying something racist is totally justified. But what does that have to do with the show? I don’t think you should judge the show by the private statements of those who make it. Judge the show by the content of it.

                    It is the same reason I don’t care what the political opinions of NFL players are. As long as they don’t bring them into the game experience, what difference should it make to me? My relationship with them is about their skill and the entertainment of watching them. And their political opinions have no relationship with that, unless they inject it into the game.

          3. The situation is different because the protests happened during the televised game, and the tweet was on her own time. That’s really, really different: Nobody would have given a bucket of warm piss if the players had knelled on their own time.

            If she’d incorporated ‘racist’ remarks into the show itself, that would have been analogous.

            By the way, I find the whole “racist” thing absurd. the tweet was insulting, not “racist”.

    4. If there are any free speech issues implicated in either instance, they are implicated in this not the NFL.

      It’s implicated in both.

      The NFL never silenced anyone.

      They’re certainly trying to stop the players from expressing themselves by kneeling during the anthem. I think that counts.

      I don’t like what ABC did and I don’t like what the NFL did. They have the right to take those actions, but I greatly prefer that companies that respect the principle of free speech.

      1. The principle deals with government only. YOUR “principle” denies the rights of employers, which is a “principle” of .. what?

        MY principle is to applaud ABC for exercising THEIR principles, regardless of what they chose to do.
        And to shame the NFL for caving in to the demands of our bully-in-chief.
        Moral courage vs moral cowardice.

  10. Assuming people still want to watch this show, and I see no reason to think they don’t, the market is supposed to solve for this by some other network picking up the show and taking the money ABC has left on the table. And maybe that will happen. If it does, then things have worked as they should. But if it doesn’t, then that is a problem. The vast majority of media content is controlled by a few companies. If it is the case that those companies can collectively run anyone they choose out of the industry and deprive audiences of the ability to see their product even though providing that product makes money, isn’t that a real threat to free expression? Yeah, you can say anything you want. But if that something offends the comparatively few people who control the major media, you will not be given a platform to do anything even if the public at large is willing to pay for it or watch it.

    1. Speaking of the NFL anthem / free speech / free expression brouhaha, Jason Whitlock just decimated Steve Kerr’s hypocritical take on the matter on Friday’s Cowherd and Whitlock show.

      1. Whitlock can be fairly smart sometimes. What did he say?

        1. I would hope he would mention it is the same policy the NBA has.

        2. He essentially was channeling his inner John.

          He said that Kerr was a hypocrite who was virtue-signaling. Whitlock made the point that the NBA’s anthem policy is more strict than the new NFL policy.

          He also made the point that Steve Kerr didn’t say anything about Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf being fined and suspended and eventually run out of the NBA for his anthem protest in 1996.

          BTW, I agreed with Whitlock’s take on Kerr.

          Both Popp and Kerr have disappointed me of late.

          1. That makes two of us. Popp turning out to be such a SJW makes me wonder if he hasn’t been a phony all along and maybe Kwai Leonard has a point for telling him and the Spurs to fuck off.

            1. With Popp, its the damn virtue signaling. I am also getting tired of his Belicheck act, too.

    2. then that is a problem

      I’m not so sure. First, that premise assumes that the cast/crew would be willing. I find that highly unlikely. Second, it premises that the cost/benefit of viewership vs. shitstorm nets out as a benefit. I find that unlikely too.

      Viewership is not the only factor in the net profit equation.

      1. If her entire cast quits on her, then that is a different story. Nothing says they have to work for someone they don’t like. But if they do not and she still can’t sell her show even though the public would watch it, I think that is something to be concerned about. I don’t know what you do about it. But it is certainly something different than the usual “no one says your employer has to like your shit” angle that describes most of these situations.

        1. “Nothing says they have to work for someone they don’t like.”

          Their contracts might, hypothetically…

        2. even though the public would watch it

          You still seem to be discounting the shitstorm. Let me rephrase…

          even though some of the public would watch it while some of the public would consistently and loudly protest it

          It’s a tall order for a content producer/distributor to want to deal with Team Outrage. And I don’t think that has anything to do with media consolidation, particularly considering the expense of producing this particular media.

          1. How many of the people protesting it watched it in the first place? I bet damn few if any. Moreover, the protests would likely increase the audience because it would make watching the show a political statement and a way to say fuck you to the protesters. Maybe this really would have killed her ratings. We will never know. But, I seriously doubt it and I wouldn’t be surprised if it would have helped them.

            1. idk…Roseanne has said some inflammatory things before, but she’s outdistanced herself here.

              ABC would have been insane to dilly-dally on this one.

              1. What evidence is there anyone who actually watched her show cares? I don’t see any. All I see is the usual SJWs throwing a fit, but they didn’t watch her show.

                1. More than likely ABC is bowing to pressure from their advertisers, not actual fans. Their fans don’t pay the bills directly.

                2. What evidence is there anyone who actually watched her show cares?

                  There’s really been no time to get a feel for that.

                3. What evidence is there anyone who actually watched her show cares? I don’t see any. All I see is the usual SJWs throwing a fit, but they didn’t watch her show.

                  “Only SJWs are offended when someone calls a black woman a monkey.”

            2. Moreover, the protests would likely increase the audience because it would make watching the show a political statement and a way to say fuck you to the protesters.

              Watching the show was ALREADY a political statement. Trump, conservative media, and Roseanne herselff made sure of that. Evidently it wasn’t enough of a benefit to ABC to offset the costs of dealing with Roseanne’s potty mouth. Why would the cost/benefit ratio change if the show moved to a different network?

              1. . Evidently it wasn’t enough of a benefit to ABC to offset the costs of dealing with Roseanne’s potty mouth. Why would the cost/benefit ratio change if the show moved to a different network?

                This is known as begging the question. The question is did ABC have sound business reasons to do this or did ABC do it because they are PC assholes who were willing to sacrifice the bottom line to enforce their PC.

                Do you understand that saying “if ABC did this, the costs of dealing with it must outweigh the benefits” is making an unsupported assertion that the answer to the question at hand is what you want it to be? Do you get that?

                I am really hard on you sometimes. But I honestly think no one had ever taught you how argument and reason work. So, let’s take this as a teaching moment and see if we can improve your thinking and argument. Now, go back and try this again. Only this time try and explain why you think the costs of this outweighed the benefits. For example, maybe people would stop watching it, though it is hard to see how ABC knows that without letting the show run and finding out. Or maybe the advertisers told ABC to cancel it or see them stop advertising altogether with the network. There are lots of sensible answers here. Try giving one.

                1. Now this is known as “you being an insufferable condescending jerk”.

                  Did you know that “costs” and “benefits” includes losses and gains other than monetary ones? Failure to live up to one’s values may be considered a cost even if there is no money involved. Conversely, adhering to one’s values may be considered a “benefit” even if there is no money involved.

                  Do you understand that saying “if ABC did this, the costs of dealing with it must outweigh the benefits” is making an unsupported assertion that the answer to the question at hand is what you want it to be?

                  Only if we take the very narrow view of costs and benefits that you take. It is true that a different network may have a different assessment of the costs and benefits. My contention is that the benefits side – politically motivated viewers flocking to Roseanne because it’s a right-wing-friendly oasis on network TV – is more or less maxed out. What more could be done to explicitly encourage conservatives to go watch it? And that was the contention that I was principally responding to, the suggestion that there was a deeper well of untapped potential viewers. I seriously doubt that.

                  1. The only thing that is going to change is the costs side of the ledger. If it goes to a different network which doesn’t care about Roseanne’s potty mouth, sure, they might have a different conception of what the costs of being anti-PC, or at least not pro-PC, are to them. For THEM it might make sense, sure. But in my view that is the only way that it could make sense. And I don’t know of a network that goes out of its way to advertise itself that it proudly doesn’t give a shit if one of its main stars makes crude racist jokes.

                    And see, John, we could have had this discussion without you being a prick about it. But, John’s gonna John I suppose.

                    1. If it goes to a different network which doesn’t care about Roseanne’s potty mouth, sure, they might have a different conception of what the costs of being anti-PC, or at least not pro-PC, are to them. For THEM it might make sense, sure. But in my view that is the only way that it could make sense. And I don’t know of a network that goes out of its way to advertise itself that it proudly doesn’t give a shit if one of its main stars makes crude racist jokes.

                      It very well may. I don’t know. If it does, then there isn’t a problem. That is how the market is supposed to work. The only issue arises if it doesn’t and an otherwise profitable and popular show is canceled because the star offended the PC sensibilities of the very few people who control most of the media content in this country. Again, you can’t understand why that would be an issue but that is only because you lack the imagination and honesty to ever see it going the other way or even understanding how it is a problem in either case.

                  2. Did you know that “costs” and “benefits” includes losses and gains other than monetary ones? Failure to live up to one’s values may be considered a cost even if there is no money involved. Conversely, adhering to one’s values may be considered a “benefit” even if there is no money involved.

                    Which is another way of saying political correctness. You are making my point here that ABC fired her because they don’t like what she said not because they had any business reason. Now, let’s take that a step further and think about what it means. If businesses are now going to hire and fire employees based upon what they say and do away from their jobs if they do things that they feel “fail to live up to the business’s values”, can’t you see where that could be a problem? What is being gay doesn’t live up to my values? Is my firing someone who is a good employee for being gay when they are off work a good thing? Don’t you see how you are endorsing employees dictating the terms of people’s private lives and how that might not end so well for freedom?

                  3. Only if we take the very narrow view of costs and benefits that you take. It is true that a different network may have a different assessment of the costs and benefits. My contention is that the benefits side – politically motivated viewers flocking to Roseanne because it’s a right-wing-friendly oasis on network TV – is more or less maxed out.

                    Maybe it is. I don’t know. Two things, however, remain true even if this is also true; the show makes money now and there is no reason to believe it won’t make money after this. So we are back to ABC canceling the show because they want to control the private speech of their employees even if doing so costs money. You don’t see the problem with that because you assume that it will always go your way. It won’t.

                    1. Well, it made money before the titular character of the show started calling disciples of Obama ‘monkey’ which, lets be honest, is likely to tank their future revenues given the amount of press this is getting.

                    2. they want to control the private speech of their employees even if doing so costs money.

                      They want to control the speech that is broadcast on their airwaves. They are not controlling the speech of private individuals on their own time.

            3. Yeah, it very well could have been like the way that same sex boycott of Chik fil a resulted in lines wrapping around the building. I’ve totally given up on getting my lunch there, the boycott has gotten so bad.

    3. The network did the smart thing before the advertising companies started pulling out. Nobody is going to touch her now. That is how the market works.

      It is not a free speech issue. She can say whatever she wants. The network can also fire her if it chooses. Same would be true for the rest of us. She knows she screwed up and apologized but too late. You can’t take back that kind of statement and the negative publicity that goes with it.

      Never understood the appeal of the show to begin with. John Goodman was good but I never thought she was funny or entertaining. She called this a “bad joke”. Pretty much sums up her career.

      1. The network did the smart thing before the advertising companies started pulling out. Nobody is going to touch her now. That is how the market works.

        Okay. But if the buying public doesn’t care about this and wants to watch her show, isn’t the market working like that evidence that something is wrong? Why would the advertisers drop out if her audience didn’t care?

        You are just telling me “sure a small group of progressive assholes can ensure that someone can’t have a show even though that show would make money but that is how the market works”. That kind of makes my point.

        1. You rephrased his words entirely, then say your own words proved your own point.

          1. No they didn’t. My words described the logical implications of his words. The question remains if this really didn’t alienate her audience, how is that the “market working” in any meaningful way?

            If you have an answer to that, give it. If you don’t then shut the fuck up and stop wasting my time making comments that have nothing to do with the discussion.

            1. “You rephrased his words entirely, then say your own words proved your own point.”

              No they didn’t. My words described the logical implications of his words.

              You did it again!

              The question remains if this really didn’t alienate her audience, how is that the “market working” in any meaningful way?

              You have no clue if her audience was alienated.
              And you’ve confused her audience with the market.

              If you have an answer to that, give it.

              I did.
              If the network was wrong, then the market will punish them. That’s how markets work.

              If you have an answer to that, give it.

              You also have no clue if the network’s audience was alienated.

        2. “Why would the advertisers drop out if her audience didn’t care?” Maybe because most advertisers also have customers who aren’t her audience? Look at all the groveling Starbucks has done, yet there seems to be (according to tv news, anyway) a bunch of people who are saying they will never buy their overpriced coffee products again no matter how much sensitivity training they do. I don’t see any mainstream consumer product coming back with “We are proud to sponsor Roseanne III.”

          1. Maybe but it is hard to see how enough people would boycott a product over it advertising to make up for the people it reaches advertising on a popular show. The left has been trying to boycott advertisers of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and such for decades and it has had zero effect. To the extent that the advertisers pulled it, it was because they are run by SJWs or execs who care more about what their friends think than the bottom line.

            1. So now you say that’s not how the market works.

              1. No, I think he’s saying “that’s not how a free market is supposed to work.

                Maybe she should start a Kickstarter to produce and stream the series independently. Bypass the networks entirely.

        3. But if the buying public doesn’t care about this and wants to watch her show, isn’t the market working like that evidence that something is wrong? Why would the advertisers drop out if her audience didn’t care?

          How many advertisers want to sell only to people who are okay with her remarks?

          1. Ones that want to make money. Jesus Christ, you are stupid. It is getting scary how dumb you are.

            1. 16 million customers nationwide? And no other targets? How many national advertisers give a darn?
              Again, you show no apparent knowledge of how markets work. And kick the shit out of anyone who disagrees with you, even slightly. Is this about how markets work, or how you work?

              1. Show me one instance where people didn’t make a purchase that they otherwise would have because a firm advertised on the wrong show?

                You are not even making sensible points here. You are just emoting.

                1. Diversion. And now you mock your own words on the relevance of her fans not being alienated!.
                  You have no clue if her audience was alienated. You’ve confused her audience with the market.
                  You also have no clue if the network’s audience was alienated.
                  If the network was wrong, then the market will punish them. That’s how markets work.

                  You’ll evade again, and change your attack again, but now I’ll ignore you.

      2. “She knows she screwed up and apologized but too late.”

        If one were to forgive her at all, the biggest problem with her initial reaction to the outrage, and then apology, was that it was entirely defensive.

        I mean, I’d be willing to suppose that Roseanne didn’t intend her comment to be racist. For all we know, she was confused about Valerie Jarrett’s ethnicity; I was for a while. Not that its okay to call people monkeys or apes at all, but people said that about George W. Bush. So, like if she came out and said right away, “Sorry, I didn’t mean to make it about race”, maybe people would be more forgiving.

        At any rate, as things stood, ABC found itself in a no-win situation if it continued with the show. Her show is about being edgy in giving “deplorables”, people who are accused of being racist but aren’t, a voice. ABC would normally be able to hold and defend that line. While Roseanne might not have intended her comments to be racist, its easy to see them that way. This creates a lot of obvious conflation between her character and her real world comments, and in defending the show ABC would look like they were defending her comments.

        (Now, if only TV networks would apply the same standards to other instances).

        1. >”If one were to forgive her at all, the biggest problem with her initial reaction to the outrage, and then apology, was that it was entirely defensive.”

          As I showed she apologized for things she did not say, and failed to apologize for what she did say

          >”For all we know, she was confused about Valerie Jarrett’s ethnicity; I was for a while. ”

          Now we know about you.

          1. Sorry, I referred to my conclusion elsewhere on the page.

            “She’s both African- American and Iranian, and Roseanne ridiculed both. Not just the racism. So her apology sucked on both, for “her politics and looks,”.neither of which were in her tweet,

            “She also assumed Jarrett is a Muslim, presumably because she was born in Iran. So Roseanne was both racist and islamophobic.”

            1. I agree with you about why the comment was bad, but I wouldn’t assume what was in Roseanne’s mind when she said it. Maybe she was surprised by the outrage because she didn’t intend to make a racial comment. Certainly, I can’t imagine she’d think ABC would let her get away with a racist comment. But if it wasn’t her intent, she could have said that right away. That was my whole point.

              If you think its obvious Roseanne meant it to be racist, you’re welcome to think that; I just don’t know.

              1. It’s so blatantly racist, you must assume she’s stupid.
                She was also Islamophibc, assuming Jarrett to be a Muslim because she was born in Iran … to US parents who were there temporarily.

                Racist and Islamophobic tweet, just like Trump.

                1. Believe it or not, I’ve seen a bunch of people say this: She looks weird as an individual, I didn’t even know what race she was, but she always reminded me of the female character in that movie.

                  As for the Muslim thing, this whole thing started when she was sent by the Obama administration to speak at the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim reformist, head of the Islamic Forum for Democracy, claimed was linked somehow with the Muslim Brootherhood, as were a lot of other non-profit Muslim organizations like CAIR. So this idea spread around the Internet, and I’m not saying everyone who spread it was pure of heart. But you can understand how someone could be misinformed about Jarrett just by reading bad information, and its a sore spot for Roseanne, because of her sensitivity to anti-Semitism.

                  Um, yea, and I do think she should have known better, and the tweet by her was pretty stupid.

      3. It is not a free speech issue. She can say whatever she wants. The network can also fire her if it chooses. Same would be true for the rest of us.

        Well, the same is not true for Valerie Jarrett, who has been protected by a wall of political connections, public sector jobs, and privilege. Try getting her fired from her sinecures.

        1. It’s the conspiracy between the Deep State, George Soros and Hillary Clinton

  11. Fox Network, line 1…

  12. Let me pop some popcorn before digging into the comments.

  13. Its not illegal to be racist, but close enough

    1. It’s more of a double edged sword.

    2. It is the most unpardonable of sins nowadays. There are thieves and rapists out there still collecting fat paychecks and nobody gives a shit.

      1. Which means it will at some point in the future be a method of subverting authority and acting out.

      2. nowadays

        It seems like more of a long-term and standing fixture. Even at a relative bastion of liberty and by one of the more silver-tongued authors, great pains are made to make sure that it’s clear that this wasn’t your average, run-of-the-mill racist comment, but one deserving of a career/production-ending. God, I’m starting to feel like OBL.

      3. There are thieves and rapists out there still collecting fat paychecks and nobody gives a shit.

        Be patient, I’m sure #MeToo hasn’t gotten through the entire swath of Hollywood degeneracy yet.

  14. Planet of the apes? They were highly intelligent–especially the scientists. That’s a compliment.
    Just can’t give people a compliment anymore!

    1. David Letterman called Sarah Palin’s daughter a whore in so many words. At least Jerrett is a public figure and not just the kid of one. And I don’t see how calling someone an ape is any worse than calling them a whore. But if Progs didn’t have double standards they would have no standards at all.

      1. Not just Palin.

        CNN: South Carolina Democrat calls SC Governor Nikki Haley a whore

        Quote:
        The Democrat, Vincent Sheheen, made the comment at a campaign event late last week in Florence. In the midst of attacking Haley’s education record, Sheheen stumbled over his words and told the crowd, “We are going to escort whore out the door.”
        The slip-of-the-tongue was clearly accidental, and Sheheen immediately corrected himself, saying, “We’re going to escort her out the door.” But when some in the audience picked up on the verbal faux pas and started applauding, Sheheen grinned and laughed along with people in the crowd. Video of the event went viral.

      2. Hmmm, Bill Maher. Hell, Michelle Wolf.

        Ted Cruz’s daughters compared to organ grinder monkeys.

        And I seem to recall Bush 2 frequently compared to a chimp.

        Yet this is beyond the pale? *shrug*

        1. Remember also Wanda Sykes – who loudly proclaimed she would not return to the show this morning before it was cancelled – publicly called Trump an orangutan.

      3. Well, where was the conservative David Hogg to scream “boycott” at Letterman’s advertisers

      4. Good point.

        Add to that the notion that we all evolved from apes–you can say we’re all children of apes. Don’t progressives believe in evolution anymore?

        1. Homo sapiens taxonomic classification is under “apes”.

      5. “David Letterman called Sarah Palin’s daughter a whore in so many words.”

        To clarify, what John means to say is that Letterman did not call Palin’s daughter a whore.

        1. No. He called her that. In so many words.

          Sarah Palin went to a Yankees game yesterday. There was one awkward moment during the seventh-inning stretch: her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.

          http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes……alin-joke/

          So in other words, you are just making shit up.

          1. “So in other words, you are just making shit up.”

            So in other words, he didn’t call her a whore. Thanks for clearing that up.

            1. He said she would get knocked up by a stranger. That is a whore you fuckwit

              1. “That is a whore you fuckwit”

                Wrong. That is not a whore. It is a whore in so many words.

  15. But what about celebrating our diversity with pretty rainbows and the unicorns?

  16. She should have just used the “it’s comedy” excuse like the misogynistic, blackface-wearing Jimmy Kimmel did.

  17. I blame Trump for giving racists and Nazis encouragement in thinking they are free to express their repugnant opinions in polite company.

    1. You should. Racists and Nazis certainly do.

      1. What are you doing hanging out with avowed Racists and Nazis?

        1. You almost can’t help it anymore. They are running the streets in packs.

    2. I thought she worked in Hollywood, not polite company.

  18. She should have known that you can only get away with that sort of joke in Hollywood if it’s at the expense of a conservative.

    Can’t say anything she’s ever done was much to my taste, but didn’t she realize they had to be looking for an excuse to cancel the show, given its politics?

    1. The bar is much higher of a conservative being insulted.
      You have to do a Kathy Griffin and hint at beheading someone to get canned. Mere insults don’t do it.

  19. This thread has me thinking of authoring an authoritative account of the Progressive selective war on free speech and free expression. The working title, “From Garret to Jarrett.”

    Those of you conversant with NFL history, in general, and MNF and Howard Cosell, in particular, know from Garrett. During the MNF broadcast of the opening game of the season between the Cowboys and the Redskins, Cosell said of the Redskins’ WR, Alvin Jarrett, that “Joe Gibbs wanted that kid, and that little monkey gets loose doesn’t he?”

    The Progressive police attacked Cosell. There were many SJW types, including so-called civil rights leaders, who demanded an apology. Some, like the Rev. Joseph Lowery, accused Cosell of employing racist language. Cosell steadfastly refused to apologize and noted his stalwart advocacy for, and defense of, civil rights.

    Alvin Garret is black. Cosell had used similar language to describe Mike Adamele of the Kansas City Chiefs in 1972. Adamele is white.

    1. The sorry thing about that whole episode is that no one in the media did more to promote the black athlete and black equality in sports than Cosell. Cosell had been in the public spotlight for nearly 30 years at that point and there had never been any evidence that he had a racist bone in his body. And there is no way he meant what he said to be racist. But, that didn’t save him. The truth and the virtue of the person being destroyed can never stand in the way of people virtue signaling and hatred of the evil racist.

      1. You’re such a bitch Johnny. Always crying about social justice. What does that make you?

        1. Hi Sparky.

          1. *facepalm*

        2. Go fuck yourself. And dream on I am your bitch or that it isn’t obvious what a catcher you are.

        3. The personification of irony?

          1. Yes Chipper I never seem to tire of making points you don’t like but can’t really refute. I am just a bitch that way. At some point, I would think you and sparky would get tired of being stupid. God, knows I will never get tired of picking on you about it.

            1. *double facepalm*

              1. That is highly intelligent. Thanks for adding that as Mike and I try to have an actual conversation. You are an asshole sparky. You don’t need to prove it every single day. You have the asshole badge. No one is going to take it from you.

      2. Cosell may have been a bombastic, pompous, self-centered narcissist, but he was truly a champion of the black athlete in so many ways.

        1. He really was. It was pretty amazing that an old school lifetime liberal could be run out that quickly. All that good work he did bought him exactly zero benefit of the doubt. I never liked Cosell but you don’t have to like the guy to see how grossly unfair all that was.

          1. Sometimes, he annoyed me.

            However, writ large, I can’t ignore how much enjoyment I derived from him in my childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood. First and foremost, MNF, which included everything from his jousting with Dandy Don and Gifford to the half-time highlights delivered in his inimitable fashion to how, against type, he deferred to Gifford on the night John Lennon was killed.

            1. Then we have his chemistry with Ali. Although he adored Ali, he didn’t hesitate to be critical of him, whether it was the manner in which he fought a particular about or the decision to fight Foreman.

              His ABC Sports beat commentary was a blast.

            2. The one thing I liked about Cosell is that he didn’t have his nose planted up the athletes he covered and was willing to be critical. That is very rare today.

          2. It’s not amazing, it’s to be expected.

            In-group policing. You set a boundary around your group, and DESTROY anybody who approaches it, to keep everybody huddled together in the center.

            But if nobody gets destroyed, after a while people stop fearing the boundary, and start entertaining heretical thoughts. So, if nobody is getting destroyed, you pull the boundary in a bit, to catch some people who weren’t expecting it to move. That keeps people afraid of the boundary, and even further from it, because they can’t be sure where it is.

            “The revolution eats its own.” And it does so for a reason.

            1. Now they’re saying it’s Politically Correctness that moves the boundary past saying an African American woman was conceived by an ape.

              That’s shows, quite clearly, where your own boundaries are

            2. So, by your values, it’s okay to say an African American woman. IS an ape.
              How large is your Klavern?

    2. The AJC’s cartoonist Mike Luckovich always drew Bush as a chimpanzee-looking doofus with the jug ears sticking out. Guess how many times he ever drew jug-eared Obama as a chimpanzee-looking doofus?

      1. They ruined the career of a rodeo clown in Missouri who wore an Obama mask.

      2. Guess how many times he ever drew jug-eared Obama as a chimpanzee-looking doofus?

        Several hundred times doofus.

        He’s a cartoonist. He draws everyone that way.

        This one is just the most humiliating to you Bush and Obama, side by side. Compare the same style on both

        Several hundred google search results

        Shameful.

    3. Gareth Bale looks like a monkey.
      Is that racist?
      Gareth Bale is a pale Welshman

      1. He did it here, doofus.

        And here.

        And hundreds more. He’s a cartoonist. He draws everyone that way.

        Here are the RESULTS of a search for his work. Several hundred.
        Is there no limit to how low you conspiracy freaks can sink into the gutter.

      2. She said Jarrett IS a monkey. That’s what happens when monkeys conceive. Their children are called monkeys
        And you’ve just shown us what you are.

        1. So you don’t know who Gareth Bale is.

          1. Repeat.
            She said Jarrett IS a monkey. That’s what happens when monkeys conceive. Their children are called monkeys And you’ve just shown us what you are

        2. You’re also being speciesist- apes are not monkeys.
          Soooooo much ignorance

  20. Now that ABC has a programing slot open, maybe they should approach Kanye about developing a sitcom.

    1. Too Many Kanyes

    2. It could be a show about Kanyesian economics.

    3. Too Close For Kanye.

      Jm J Bullock needs the work.

  21. Listen, people, it’s not that hard:

    Elect a game show host president, you get a game show host president.
    Hire a known crazy person to reboot her show, you get a known crazy person.
    Allow anybody, including non-customers, to hang around your coffee shop chain, you get masturbating hobos taking over tables and people doing meth in your bathroom

    This isn’t tough to understand.

    1. I can agree with this.

    2. But how do we get a masturbating hobo president? Cause I could live with that.

      1. We’re going to have to somehow improve the quality of our candidates to get there.

  22. So was there meaning to the Planet of the Apes part that I’m missing or was it just racism?

    1. It was just racism. She said Jerrett was Muslim Brotherhood meets Planet of the Apes. She called her an ape. I guess you could say that calling her an ape wasn’t racist since the left calls white people apes all of the time, but that is pretty thin gruel. It was racist as hell. I don’t see how you can deny that.

      1. Countries have their own cultural verbotens.
        You can show swastikas in the US but not in most areas of Europe.
        You can’t insult Mohammed (PB&J) in Arab countries.
        You gotta watch what you say or how you depict blacks in the US.
        Among other things.
        I get it.

      2. It was racist as hell for a definition of “racist” that’s growing to encompass so much of life that soon everything will be racist.

        What it was, was an insult. Insults aren’t, by definition, complementary.

      3. It was racist as hell. I don’t see how you can deny that.

        I’m not sure what definition of “racism” that meets. I mean, it can’t really have referred to Jarrett’s black skin or African American features since Jarrett looks pretty much like the average white American grandma.

        1. That says all we need to know about your moral values. She said that Jarrett was conceived by an ape.
          When you say “nigger” as I’m sure you often do, you think a light-skinned African-American should not be offended.

          Jarrett’s father is black,. Does your mother fuck apes?

  23. So, having never watched either version of Roseanne I do have a question: that little black girl in the middle of the all-white cast, what is she doing there?

    Is this yet another reboot that has to shoe-horn in an adopted daughter of another race to questionably and poorly insert some notion of ‘diversity’ into a franchise that didn’t have the right melanin in it’s original cast?

    Also, bonus question, is the fact that it’s almost always a daughter just to get double-service of the single inelegantly inserted minority?

    *cough* Lost in Space on Netflix *cough*

    1. that little black girl in the middle of the all-white cast, what is she doing there?

      The son’s wife is a black woman serving in the military overseas. The little black girl is their daughter.

      Yes, it’s still a shoehorn.

      1. In terms of how well these things are usually done, that is actually an improvement other than it’s still easier to televise two white men kissing than it is to have a meaningful bi-racial relationship on TV. Go figure.

        I’m just a little over the obvious racial shoehorn in the nostalgia genre. It’s absurd from a story point of view and it’s usually so poorly done that it becomes almost racist in the same way a lot of horror / thriller plotlines have the token black guy / gal who’s there purely for a few reaction shots and a grisly end.

        1. FWIW the little girl had maybe three speaking lines in 10 episodes. Her race was not commented upon at all that I can remember. She didn’t get a “very special episode”.

          The little boy who dressed up like a little girl, OTOH…

          1. With shoehorned in minorities into otherwise nostalgia-reliant shows, you won’t find them purposefully drawing attention to these background characters OR sometimes they’ll be depicted as hyper-competent to the point of utter implausibility. Sort of like how every gay character on TV for a while was just insanely good at whatever it was they were doing. The writers over-compensate, it seems, no matter the issue.

            I like how in the rebooted Lost in Space the adopted minority daughter was almost super human while everyone else was lucky not to cut their own heads off with a pair of scissors. Of course, I’d be doing that show a disservice by saying that was it’s biggest problem.

            1. Ah, so I made the right decision not to watch it.

    2. Is this yet another reboot that has to shoe-horn in an adopted daughter of another race to questionably and poorly insert some notion of ‘diversity’ into a franchise that didn’t have the right melanin in it’s original cast?

      Weird that you aren’t a Roseanne fan.

      1. I’m not the one that invented the ‘nostalgia reboot of a show must include a shoehorned in person of color without a character or backstory’ trope, you’re probably thinking of the white Jewish writers in Hollywood that cynically make this move to actively avoid criticisms of their rebooted material as being ‘too white’ even though that is the source material they’re rebooting. Sort of like how Disney keeps saying they’re going to hire a POC director but then they keep going with an old white guy. It’s pabulum for the masses.

        I would find it just as odd if, say, they rebooted The Cosby Show only one of the daughters is a white adopted girl. The sad thing is that I think this trope is as specific as it is because Hollywood is still desperately trying to avoid biracial couples on-screen, and doubly trying to avoid intimate relations on-screen between what bi-racial couples that already exist. A more relatable rewrite would simply make the couple biracial, no further explanation needed. That is by far more common and relatable than adopting a kid of another race, not that there’s anything wrong with either.

        Not to say that everything follows those models, merely that it’s an observable trend to the point where it is an actual trope.

        1. you’re probably thinking of the white Jewish writers in Hollywood

          Weird that you aren’t a Roseanne fan.

          1. Judging from your knowledge of the show and its fans, you seem to be a big fan of it there Hail. Good for you. I don’t really go for lowbrow entertainment. But, it is good that you can find things that speak to you on a level you can understand.

          2. I like how stating things that are widely accepted criticisms of Hollywood somehow become racist when uttered by ‘the wrong people’.

        2. white Jewish writers

          Are those African Jews Israel keeps kicking out turning up as Hollywood screenwriters?

          1. I guess that’s redundant, but my inclusion of ‘white’ in ‘white jewish’ is to illustrate that these are people who likely don’t have much of a clue about how to write a young black girl so their constant inclusion of a poorly thought out character of a particular archetype is…curious. About as curious as the previously mentioned inclusion of minority characters in teen thrillers who are there for a few reaction shots and a grisly murder.

            It’s ‘diversity’ only in the most shallow possible way, and it’s specifically a problem for things that are designed for mass appeal. Go figure. I just find it an oddity of pop culture.

            1. but my inclusion of ‘white’ in ‘white jewish’ is to illustrate that these are people who likely don’t have much of a clue about how to write a young black girl

              At the risk of being pedantic, adding “white” has the opposite effect …

              1. But you make it opposite once again if you make it clear that this young black girl is herself Jewish.

                1. But you make it opposite once again if you make it clear that this young black girl is herself Jewish.

                  whoa

                  1. “whoa”

                    You’re right. Half Jewish is enough.

            2. “It’s ‘diversity’ only in the most shallow possible way, and it’s specifically a problem for things that are designed for mass appeal.”

              Not true. The video game Grand Theft Auto has one cast as a native African American, and you’re put in the position of choosing what kind of afro hair style to sport etc. That is deep diversity in my books and it’s aimed at massive appeal.

  24. Free speach has it’s consequences. A bad joke with racist content blew her show out of existence. Wow!! Tough luck Roseanne, but this is a lesson to learn from freedom. You can say whatever you want, but the market has no feelings and it’s relentless. In spite of good prospects ABC took a business decision and cancelled the show. PC? Of course!! Learn your lesson and move on!! On the other hand, Starbucks is crazy! Police racial profiling in not their problem. They should denounce it but not change thei policy. Oversensitive to PC and market value of their stock. Lets see how this goes from here and their toilets. Ha, ha, ha,

  25. I didn’t realize that St. Obama’s associates were untouchable.

    1. That’s right! Saying “racist jokes are not acceptable” is exactly the same as saying “no criticism at all is allowed”!

  26. Roseanne’s Racist Tweet

    I know that many people would take it as racist, but I actually seriously doubt it was intended as such.

    1. As comedy it was a fail, so…..

    2. How was it intended then? Seriously what was the joke? I get the Muslim Brotherhood part, but what is the “meets the Planet of the Apes” supposed to mean? What is the nonracist interpretation of it? Maybe I am missing it but I don’t see any other interpretation than she was calling Jerrett an ape. And how can calling a black woman an ape not be racist given the history of such things?

      Maybe you are right. But I would love to hear a benign interpretation.

      1. but what is the “meets the Planet of the Apes” supposed to mean?

        If it was said about any non-black person, most would take it to mean that she’s ugly. It was just childishly calling her ugly and that’s all it was.

        And how can calling a black woman an ape not be racist given the history of such things?

        Like I said, most will take it as racist despite how it may have been intended. This is because they (and you?) see black people as being closer to apes than other races. When you really believe such things, you can’t say them out loud because you think others will know your true racist thoughts. So when they see anyone else saying it, they have to prove how not racist they are and point and scream at the offender. It’s kind of like preachers and conservative politicians railing all day every day against the gays while secretly sucking dick in truck stop restrooms.

        1. This is because they (and you?) see black people as being closer to apes than other races.

          This is so fucking stupid. Have you ever talked to a liberal? Sure, they have some weird race hangups, but believing in the equality of the races is literally their religion.

          1. No, believing in the equality of the races isn’t their religion the equality of outcomes for the various races is their religion. If equality was their goal, racial quotas wouldn’t have been a thing unless you think you can force equality on people by just breaking a few fingers here and there.

            1. No, believing in the equality of the races isn’t their religion the equality of outcomes for the various races is their religion.

              Liberals believe that races are literally just people with different skin and hair. Therefore, substantial differences in outcomes is proof of racism, the same way we’d assume something must be up if redheads and blondes had substantially different outcomes. So when “racism” is almost entirely removed and the differences barely change, the new thing is something invisible – “systemic racism” – instead of Occam’s Razor.

          2. “Have you ever talked to a liberal? Sure, they have some weird race hangups, but believing in the equality of the races is literally their religion.”

            Bullshit.
            They believe other races are inherently inferior, like the noble savage. They believe in patronizing and “helping up” their pet of tolerance. They believe that this approach, which specifies skin color or ethnicity as an individuals defining trait, and their crusade against “racists” will hide – even to themselves- their true discomfort with people of other colors or ethnicities.
            It is a combination of traditional racism and white guilt, leading to virtually constant projection.

            *that is if you mean ‘liberal’ in the current colloquial sense – democrat/progressive/leftist – rather than the technical sense of one who believes in individual liberty

            1. See my response above.

              * yes, that’s what i mean

              1. So you are using ‘liberals’ in the colloquial sense?

                If so, I completely disagree that defining people according to color – which is what leftists do – can be described as other than racist, no matter the lip service they give to people as just people.
                The superficial is prime to progressives, thus cosmetic differences are most meaningful.
                I judge them based on their true beliefs, revealed through action, rather than their proclamations.

                1. I’m not talking about social media virtue signalling. I’m talking about having deep conversations for 25 years about race with liberals. To them there is a very simple logic: Everyone is the same. Race is only skin deep. Therefore when we see significant differences in outcomes, some thing is to blame.

                  can be described as other than racist

                  I never said that. I have zero interest in what “can be described as racist.

                  The superficial is prime to progressives, thus cosmetic differences are most meaningful.

                  I don’t disagree with this, but it’s orthogonal to my point: “believing in the equality of the races is literally their religion.”

                  1. My contention is that they do not truly believe in the equality of races, other than perhaps in a desperate but equal sense.
                    They may want to believe in equality, but they don’t.
                    However, lending support to your argument, the prevalence of nurture over nature and an inherently passive capability of the individual makes up the bulk of their perspective. Then again, this changes when they regard enemies as evil.
                    Ultimately, progressivism – both ideologically and cognitively – is composed of inconsistencies. This is why nervous breakdown is inevitable, and why I look to where consistency can be found in progressivism: psychologically.

                    1. *separate, not desperate (but maybe a not unfortunate typo)

        2. I see your point Juice. And I think your right about the assumption that you can never call a black person an ape being racist as hell when you think about it. That said, the meaning of a statement is as much about perception as reality. You and I may see that as not being racist, but pretty much everyone else in society disagrees. So, I don’t see how you can do it without meaning it to be racist. You have to know how it is going to be taken. Especially in this sense where the connection is not immediately obvious, unlike say the Cosell thing above where the player was running around like a little monkey and the word described what was going on during the broadcast.

          1. Especially in this sense where the connection is not immediately obvious

            oh?

            1. I mean the nonracist connection. I agree with you Sidd. I don’t see how you can say this wasn’t racist.

              1. That is the nonracist connection. She literally looks like a character from Planet of the Apes.

                1. I don’t know what she was thinking. But there is an obvious explanation beyond “all black people look like monkeys.”

                2. She does at that.

                3. I think it’s similar to how some commenters used to compare Michelle to Chewbacca. It was mean, but I don’t think it was supposed to be racist…just about her appearance

                  1. I don’t think it was supposed to be racist

                    If you insult a black person, you’re manifestly racist.

            2. Shit, that’s the woman in question? I guess I assumed she was, you know, black.

            3. Wow. Maybe this wasn’t racism after all? I had never seen that character before.

        3. This is because they (and you?) see black people as being closer to apes than other races.

          Roseanne didn’t say “black people are apes” (racist generalization), she said “Jarrett is an ape” (individual insult).

      2. And how can calling a black woman an ape not be racist given the history of such things?

        How is Jarrett a “black woman”? She identifies black, but looks white.

        1. She doesn’t “identify,” she IS African-American.
          How deep is your gutter

  27. It is obviously rude to compare someone to the Muslim Brotherhood or a movie ape but I don’t get the “racist” interpretation. Islam is not a race, neither is futuristic intelligent ape creature

    1. Calling W a chimp was obviously racist. Right?

    2. So then it wasn’t even funny?

    3. “It is obviously rude to compare someone to the Muslim Brotherhood ”

      How is this rude? The MB is a powerful political force in the Middle East and America has been working with them on and off since their inception, going back generations, if memory serves. MB members are part of the anti Assad forces fighting in Syria, given US support by Obama and Trump.

      1. How is this rude?

        Easy for you nazis to say.

        1. It should be easy for anyone to say. It’s a simple question, after all.

          1. Only a nazi would consider it rude, in this context. Admit it.

  28. So… collective punishment of all the other show employees?

    Hurray for human decency?

    1. To be fair, it’s called Roseanne, not “Nameless White Trash”

  29. Why should a (racist) insult directed at a politician doom an entire show?

  30. ValJar was responsible for helping Obama craft a policy of assassination of US citizens without trial. Her appearance is really not her biggest problem.

  31. Just for the record, not all of the cast in the planet of the apes series were apes. There were humans, apes, monkeys, gorillas, and orangutans. As far as I know, their religion was not specified, so maybe they were Muslim.

    1. They worshiped The Lawgiver. Prolly cuz he could fling his feces the farthest and with the most accuracy.

  32. “It’s important to note that both Roseanne the character and Roseanne the show did not operate with the same attitude as Roseanne the real-life woman.”

    One possibility that hasn’t been considered: it may be that some people don’t equate their their own outrageous statements with actual discrimination–because they sane.

    Maybe it’s the people who equate outrageous statements with actual discrimination who have completely lost their minds.

    For those of you who haven’t woken up to smell the coffee yet, the new of era of cultural norms that were ushered in during the Obama era were a figment of your imagination. Nothing substantively changed–certainly not the difference between outrageous speech and actual discrimination–and, oh, by the way? The Obama era is over. Trump is in office now in no small part because the American people are sick to death of social justice warriors who can’t tell the difference between outrageous speech and actual discrimination.

    1. One possibility that hasn’t been considered: it may be that some people don’t equate their their own outrageous statements with actual discrimination–because they sane.

      That is crazy talk Ken. It is just crazy talk.

      1. If people believe that tweeting something outrageous is the same things as actually discriminating against black people, they should say so–instead of just hiding behind the assumption.

        1. It goes back to this society becoming primitive and believing in words having magic powers. They assume someone who says something racist would actually do something racist because the words themselves are assumed to have a magic power over reality.

          1. I think it’s supportive of snowflake fundamentals.

            Aren’t snowflakes by definition people who think anything that hurts their feelings isn’t free speech?

            There might be about 300 million Americans out there who don’t buy that. They make distasteful and maybe even racist statements among themselves, on the one hand, but, on the other hand, they would be angry if the government discriminated against people on the basis of race, etc.

            Roseanne might just be one of those 300 million ordinary Americans.

            I think it’s the snowflakes who can’t tell the difference between a tweet and discrimination who are the weirdos.

            I’m not even sure it’s safe to say that an outrageous tweet is even supportive of discrimination. It’s possible to believe something–and also think that it shouldn’t necessarily be acted upon by government. Libertarians are supposed to understand that.

    2. “Trump is in office now in no small part because the American people are sick to death of social justice warriors who can’t tell the difference between outrageous speech and actual discrimination.”

      Trump is a New York liberal. The American people are gonna hafta do better than Trump if they wish to keep their African American brothers and sisters in their place.

      1. How is this related to what you quoted?

        Any way at all?

        Just looking for attention again?

        1. Need you ask? Actually Ken, you’re one of the very few here I make it a point to read, or at least skim. My responses are not necessarily related to anything you’ve written, but serve as a spring board to other ideas floating about.

      2. “The American people are gonna hafta do better than Trump if they wish to keep their African American brothers and sisters in their place.”

        Maybe by declaring a war on poverty, setting up generational dependence programs, financially encouraging single motherhood, propagating the idea of skin color as determinative, undercutting the idea of individual agency and values, portraying a “community” based on color as unable to achieve anything without help from a party and/or govt (necessity of external charity), and relating all events back to Jim Crow and slavery? Oh, and attributing all negative actions and conditions to literally inescapable and omnipresent racism?

        1. “Maybe by declaring a war on poverty,…”

          None of these half measures are enough. If you want to put African Americans back in their place, you’re gonna hafta do better than Trump or his predecessors.

          1. We should go back to hanging all niggers?

            1. Tell us how you really feel Hihn.

              1. I’m not a Hihn. Are you another blatant racist wanting to put African Americans back in their place? (aka uppity niggers)

  33. Roseanne’s Racist Tweet

    Username available.

  34. C’mon, she’s a comedian. . . it was funny.

    1. Yep. Your own mother is a chimpanzee. What’s that make you? How many bananas did you eat yesterday

  35. I can somewhat see how someone may suspect this comment to be racist, but it leaves a huge amount of room for interpretation; far too much to assume a racist intent. Will free speech ever come back?

    1. She was also Islamophobic. Do you not know that free speech is a limitation on government? Do you defend the free-speech rights of kneeling NFL players?

      1. Islamophobic? LMAO.

        1. She falsely assumed Jarrett was Muslim, and then linked her to the Muslim Brotherhood.
          But you nazis are fine with that, right?

        2. Personally, I’m rabid dog phobic. And wasp nest phobic. But God forbid anybody be Muslim Brotherhood phobic, that’s just too irrational…

          1. Genius says HE is phobic.

      2. Do you not know that free speech is a limitation on government?

        You mean the government that grants these corporations monopolies in exchange for conforming to governmental speech rules and rules of conduct? That government?

        1. Another inconvenient question for ya, bubba?

    2. The bosses can shit-can you if you say something that’s gonna hurt their bottom line. That’s freedom.

  36. You gotta admit: monkeys are pretty creepy.

    Fast, too.

    Creepy AND fast: never trust a monkey.

  37. If only she had said that Ivanka was like the NRA and Birth of a Nation had a baby it would have been fine.
    Iranians are also a protected class??
    Every one is entitled to an opinion, only some must keep their opinions to them selves or be persecuted.
    By the standards used here every late night tv show should be cancelled!!!

  38. Jarrett is white. How is the tweet racist?

    1. “Jarrett was born in Shiraz, Iran,[1] during the Pahlavi dynasty, to American parents James E. Bowman and Barbara T. Bowman. One of her maternal great-grandfathers, Robert Robinson Taylor, was an architect who was the first accredited African American architect, and the first African American student enrolled at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[4]” Her father is African American and her mother is one fourth African American;

      She’s both African- American and Iranian, and Roseanne ridiculed both. Not just the racism. So her apology sucked on both, for “her politics and looks,”.neither of which were in her tweet,

      She also assumed Jarrett is a Muslim, presumably because she was born in Iran. So Roseanne was both racist and islamophobic.

      1. This is so current year it hurts. Where to begin? I guess with how the fuck does being born in Iran make someone Iranian?

        1. Where to begin?

          By reading!

          “She also assumed Jarrett is a Muslim, presumably because she was born in Iran. So Roseanne was both racist and islamophobic.”

          1. Huh?

            She’s both African- American and Iranian

            How does being born in Iran make her Iranian?

            1. I?ra?ni?an
              [i?r?n??n, i?r?n??n]
              ADJECTIVE
              relating to Iran or its people.
              NOUN
              a native or inhabitant of Iran, or a person of Iranian descent.

              na?tive
              [?n?div]
              NOUN
              a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not.

              Still confused?

              1. Yes.

                From your quote: “Jarrett was born in Shiraz…to American parents James E. Bowman and Barbara T. Bowman.”

                How is she a “native” of Iran if both her parents are American and she only lived there a few years?

                1. Now you lie about my words, delete “Iran” where she was born
                  And you somehow cannot grasp the definition of “native” I even gave you.
                  Thus, this issue is beyond your levels of both intelligence and honesty.

                  1. I was wrong about the ‘current year’ thing. You’re just insane.

                    1. The thread is visible proof of your lie.

                    2. Not insane, Hihnsane.

      2. She’s both African- American

        Jarrett has African American ancestors; she is objectively white in both skin color and appearance.

        1. How does that make her the daughter of an ape?

      3. She’s both African- American

        She has African American ancestors and identifies as black. Objectively, she is white both in appearance and skin color.

        1. How does that make her the daughter of the ape?

          Her FATHER is African- American. So is her mother. That makes HER African American?

          So we can add liar to your own shameful bigotry

  39. What the hell did ABC think it was buying in the first place ?
    And snowflakery ? In spades .

  40. If you shave an ape, it ain’t black. This is indeed the planet of the apes. Underestimated little bastards.

    1. Primates are the most brightly colourful order of all the mammal class. Also, only new world monkeys have prehensile tails.

    2. If you shave an ape, it ain’t black.

      It depends on the ape. Chimps aren’t usually but can be. Gorillas usually are all over. Bonobos are usually dark in the face and light everywhere else, but sometimes dark all over. Orangutans are all over the place. They can be dark in the face only or all over or light all over including the face.

      1. Do you shave monkeys professionally, or is it just a hobby?

  41. I do feel sorry for all the poor bastards who are now unemployed, due to both Roseanne’s inability to control herself and the network’s cringe reflex. They did nothing to deserve it.

    1. I don’t think it was the network’s “cringe reflex.” Roseanne Barr was fired by Channing Dungey, a black woman who was exercising her racial prerogative.

      1. She got the approval of the parent corporation, Disney, so your own racism is also now ridiculed.
        Now check Trump’s bat-shiit crazy tweet where HE whines that the says the Disney CEO called Jarrett.
        Become informed, so avoid looking so darn silly.

  42. “Valerie Jarrett, a former aide to President Barack Obama, is [described as] like the ‘Muslim brotherhood and Planet of the Apes had a baby.'”

    Where’s the so-called “racism”? Muslims are not a race. The ape race in “Planet of the Apes” is portrayed as being technologically advanced.

    Why is ‘Reason’ magazine glorifying this horror story as if it’s justice? Nothing “reasonable” to be found here.

    1. Planet of the apes is racist. If you really don’t know that, it says a lot about you.

      1. OneLoneLibertarian|5.29.18 @ 5:50PM|#

        That’s a bald-faced lie.

        1. Says

        2. Says

        3. Says a lot about you, that calling two African-America women apes is NOT racists. (Jarrett and her mother)
          Are they UPPITY niggers to your ilk?

    2. Comparing blacks to apes is getting close to sub-human talk.
      Same with calling blacks ‘mud’ people or just thinking they’re naturally dirtier than white people.

    3. “The ape race in “Planet of the Apes” is portrayed as being technologically advanced.”

      Are we talking the old movies with Charleston Heston? Because I recall the apes in those movies being at like, maybe 1800’s level technology. I don’t recall them having airplanes, for instance, or using radio.

  43. So if the movie is so offensive racist, why did Hollywood make so many versions of it and why are the Apes the heroes in most of them?

    1. The movie has nothing to do with this.

    2. “why did Hollywood make so many versions of it and why are the Apes the heroes in most of them?”

      The series was a big let down, especially that travesty by Tim Burton. Chuck Heston got things off to a good start by ending the first installment with a kiss. In all the following movies, things never progressed from there. No getting to second base, no nothing.

    3. Dr. Zaius is the coolest one. He should have had the hippie chimps executed.

  44. Racism is all about intent. If you dislike people because of their race or you think one race is superior to another then you are racist. If you are not racist, then nothing you say is racist. I don’t pay much attention to Roseanne and I don’t watch her show, but nothing I’ve ever seen or heard from her has convinced me that she dislikes people because of their race or that she thinks one race is superior to another.

    1. PaulTheBeav|5.29.18 @ 5:59PM|#

      Then at least 90% of blacks are racist.

      1. Yeah, so? That’s why the left invented this “power relations” definition of “racism”. So that they could pretend blacks weren’t much more racist than whites.

        1. That’s how Trumpian whites justify saying that African- Americans ARE apes.

          1. OneLoneLibertarian|5.30.18 @ 10:46AM|#

            How could anything whites SAY about blacks compare to what blacks routinely DO to whites?

            1. Shame on you.
              You are quite the fucking racist — judging people by their race instead of individuals.

  45. Suggesting Valerie Jarrett is the progeny of the Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes is an insult to Muslims and apes. Like her former boss Omaggot, Valerie Jarrett is cesspool scum.

    1. Henry Baker: I would rank Valerie Jarrett as the MOST DANGEROUS woman in the USA at this moment. She is working hand-in-glove with George Soros and is deadly focused on her mission. NOTHING matters more to her than the mission. And that mission includes destroying the USA. (They are working on “destabilization” at this time, since the other isn’t ready to happen . . . . . yet.)

      1. BRILLIANT satire, but many goobers here will believe it.

  46. Here’s some of Rosanne’s shameful history.

    “Susan Rice is a man with big swinging ape balls.”

    Pro-nazi

    1. Roseanne is literally Hitler you guys.

      1. Nobody said that. But that link shows her holding a tray of “Jewish cookies” in front of an open oven,, dressed as a nazi, with a swastika, ans a Hitler-style hair style and mustache.

        Glorifying Hitler is not “literally” Hitler you guys.

        1. lol ok

          1. lol thanks

  47. Stupid bitch.

    But you can imagine the rictus of joy on Channing Dungey’s (an actual name) face. Gotcha! We gotcha!

    1. Channing is a black woman.

      Gotcha!

      A gotcha on yourself?

      1. What does her race have to do with it?

        1. It’s what proves Roseanne’s rather shameful racism. And your own. Why else would you have her celebrating Roseannne;s firing so joyously, as a gotcha? The firing done by (or approved by) a white male. (See Trump’s own tweet on that and TRY to keep up)

          Also spare us any more of your hatred and faux innocence..

          1. And my own? You sanctimonious creep. You get it wrong, then you double down on it.

            1. And your own. Why else would you have her celebrating Roseannne;s firing so joyously, as a gotcha

              And my own? You sanctimonious creep.

              FAIL.
              WHY ELSE WOULD YOU HAVE HER CELEBRATING ROSEANNE’S FIRING SO JOYOUSLY, AS A GOTCHA?

  48. Holy crap… I didn’t know what Valerie Jarret looked like up until now. I don’t know how MB plays into the characterization, but honestly she has an oddly shaped face. I can see the similarities to a character from the original movie. Does it make me racist to agree that there is some note of resemblance even if I have no clue what race she might be?

    1. Is it racist for you to say Jarrett RESEMBLES an ape,
      while drool drips off your chin?

  49. Richard Prior and George Carlin must be rolling in their graves.

    Where is the support from Dave Chapel, Chris Rock, and Eddie Murphy charged Stand up Routines. Though sometime uncomfortable were funny.

    1. “Where is the support from Dave Chapel, Chris Rock, and Eddie Murphy ”

      Or Tony Clifton. That’s what I want to know.

  50. More proof LIBTARDS are stupid.

    The Muslim Brotherhood is an Organization.

    Planet of the Apes is a book and a movie?

    There is nothing racial about them.

    Only in the mind of an idiot could this somehow be construed as racist.

    1. She was both racist and Islamophobic. The Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. Apes is also a racist term

      More proof LIBTARDS are stupid.

      No comment.

  51. I did not even know that Valerie Jarrett was anything other than Persian and unattractive. Roseanne obviously needed to hire a tweeter assistant writer who could snowflake filter her stuff before it went live. Maybe Fox will pick up the show and pair it with Last Man Standing for a comedy power hour. It will be interesting to see how much of the cast will bail for PC reasons or stay on for the money should Fox pick it up.

    1. Iranian.

  52. Never watched it, but read the tweet and didnt think that much of it as it wasnt offensive at all. Shame how weak people are, almost the destruction of country cause pandering to the weakess and slim minority of ahandful who sprout racism all day in religion texts, the goy are nothing more than servants as they say. Act just like it or the only ones to get fame are those that sprout the texts for them as they play both sides.

  53. Once again we can learn something from Adolf Hitler, who understood the importance of actors in society, and made all sorts of allowances for them. They were exempt from military service for example, a very rare privilege in the 3rd Reich. He interceded personally to smooth over difficulties arising from conflicts with the anti-Jewish marriage laws, and turned a blind eye to their anti-nazi, even communist sentiments.

  54. Hello. First Amendment mean anything to you, Scott? Offensive or not, to end the casts’ jobs for an offensive slur is just another example of how the radical Progressives will do anything to stop people from speaking freely, even if it means showing them to be complete hypocrites given that they claim to be against people in power positions using their power to deprive people of their jobs.

    1. The First Amendment — and free speech — are both limits on government, NOT on private individuals or businesses.
      Is it only “radical progressives” who understand what the Bill of Rights even is?
      But I’m glad to see you defend NFL players kneeling.

      1. they seem to be the only ones who routinely IGNORE the Bill of Rights unless it fits their particular diatribe. just like aa rabs moslums complain about no civil rights in countries they don’t control. BTW in countries the muslums control there are NO civil rights.

        1. they seem to be the only ones who routinely IGNORE the Bill of Rights unless it fits their particular diatribe.

          That’s a diatribe. The right SEVERELY violates the Ninth Amendment, lies about the 10th, and uses government to impose their own choice, when two conflicting rights are both absolute.

          Your also a religious bigot. You actually say nobody can expect civil tights unless their own religion is “in control” — but we have equal rights for everyone, in a nation founded on separation.

  55. Another network will pick them up. They’re too popular to be cancelled.

  56. The reboot was fine. Separate the art from the artist. We had no problem with Polanski movies for this l think the tweets from her are more of an indication of some mental illness than pure racism.

  57. I thought It was funny.

  58. She sucks. Has always sucked. And I am glad she’s gone. Trumpturds are gonna have to learn to control their mouths, This racsist crap is bull.

    1. Learn to argue. Learn to spell. And stop calling names. You are the one who can’t control his/her mouth. There are things more important than a difference of opinion. Too bad your heart and head are closed to real danger.

      1. How does your self-righteous sermon justify calling Jarrett an ape?.

  59. Mr. Shackford, you were saying that Roseanne Barr’s tweet “cannot be dismissed as anything but a racist slur no matter how hard you squint.”

    You’re going to have to explain that to me. You’re going to have to explain it very carefully.

  60. Can you first define racism and then explain how the tweet meets that criteria? I hate the purposeful bastardization of language to move the goalposts to further different agendas.

    While the statement is idiotic and possibly shows prejudice… it doesn’t appear to be racist in any context. Unless she has stated that dark skinned people (which oddly enough Valerie Jarrett isn’t!) are closer to apes than lighter skinned people and should be treated as sub-human, I can’t see anything fireable about this statement.

    If comparing someone to an ape IS immediately racists than wouldn’t a review of all those caricatures done of Bush as a chimp/monkey/ape also immediately result in firing of many cartoonists? Of course not.

    Reason should be defending her right to say stupid things. Of course they could fire her, but don’t make it about this statement or you have opened up a can of worms and I have a long list of truly racist things the media/hollywood has said that needs immediate attention. There are rabid anti-Semites all through the media that never get a glance.

    1. “Reason should be defending her right to say stupid things. “

      Umm, it’s not a free speech issue.
      If you don’t think that calling African-Americans “apes” or “monkeys” is racist. then we can assume you’d do likewise.
      And you missed the Islamophobia.

      but don’t make it about this statement or you have opened up a can of worms

      The network said, VERY explicitly, that it was because of that tweet.

      have a long list of truly racist things the media/hollywood has said that needs immediate attention

      Since you failed to see the racism here, or refused to, your judgment is highly suspect. Plus the next one!

      There are rabid anti-Semites all through the media that never get a glance.

      I’ll assume you include anyone who respects BOTH sides of the issue. Scary.

      1. And yet, when the Left compared George W. Bush with “Curious George” and drew him with Simian features, that didn’t bother you at all! Knuckle dragging, swinging as he walked, and a face like a chimpanzee, was JUST FINE, with the Left.

        When OUR GOVERNMENT drew the Japanese (Japs) as Simians during WW II, that was also just fine with the Left. They were portrayed as chimpanzees with Japanese uniforms and commanding Simian troops!

        1. Libertarians aren’t the Left
          Dubya is not African-American.
          And you made a total fool of yourself on the Japanese!

          The left — like libertarians — are the most appalled by the Japanese being locked in to concentration camps and their property seized, with no trials and no charges, as US citizens. The first New Deal President put citizens in prison camps with no trials. The second New Deal President had citizens murdered, also with no trials.

          Your hissy fit about cartoons, while ignoring prison camps, confirms your tribal bigotry. So typical of Roseanne (and Trump) defenders. And your defense of arm’s hate-spewing comment.

          1. OneLoneLibertarian|5.30.18 @ 5:12AM|#

            “The first New Deal President put citizens in prison camps with no trials. The second New Deal President had citizens murdered, also with no trials.”

            Do you ever NOT lie?

            1. Umm, Here’s FDR’s concentration camps Exactly as I described.

              mass incarceration of 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry l… most of whom were U.S. citizens or legal permanent resident aliens…. half of whom were children, were incarcerated for up to 4 years, without due process of law or any factual basis … remote camps surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards. President Roosevelt himself called the 10 facilities “concentration camps.”

              Some Japanese Americans died in the camps due to inadequate medical care … the causes for this unprecedented action in American history, according to the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, “were motivated largely by racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.”

              Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. Popularly known as the Japanese American Redress Bill, this act acknowledged that “a grave injustice was done” and mandated Congress to pay each victim of internment $20,000 in reparations. The reparations were sent with a signed apology from the President of the United States

              President Obama gives himself permission to kill (Fox News)

              Do you ever NOT lie?

              How many times can you make a total ass of yourself on this page?

        2. And yet, when the Left compared George W. Bush with “Curious George” and drew him with Simian features, Shame on you. You equate a single cartoonist with the left … and lie about his work

          The proof is here

  61. Roseanne’s tweet was rude and offensive.

    What I can’t figure out is how Jarrett can claim to be a spokeswoman for oppressed African Americans: Jarrett passes for white and had a privileged upbringing. For her to imply that she was a victim of racism when she looks white seems pretty ridiculous.

    1. What I can’t figure out is how Jarrett can claim to be a spokeswoman for oppressed African Americans:

      She doesn’t. But she is African-American.

      For her to imply that she was a victim of racism when she looks white seems pretty ridiculous.

      She was called an ape.

      It was Roseanne’s bigotry. And now yours. Her mother is part African-American. Why does your scum say that makes her an ape?

  62. The “racism” that many people see exists ONLY in their imaginations. Racism requires explicit connections between ‘racial’ (not height, not religion, not cultural background) characteristics and behavior. Like that which consistently comes out of the mouths of the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton.

    1. The “racism” that many people see exists ONLY in their imaginations.

      Including your shameful conclusion? While you whine that it’s NOT racist to say an African-American is an ape … conceived by an ape.

      Does your mother still suck pony dicks?

  63. Pretty dumb tweet, not even very funny! But the fact that A JEWISH WOMAN COMEDIAN will be insta canned while having one of the most successful shows on TV over it… Pretty sketchy.

    I never really like Roseanne, but now that she’s apparently gone full on shit-lord I might have to reappraise… LOL

  64. Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s Karl Rove, the brains behind the Obama regime’s slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Africans and Arabs, is rightfully offended by those awful remarks.

  65. Roseanne has made “loud, obnoxious, and crazy” a trademark for thirty years. I read her books and remember classifying her as a left-leaning femi-nut, but I can understand the affinity with loud, obnoxious, greedy Trump now.

    Jarrett’s face…I don’t remember ever seeing a female from the Planet of the Apes (didn’t watch the show), but what it brought to my mind today was Tammy Faye Bakker. If Roseanne had commented on that resemblance, would that have been racist?

    I’m not convinced she is one: that’s not her reputation. I’m not convinced that forty years of working well with all kinds of people should be undone by one incredibly feeble, mean-spirited attempt at a joke.

    I’m not seeing RB as the poster girl for freedom of speech that Laura Ingraham is, though. Her “joke” doesn’t make her a racist but it does make her a slipping comedian.

  66. roseanne is absolutely right in that statement.

    1. She apologized for saying an African-American woman. and her African American mother are apes .. and the shameful lie about he Muslims Brotherhood.

      When will you apologize for being both a racist and an Islamophobe?

  67. Just another affront to the First Amendment.

    1. Are you so totally ignorant of our Bill of Rights? It restrains government ONLY, not private individuals or businesses.
      Umm. if it restricted private entities … is that not the exact opposite of rights?

  68. And the Barr for being accused of racism continues to drop…

    1. That’s pathetic. Calling an African-American woman an ape, also her African-American mother, is a low bar?
      To you people. “nigger” is valiantly non-PC.
      How about lynching?

  69. ABC rebooted Roseanne and didn’t have a clue as to her tweets and offensive remarks? They are the boobs in this picture.

  70. J.D. Evermore on Twitter

    I just heard Trump’s base is so upset about ABC cancelling Roseanne that they’re gonna boycott A’s, B’s and C’s, which will make their tweets even more indecipherable

  71. >> Roseanne Barr crudely tweeted that Valerie Jarrett, a former aide to President Barack Obama, is like the “Muslim brotherhood and Planet of the Apes had a baby.”

  72. Sure it’s crude and uncalled for, but I’m sorry – I missed the “racist” part. There’s nothing in that quote that remotely alludes to anyone’s race. Is it because Jarrett is black? So any kind of insult to a black person is automatically “racist?”

    1. So any kind of insult to a black person is automatically “racist?”

      How horrible is your own racism … that you can defend calling an African-American woman an ape .. conceived by an ape (her African-American mother)? You people are a disgrace.

      1. Is it any more or less racist than saying all white people are inherently evil oppressors? Because the left is totally fine with THAT nowadays.

        Fact is black people (not this chick though, who looks about as white as I am!) visibly look more like great apes than other ethnicities… Is it MEAN to say it? Sure. Is it racist? Maybe. But how much further are we going to let this madness go when a major multi national will cancel one of the most popular shows in the world over what would have been a nothing burger 30 years ago.

        I’m knee jerk against all this shit just because it is sending us down the path to insanity.

        1. (disgusting)

  73. I wonder if Shackford would wax so glowingly about the ‘real’ feel for Last Man Standing – dropped by ABC for wholly political reasons. Both entertaining and light hearted – never preachy – and popular as evidenced by the grass roots effort to keep the show going on cable and now Fox. Why not? it’s a money machine. Fans of the Rosanne’s show can do the same if so motivated. It’ll be interesting to see if any such effort takes shape.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.