Racism

Is Roseanne Barr's Firing a Sign of Persistent Racism or Racial Progress?

It's mostly a sign of progress, especially when paired with policy reforms that are helping African Americans.

|

ABC, Wikimedia

Is the firing of Roseanne Barr by ABC over an offensive tweet evidence of racism's persistence or a sign of racial progress?

The star was enjoying massive popularity with the reboot of her eponymous 1990s sitcom until she tweeted that Barack Obama's former adviser Valerie Jarrett was the offspring of "Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes." Her show, a ratings champ, was almost immediately canceled by ABC, and she was disowned by most of her costars and collaborators.

Writing in The New York Times, author Roxanne Gay, who is black and lesbian, argues that the new version of Roseanne shows how little America has progressed when it comes to race, class, and gender equity:

For once, a major network did the right thing. But before it did the right thing, it did the wrong thing. It is not new information that Roseanne Barr makes racist, Islamophobic and misogynistic statements and is happy to peddle all manner of dangerous conspiracy theories. ABC knew this when it greenlighted the "Roseanne" reboot. ABC knew this when it quickly renewed the reboot for a second season, buoyed, no doubt, by the show's strong ratings.

Gay gives no quarter to Barr's colleagues and costars, noting, "It was only when Ms. Barr became an immediate liability that everyone involved finally looked at her racism and dealt with it directly." Gay recounts a series of recent stories that show how blacks are often presumptively treated as criminals by white Americans and law enforcement. She acidly observes that Roseanne's tweet was published the same day that Starbucks was holding a nationwide day of diversity training after a racially charged incident at one of its outlets in Philadelphia.

Gay says public gestures toward racial justice by corporate America and Roseanne actress Sara Gilbert are simply "part of an elaborate and lucrative illusion" that papers over the daily indignities faced by African Americans. "ABC," she notes, "is the same network that shelved an episode of 'Blackish' because it addressed the N.F.L. anthem protests." Denunciations of racism and prejudice, in Gay's view, are always done cynically and only as a last resort.

It's a powerful argument. But is that all there is to say? Over at CNBC, John Harwood, who is white, takes a different view in a piece titled "In America's Racial Din, ABC's Decision on 'Roseanne' Reflects a Turn Toward Tolerance." Where Gay focuses on examples of racism, Harwood looks at unmistakable signs of progress:

Though halting and fitful, the path leads in only one direction over time….

Polling amassed by the University of Illinois' Institute of Government and Public Affairs showed that by 1972, 97 percent of whites agreed blacks should have equal job opportunities; by 1997, 95 percent said they would vote for a black presidential candidate; by 2011, 86 percent approved of interracial marriage….

Obama's election—not once, but twice—demonstrated those shifts.

Harwood doesn't scant the persistence of racism, from Donald Trump's equivocating after last year's white supremacist rally in Charlottesville to, well, Roseanne Barr's tweet. He also notes that America is becoming less white. Only 28 percent of baby boomers are nonwhite, he says, compared to 44 percent of Millennials, and that shift will limit racism. He quotes Martin Luther King Jr. on "the moral arc of the universe" bending "toward justice" before concluding that "it bends toward tolerance, too."

There are other positive developments to consider. Across a wide variety of measures, racist attitudes and hate crimes have dropped over the past several decades. School choice, which gives lower-income and minority parents and students access to better education, is growing. The drug war, which disproportionately incarcerates blacks and Latinos, is breaking down. The closely related issue of criminal justice reform is proceeding apace.

Just yesterday, reality TV star Kim Kardashian met with President Trump to discuss prison reform. Kardashian is of course married to black rapper Kanye West, and the interracial nature of their union is so completely unremarkable that it is rarely if ever discussed; that is its own sort of progress. Occupational licensing, which often screws over blacks, is under attack. Black households have seen median income grow by 25 percent since 1998, substantially more than the increase for whites.

There's no contradiction in celebrating progress toward a color-blind society while noting that racism still exists. Roseanne Barr's Twitter feed may have been filled with racist, Islamophobic, and misogynist statements prior to her triumphant return to network TV, but who would have been looking carefully at it then? Surely it matters more that she was fired as soon as she made a patently racist remark in public, and that many of the policies that have long harmed blacks as a group are being reformed.

NEXT: Trump Is Standing on the Precipice of a Real and Serious Trade War

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.

  1. Come on guys, Trump just pardoned one of Preet’s victims, don’t save it for tomorrow’s news roundup, it deserves its own story.

    1. Not when there are lukewarm takes on Roseanne to be shared.

      1. I’m pretty sure takes on Roseanne don’t come in any other temperature.

        1. Doug Stanhope has a pretty warm take on her in his new book. Seems they’re good friends. He even appeared in the series finale.

          1. Do you recommend the book? Is it hilarious?

            1. It’s okay, not as good as the first but still worth it.

              If you haven’t read it, Norm’s book is the comedy novel of the last few years. Burying Mother was great too though.

      2. For real. This stuff is getting stale. I feel like half the news nowadays is one of a few things:

        1) Outrage over what someone tweeted
        2) Some sort of divisive racial issue
        3) Guns
        4) Outrage over Trump

        It is like some boring, stale, endlessly droning machine that sucks the life out of anything. Every day is exactly the same.

        1. The Epic Butt-Hurt over sHillery’s loss is just annoying. These Petulant children need to grow up.
          I’m pretty sure groups like anti-fa would just as soon burn the country to the ground over it.
          So what, exactly, are they “resisting”? The will of the people. That spells trouble in anyone’s’ book.
          And you’re quite right, this isn’t getting old. It is old. Move On pun intended.

    2. Which one? Rhywun?

      1. Dinesh D’Souza. From the White House Web Page:

        Today, President Donald J. Trump issued an Executive Grant of Clemency (Full Pardon) to Dinesh D’Souza, an accomplished author, lecturer, and scholar.

        Mr. D’Souza was, in the President’s opinion, a victim of selective prosecution for violations of campaign finance laws. Mr. D’Souza accepted responsibility for his actions, and also completed community service by teaching English to citizens and immigrants seeking citizenship.

        In light of these facts, the President has determined that Mr. D’Souza is fully worthy of this pardon.

        White House Logo

        https://bit.ly/2LdIynV

  2. It’s a sign that everything is political, and that there’s a class of people that don’t want to let viewers make choices for themselves. It’s also a sign of fear that runs through the culture. Better to nuke anything that smacks of racism from orbit lest ye be accused of supporting it.

  3. Only 28 percent of baby boomers are nonwhite, he says, compared to 44 percent of Millennials, and that shift will limit racism.

    LOL. Is there we’re supposed to believe that the laws of human nature have been revoked and only white people can be racist?

    1. I take it as meaning that if different races are all commingling, rather than one race being clearly numerically dominant and the others relegated to the less desirable neighborhoods, then racism seems less likely overall, no matter which race it is. It’s easier to imagine one race is inferior if you can point to a whole bunch of them in a poor neighborhood and say “well just look at that”, than it is to imagine that they are inferior if they are your own neighbors living in comparable circumstances as yourself.

      1. What about the White hispanics?

        1. That would be most of them in the US.

      2. I think that just means something else will be chosen to think people lesser for.

        We already see it with many groups making more socio-economically divisive comments. This is not new, but it seems to be on the rise.

        1. That is exactly what it means. You can no longer publicly look down on someone for being black. But you can absolutely look down on someone for being poor and white. We just have new targets for our bigotry.

      3. Someone doesn’t understand cause and effect

      4. My extended family is heavily mixed – black, latin, Filipino, it’s a veritable UN.

        The commingling doesn’t solve nearly as much as some might hope. Not that there is much internal race related strife, more that you get to see there is still a tremendous amount of pressure on the non-caucasian offspring to conform to the ‘culture’ that matches their skin.

      5. This is wishful thinking. We will see if it plays out.

      6. I think this is a good point. Back in Michigan, most of the black population lived in Detroit and Flint, predominantly Detroit, and the hellholes those cities became, fairly or not, reflected on that population.

        Here in South Carolina, the populations live side by side, so that dynamic can’t get started.

    2. And it definitely won’t limit racism if the left’s program of promoting identity politics continues as it has.

      And it seems like, at least in the popular imagination, the places where the most racism still exists are often the places with the largest black populations, e.g. the deep south, big cities like Boston and Chicago.

      You know what might help get rid of racism? Stop making every goddamn thing about race!

      1. I agree Zeb. Like I say below, I don’t see how enforcing a double standard where one race is held to a higher standard than the other is a very good way to go about ending racism.

      2. Actually the deep south is one of the places where commingling is most common.

        1. This is very true, as someone living in the deep south. It’s the most heavily urban areas where people tend to divide up territories (this is true in parts of Atlanta), but smaller cities and suburbs in the deep south are where you’ll find heavy intermingling along ethnic lines.

    3. Blacks CANNOT be racist. Just look at Zimbabwe and South Africa!

  4. >>>a color-blind society

    people always choose one crayon over another

  5. She acidly observes that Roseanne’s tweet was published the same day that Starbucks was holding a nationwide day of diversity training after a racially charged incident at one of its outlets in Philadelphia.

    That incident which had nothing to do with race except for the “victims” choosing to make it all about race? Did she have any other completely bogus and/or irrelevant anecdotes to share? A campus “lynching” hoax, perhaps?

    1. Poop swastika?

      1. I lived in Columbia, MO before and after that incident (moved to KC a year ago), and this incident has done lasting damage to Mizzou. The way the university handled the situation was terrible and the aftermath is deserved, but I remember at the time thinking it’s a swastika, it ought to offend Jews and WWII vets more than black people (yes, I do realize that ALL non-Arian races were seen as inferior to Nazi’s). I remember all of my liberal family and friends on FB piling on about how Mizzou and Columbia were such toxic environments for black people, even though all of my daily observations and interactions said otherwise. It’s just a narrative that people have to keep alive everywhere they possibly can.

    2. A diversity training based on the bigoted notion that whites are racist, mind you.

  6. That tweet was just a mean joke about a Obama’s handler. What race exactly is Valerie Jarrett? Is it racism if nobody knows?

    1. Is it racism if nobody knows?

      Obviously. Failure to recognize a person’s race and subsequent location in the Progressive Victimhood Stack is obviously racism. The fact that you didn’t know that makes you literally worse than Hitler. /sarc

    2. Of course it is. Racism is about how others perceive your comments these days.

      And being mean is ok if the snowflakes do it. They can dish it out but can’t take it.

  7. Harwood doesn’t scant the persistence of racism, from Donald Trump’s equivocating after last year’s white supremacist rally in Charlottesville

    That is a lie. Trump said two things; that the Antifa counter-protesters were just as bad as the white supremacists and that not everyone who was there protesting the removing of the statue was a white supremacist. Both of those things are objectively true. The Antifa and the white supremacists are both just mobs of thugs and fascists. And the white supremacists took over a previously planned protest that was organized by people who objected to history being erased.

    I know that Nick is expected to lie about some things to remain in good standing in the social circles he runs. But can he at least avoid going out of his way to lie about things in articles about other subjects?

    1. “good people on both sides”

      1. There were. Again, not everyone protesting the removal of the statue was a white supremacist just like not everyone protesting the white supremacist was a member of antifa. That is the objective truth. Why do you want to tell yourself a lie instead?

      2. Oh never mind, I was thinking about something else. Trump didn’t actually say that.

        1. Yeah, he said that but he didn’t mean it the way you think which is why you make sarcastic quips as opposed to actually talking about it with John.

        2. Yeah, he said that but he didn’t mean it the way you think which is why you make sarcastic quips as opposed to actually talking about it with John.

  8. What I think is most likely, is that this event isn’t significant of much either way, since we have one person’s statement, and then another companies reaction. The job of analysts is to make mountains out of molehills, but I think a single event is very hard to draw anything meaningful from.

    The latter statistics mentioned are probably more meaningful.

    1. My guess is that firing Rosanne makes racial animosity worse and just empowers racist. Everyone sees the double standard here. If Rosanne were black and said something racist about a white public figure, she would still have her show. Running her out of public life just gives whites who are disposed to dislike blacks more of an excuse to be racist. I really don’t think enforcing double standards on different races is a very good way to end racism. But that is just me.

  9. No, it is not a sign of progress. Progress would be if no one got all worked up about it.

  10. Is Roseanne Barr’s Firing a Sign of Persistent Racism or Racial Progress?

    Reflexive performative wokeness in response to one dumbass’s poorly thought-out tweet isn’t really a sign of much, other than the times.

  11. So Nick thinks immediately firing anyone who says something racist even when they say it away from their job and on a platform that has nothing to do with their job is a good thing. I guess living in a society where so much as saying an unpopular opinion means losing your job is being free? I suppose Nick assumes that this power will only be used against the wrong people who hold views Nick doesn’t like and never be expanded to make holding unpopular or dissenting opinions impossible.

    1. it doesn’t have to even be overtly racist. Just insult somebody from a protected ethnic group (even if you have no idea of that person’s racial background).

      1. Remember the woman on the plane that tweeted something, I forget what, and Gawker got ahold of it and had her fired before the plane landed? Does Nick think such a world is a free one?

        1. Does Nick think such a world is a free one?

          Depends on the available alternatives

        2. At this point you would have to be crazy to use Twitter at all. I mean, even more so than I already knew.

        3. One of the many reasons I applaided Hogan killing Gawker. Seem to recall Reason not liking them being held accountable.

      2. Definitely keep telling that lie.

        1. Yes Hail, it is a lie but you can’t explain why it is or what the truth is. That is real convincing. Thanks for playing dumb ass.

    2. Okay, John. So what is your solution?

      If your solution is “people should just ignore racist crap”, then yes I agree, but that isn’t the world that we live in.

      So, given a world where racist statements do make people upset, even to the point where they demand that the speaker be fired, what would you like to see done about this situation?

      1. To some degree yes. Your relationship to Rosane Bar, if there is one, consists of watching her show. She is not your friend or a family member. If her show isn’t offensive, then it shouldn’t matter to you what her politics or private views on things are.

        We are creating a world where not only politics pervades everything but also where we are unable to draw lines and have limited relationships with each other. Rosanne is a nut and a crank. But that doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t be able to make a living or that she is incapable of producing a comedy show that is totally different from who she is as a private party.

        We have to be able to live with each other and do business with each other. That means we have to start recognizing that someone’s private views, no matter how awful, do not reflect who they are or prevent us from interfacing with them in a mutually beneficial way.

        1. Rosanne is a nut and a crank. But that doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t be able to make a living or that she is incapable of producing a comedy show that is totally different from who she is as a private party.

          Okay, so if ABC won’t run her show, and if no other network picks up her show, then what? Is she nevertheless entitled to a sitcom? What’s your solution?

          We have to be able to live with each other and do business with each other. That means we have to start recognizing that someone’s private views, no matter how awful, do not reflect who they are or prevent us from interfacing with them in a mutually beneficial way.

          But it all comes back to that freedom of association. For example I choose not to knowingly associate myself with white supremacists. In your view, is this wrong of me? Should I put my aversion of white supremacy aside and just spend my money in the marketplace in a value-neutral way? If I can get a better deal from David Duke’s Monocle Factory then I should have no qualms in buying my monocles from him instead of from Amazon?

          1. If you’re already buying monocles, then you might as well buy David Duke.

            1. But when I look at his monocles, I can’t really smell the sweat and tears from the underage orphans used to produce them. Clearly he isn’t working them hard enough. How can I reward such a lackadaisacal approach to human resources?

          2. Okay, so if ABC won’t run her show, and if no other network picks up her show, then what? Is she nevertheless entitled to a sitcom? What’s your solution?

            Sometimes there isn’t a solution. But there not being a solution doesn’t make it a good thing. Sometimes bad things happen that can’t be fixed. My point is that we should understand it is a bad thing and try to build a society where it doesn’t happen, instead of encouraging it like Nick is here.

            But it all comes back to that freedom of association.

            Sure it does. And if you want to only associate for any reason with people who only hold views that you find acceptable even in areas that have nothing to do with your relationship with them, you are being a very intolerant person and helping to create an intolerant society.

            We are debating what is right and what is the ideal, not what is possible or should be possible. There is a difference. If you can’t go to a dry cleaner who does a great job and gives you a good deal because you heard that he hates gays and gay marriage even though he serves everyone who comes to the door and just has private opinions you don’t like, you are an intolerant person. I don’t tolerate things I like. It would make no sense to say “I tolerate beautiful music”. You tolerate things you don’t like but understand have a right to exist anyway.

            1. My point is that we should understand it is a bad thing and try to build a society where it doesn’t happen

              Starting with what? What’s your solution for when the next Roseanne-esque controversy appears?

              If you can’t go to a dry cleaner who does a great job and gives you a good deal because you heard that he hates gays and gay marriage even though he serves everyone who comes to the door and just has private opinions you don’t like, you are an intolerant person.

              It could mean that. It could also mean that I am a moral person who believes that I should use my power in the marketplace to promote what I view to be justice.

              Suppose your dry cleaner was an ardent abortion supporter and donated part of his profits to Planned Parenthood. Can you tell me that you would continue going to this dry cleaner, who does a great job and gives you great service, even knowing that some of your money that you give him winds up funding the abortion mills at PP?

              1. It could mean that. It could also mean that I am a moral person who believes that I should use my power in the marketplace to promote what I view to be justice.

                Which is another way of saying you are intolerant. You just call the things you are intolerant of injustice. Well everyone does that. Everyone thinks the things they don’t like are wrong or unjust. Otherwise, they would like them.

                And you are not being moral. Everyone has their moral failings. You are not perfect and no doubt do and say lousy things. We all do. Should everyone refuse to do business with you? Saying that someone must meet my moral standards in all areas to get my money regardless of how good of a product or service they provide is a textbook example of being intolerant.

                Suppose your dry cleaner was an ardent abortion supporter and donated part of his profits to Planned Parenthood.

                He would be wrong. But he is entitled to his opinion. And what he does with the money he makes from me is his business not mine. This is called being tolerant of other people’s views.

                1. Everyone thinks the things they don’t like are wrong or unjust. Otherwise, they would like them.

                  No, John. I don’t like spinach, and I also don’t like slavery, but only one of those things do I regard as unjust and immoral. I think you minimize and trivialize individuals’ codes of morality when you regard them as merely likes and dislikes.

                  And I think you have to clarify a little bit on what precisely you mean by “tolerance”. At least in my mind, both extremes of “tolerance” are very problematic – believing every viewpoint is equivalently legitimate is wrong, because that equates good with evil, but believing that even the slightest sin is a moral abomination is also wrong, because that lacks all sense of proportion. So I do not support either extreme. Furthermore I think there is a distinction to be made on how this tolerance, or lack thereof, is to be expressed. Casting moral judgment on someone is very different than wanting that person to be punished or imprisoned. Furthermore, choosing NOT to spend my money at an establishment that does not share my values, is not the same as actively choosing to see that establishment shut down. You seem to be arguing that if I don’t take my money to the bigoted dry cleaner, that I am no better than if I protested and demanded a boycott of his business.

                  1. At least in my mind, both extremes of “tolerance” are very problematic – believing every viewpoint is equivalently legitimate is wrong

                    I agree with you but that is not what I am saying. Saying I will do business with you is not the same thing as saying your views are equal to mine or that all views are equal. You seem to be totally unable to see people as anything but one dimensional good or bad entities. My tolerating your bad views in no way means I endorse them or think all views are equal. I am really astounded that you could believe that.

                    Furthermore I think there is a distinction to be made on how this tolerance, or lack thereof, is to be expressed. Casting moral judgment on someone is very different than wanting that person to be punished or imprisoned.

                    You seem to not understand than your actions have effects. If you don’t want a person to lose their job and their business, why are you refusing to do business with them? Either they are worthy of making a living or they are not. If they are, then you should do business with them. If they are not, then neither you nor anyone else should. You are just being a coward and thinking it is okay because only I do it. No it is not.

                    1. I did not say that you believed “all views are equal”. But you also did not qualify precisely what you meant by “tolerance”. It sounds like that even under your view, that judging good from evil is permissible. At least we agree on something.

                      If you don’t want a person to lose their job and their business, why are you refusing to do business with them?

                      Because they are not entitled to my money? Because they are free to make their choices, and I am free to make my choices?

                      Furthermore, my individual decision to decide with whom to do business is not equivalent to organizing some mass protest against a business.

                2. And John, I really do have a hard time believing that you would continue to patronize a business that *you knew* was taking part of your money to fund abortion.

                  1. Yes Jeff I would. You are just so obsessed with politics and so unable to separate it from the rest of life that you can’t fathom someone who doesn’t.

                    1. So you would willingly give money to a person that you knew was using some of your money to directly fund abortions. So then what is your argument against government funding for Planned Parenthood?

                3. Furthermore, John, you seem to be arguing that ALL boycotts are wrong, regardless of who is boycotting whom. So if you believe a particular company is operating improperly, for whatever reason you choose – maybe, for instance, it isn’t patriotic enough for your tastes – and if you believe that all boycotts of that business would be wrong, and if you also presumably believe that heavy-handed government regulation is wrong, then what is the acceptable way, in your view, to express your viewpoint on this business’s operations?

                  1. Furthermore, John, you seem to be arguing that ALL boycotts are wrong, regardless of who is boycotting whom.

                    No. I am saying that boycotting something for the private views of the person who owns the business is wrong. It is very hard to discuss things with you because you seem to have a very hard time understanding the salient points. It is not that you are mendacious and are constructing a strawman. You just seem not to be able to understand anything beyond simple points.

                    1. I am saying that boycotting something for the private views of the person who owns the business is wrong.

                      Because I have an obligation to ignore my moral sense of right and wrong when it comes to market transactions?

                      I thought you were a good Christian, John. It’s the evangelical Christians who will be the first ones to say that faith and morality is not just something that happens on Sunday mornings, it is a part of their daily lives every day. So you are arguing that it would be wrong for an evangelical Christian to patronize a store that he/she believed was promoting sin by funding the lifestyle of a sinful owner. Got it.

                    2. er, that it would be wrong for that Christian to REFUSE to patronize that store

          3. “Okay, so if ABC won’t run her show, and if no other network picks up her show, then what? Is she nevertheless entitled to a sitcom? What’s your solution?”

            The solution is dead simple: Let the market of viewers decide. If viewership drops off and the show is not profitable, cancel it. If not, don’t.

        2. ” If her show isn’t offensive, then it shouldn’t matter to you what her politics or private views on things are.”

          No kidding. If I couldn’t watch movies with an actor whose politics I didn’t like, I wouldn’t be watching any movies at all.

      2. So, given a world where racist statements do make people upset, even to the point where they demand that the speaker be fired, what would you like to see done about this situation

        Gut the fuckers who got upset and hang them from lampposts as warnings to other special snowflakes to grow the fuck up.

        What? If this shit keeps up we’re headed for a whole lot more blood than that.

        1. ^I like this solution. Hasn’t been tried yet

    3. You know who else has said the exact same thing but worrying about people getting fired for progressive views? A constant handwringer for other ‘freedoms’ in the workplace?

      Tony.

      1. Good for Tony. He has a point. The problem is that he doesn’t understand that non Progressives have a right to an opinion as well.

        1. You do have a right to an opinion. That doesn’t mean that other people should have their freedom to associate with you limited because they don’t like your opinion.

          What’s the point of freedom of association if you can’t dissociate from people you disagree with or don’t like?

          1. You do have a right to an opinion. That doesn’t mean that other people should have their freedom to associate with you limited because they don’t like your opinion.

            Sure, but that doesn’t mean your doing so is a good idea or make you anything but a fanatical ass for doing so. The question is not can you do this, you certainly can. The question is should you do this and would we ever want to live in a society where everyone does. And that answer to that if you have any sense is no.

            You think this is great because you don’t like Rosanne and you love virtue signaling about how you hate racists. Well good for you. I don’t like Rosanne or racists either. But, you seem to lack the imagination to understand that if voicing an unpopular opinion gets you run out society, it won’t end with running out the racists. Part of having a tolerant society is tolerating shit that kind of sucks and no one likes. Every society tolerates things it does like. That is not what tolerance means. We seem to have totally forgotten that. If you just tolerate things you like, you are not tolerant. You just have preferences.

    4. Nick knows this is never employed against progressives (Keith Ellison’s association with Farakahan for example or Joy Reid’s homophobic remarks, etc). So controlled opposition like Gillespie are safe.

    5. So Nick thinks immediately firing anyone who says something racist even when they say it away from their job and on a platform that has nothing to do with their job is a good thing.

      Why not? You think immediately firing me for saying “I do” even when I say it away from my job in my in-law’s backyard (which has nothing to do with my job) is a perfectly acceptable thing.

      1. No I don’t. Why would you think I would think that?

    6. “I suppose Nick assumes that this power will only be used against the wrong people who hold views Nick doesn’t like”

      A safe assumption, because Nick continuously adjusts the views he doesn’t like according to the current list of banned opinions.

    7. “I suppose Nick assumes that this power will only be used against the wrong people who hold views Nick doesn’t like”

      A safe assumption, because Nick continuously adjusts the views he doesn’t like according to the current list of banned opinions.

  12. Is Roseanne Barr’s Firing a Sign of Persistent Racism or Racial Progress?

    I’ll choose 3: it’s a sign that artists even in their private capacities cannot speak outside the Overton window.

    That’s a bad thing.

    Let people realize on their own that Roseanne is a racist, Islamophobic, misogynistic boor. Welcome ABC saying itself that Roseanne is a racist, Islamophobic, misogynistic boor and they do not condone her private activities. But withdrawing entertainment from millions of viewers and wiping away tens of millions of dollars of net present value in order to appease the expected critics is extremely intolerant and anti-diversity.

    I would hope not to see such over-the-top suppression in polite society, but we appear to be stuck with it.

    1. I’ll choose 3: it’s a sign that artists even in their private capacities cannot speak outside the Overton window.

      Bingo. The left uses the power to make anything it deems “racist” verboten to keep people from honestly discussing facts and opinions the left doesn’t like or want heard. You would think Nick would be smart enough to see that.

    2. >>Let people realize on their own…

      can i not care?

      1. Yes. But apparently not if you’re a fan of the show.

        I frankly know nothing about Roseanne firsthand, and can only conclude she’s a racist, Islamophobic, misogynistic boor from what others say. But I frankly don’t care either way.

        I do, however, care about the rot in society when intolerance wins out and induces the suppression of completely unrelated facets of the lives of people that it targets.

        “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That used to be something people believed. What is it now? “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, except I’ll take away your livelihood as well as the livelihoods of dozens of people who have nothing to do with it and the enjoyment of millions of people who also have nothing to do with it?”

        1. So what is the alternative here?

          “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, and moreover I am also forced to actively support speech that I disapprove of for the sake of your coworkers and your customers”?

          1. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, but what you do on your own time is your own business until it affects my business at which time I will sever whatever associations with you I feel are warranted.”

            1. but what you do on your own time is your own business until it affects my business at which time I will sever whatever associations with you I feel are warranted

              Which is what ABC did. So what is the problem?

              1. ABC severed the association before seeing whether it would affect their business.

                From #3 sitcom to losing money? Due to one tweet? With four months to backpedal and repair before the new season?

                There were other courses they could have taken. If I were they I would have put up a Roseanne-is-a-boor-but-we-still-broadcast-her-show web page to delineate what is ABC and what is Roseanne. I would have shown some tolerance. Instead ABC took the “safe” course and cost the world tens of millions of dollars.

          2. Where is the force?

            1. It surrounds us and penetrates us, it binds the galaxy together.

          3. I don’t think anyone is saying that you should be forced to support anything, or punished for not supporting it. Just that it is a troubling social trend that people must now be erased from public view if they say something out of bounds (or take liberties and make comments to the ladies).

        2. >>>the rot in society when intolerance wins out and induces the suppression

          chance this is exactly what Roseanne wanted? she went out on top. maybe she played abc

        3. On the left, it was mostly just a matter of “You disapprove of what I say, but should defend to the death my right to say it.”; They only opposed censorship because they thought somebody else would get to be the censor.

      2. No, your tweets are indispensable.

    3. Nobody is owed an audience.

      1. Indeed. And ABC must be especially careful with brands such as Disney and ESPN that they don’t want to sully with Roseanne’s opinions.

        It’s just a comment on society that ABC feels forced to do this. They wouldn’t in a polite society that was capable of separating people’s jobs from people’s opinions.

    4. I’ll choose 3: it’s a sign that artists even in their private capacities cannot speak outside the Overton window.

      Actually, it is because Roseanne spoke outside of the limits of what the advertisers would tolerate, Overton window or not.

      I think the distinction between “speech that is politically acceptable” and “speech that affects the company’s bottom line in a negative way” is one that should be important.

      1. Actually, it is because Roseanne spoke outside of the limits of what the advertisers would tolerate, Overton window or not.

        While this is true, advertisers are in the same feedback loop as everyone else. They’re scared shitless that their ads will appear in the same time slot as someone who said something icky, and get caught in the Twitter Tornado. As I said above, everyone is just living in a kind of quiet fear that they’ll be accused of racism. Somehow, being accused of casual racism is worse than murdering people.

        1. >>>everyone is just living in a kind of quiet fear that they’ll be accused of racism

          everyone *else* … it’s frightening and beautiful to watch

      2. I completely agree. If the show lost money because of Roseanne’s tweets — or because of any other reason — ABC should drop it.

        But ABC did not wait to see whether the advertisers would flee. They preempted the market signal. Somehow I doubt the logic was, “We will lose so much advertising that we will have to cancel the show.” I think it was, “We need to get rid of Roseanne so we are not associated with her.”

        That’s just intolerance. I don’t blame ABC. But I do blame the times we are in. They are very intolerant. We would all be better off if the first reaction to something like this was not to care about it at all. But too many people invest too much time and too many emotions into signalling offense. That is not the hallmark of a healthy, tolerant, diverse society.

        1. By your standard, then, why should Hobby Lobby have fought the Obamacare birth control mandate? Surely it would have been cheaper for them just to go with the mandate than for them to fight it.

          1. We’re supposed to accept the times we are in even as they energize a government to make mandates under threat of force or imprisonment?

            I guess I don’t follow.

            Regardless, I would think the actual costs to Hobby Lobby were not too great. A lot of lawyers and organizations on Hobby Lobby’s side surely picked this up on their own dime.

            1. My understanding, is that Hobby Lobby fought the ObamaCare mandate primarily due to the owners’ moral and religious convictions, and not primarily due to financial considerations. Which is absolutely fine with me, by the way. But the standard you seem to be asserting, is that businesses ought to make decisions based on dollars and cents alone. So it was wrong for ABC to cancel Roseanne’s show based on an offensive tweet, without first looking to see how it would affect their bottom line. I don’t think that is a particularly worthy standard, because in part it denies the moral agency on the part of the business owners themselves. I don’t see anything wrong per se with individuals, or businesses (which are run by individuals) to make decisions based on considerations other than just money.

              1. Fair point. It is entirely possible that ABC is not at all influenced by the zeitgeist of intolerance that, e.g., made an entire industry erase Garrison Keillor from history and that they simply were making a fifty million dollar statement that a tweet does not reflect their high standards.

                1. Or it could be that ABC management are acting according to their own sense of values, where those values are “cravenness”. I don’t know either. Problem is, you are trying to have it both ways. That companies are sometimes justified in acting based on principles and standards even if those standards are costly, but only if those principles and standards are one that you stand in solidarity with. If it’s ones that you don’t, then companies should act like amoral soulless Scrooge McDuck’s and only act according to what’s best for the bottom line.

              2. Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation, the owners are the people making the decisions. There’s no fiduciary interest to violate, if they want to lose money on principle they’re entitled.

                ABC is a widely held public corporation, the decisions are being made by people with a tiny fraction of the ownership, perhaps none of it, exactly the situation where fiduciary interest is a relevant consideration. If they decide to lose the company a mid sized fortune in order to signal their virtue to their peers, they’re cheating the owners.

                1. *Or*, the management at ABC is acting according to the values and preferences of the shareholders.

                  Either way, “fiduciary duty” is not just about making money, it is about acting in good faith and with good stewardship in mind. And it’s not hard to argue that taking a moral stand for certain principles, OR EVEN just not suffering the wrath of would-be protestors, even if it means short-term financial loss, is acting with good stewardship. It isn’t up to us anyway to decide if management were good fiduciaries, it’s up to the owners.

                  You also seem to want to have it both ways – companies can take brave moral stances that can cost them money, but only if they are stances that you sympathize with. If companies take brave moral stances that you disagree with, then they should act like Scrooge McDuck and just shut up and make money instead.

                  1. No, I was quite explicit about it: The reason Hobby Lobby could reasonably lose money on a brave moral stance, is that they’re a closely held corporation, a handful of owners who agreed on the brave moral stance. The people making the choices were sacrificing their own money, not somebody else’s.

                    If ABC were in the same situation, I wouldn’t mind them deciding to lose money on moral stances I disagreed with. Their money, their choice.

                    But they’re not, so the problem is that it’s actually somebody else’s money they’re bravely sacrificing.

                    This is actually an endemic problem in corporate governance today, management treating the corporation as their personal property, not somebody else’s property held in trust. I think it’d due to widely diffused stock ownership managed through funds rendering the prospect of aggrieved stockholders revolting implausible.

                    I don’t know what the fix could be. It’s not like the government can plausibly step in and demand that fiduciary duty be fulfilled; Realistically they’d just impose politically dictated choices, not fiduciary ones.

  13. and the interracial nature of their union is so completely unremarkable that it is rarely if ever discussed

    This is the observation of someone who hasn’t spent much time in rural barrooms, at gun bashes, participating in militia training exercises, or attending Republican committee meetings — and, apparently, has never been to the Deep South.

    1. I think this says way more about you then anything if you’re constantly privy to meetings where interracial marriage is a hot topic.

      1. Apparently, the Rev is part of some gay, redneck, white supremacist, bathroom hookup culture. More power to him if that is his thing, but I don’t think we can read larger lessons out of the views expressed there.

        1. I bet he gets invited to some kickass cookouts.

          1. Probably, but only because the other people in the club feel obligated to invite him.

          2. mmmm I find blacks make better BBQ, IME

        2. That explains the creepy pig costume he wore to my gun soiree. I insisted it was black tie, but I think he was just used to it

        3. Apparently, the Rev is part of some gay, redneck, white supremacist, bathroom hookup culture.

          Probably not really “part of” so much as “the hired entertainment.”

          In case it’s not obvious, I’m implying that he routinely spends his Saturday nights having fat, beer swilling, gun toting, white supremacists pulling trains on him..

      2. The Good Reverend speaks more like someone who imagines these things, than has lived them, because for those of us who have lived them and grew up in flyover country and, I *think* may have attended a “gun bash”, it seemed there was less racism (fewer racism? Can racism be counted? I’ll let Tim Cavanaugh weigh in on that) in my general youth than there was when I moved to the enlightened North.

        Sure, there was racism, but it was kind of straightforward, easy to spot racism, whereas what I see among these damned Yankees is a creepy identity politics that treats race as the central aspect of everyone’s existence. The latter is, I’m told, enlightened.

        1. I spent 17 years in a backwardness- and bigotry-infused hometown, then left the day of my high school graduation and never returned to spend a single night there. I still visit relatives in unsuccessful, unattractive communities but have done everything I could think of to avoid residing in one.

          1. I spent 17 years in a backwardness

            Unless you are only 17, you have spent a lot more time than that in backwardness. You are the most backward, ignorant person I have ever met.

          2. I don’t believe you

            1. I don’t believe him either.

              I also don’t believe he expects to be taken seriously.

              1. I still don’t believe you

          3. I still visit relatives in unsuccessful, unattractive communities

            Ok, now you’re becoming a parody of the cosmo. I’m putting you in the same category as OBL.

          4. You know, when I first saw your posts I knew–I KNEW you were one of those inbreds who think they can obviate their hick habits by packin’ up the truck and headin’ to Beverlee.

            But you can’t.

            No matter how hard you try, Artie, everyone knows.

            Because you act like a parody of what you think an ‘enlightened person’ is. You are a living, breathing OBL.

            You ape words and stances you don’t comprehend. You think city folk hate country people and are nasty to them. They’re not. But you don’t know that. So you act like your country folk relatives tole’ you city folk act.

            No real city bred person, however liberal they might be is anything like you.

            Why not just walk around in overalls with bare feet and a piece od straw stuck in your nearly toothless mouth? Because that’s what everyone sees every time you post..

        2. And for an excellent example of hidden-beneath-the-surface Blue Enclave Racism, witness the reaction of upper-middle class Hillary voters on the Upper West Side when the New York School Board recently proposed letting minority kids from poorer neighborhoods into their schools.

    2. “Gun bashes”

      Excuse me, they are called gun soirees

      1. In REAL America* we call them fiesta de armas.

        *Arizona is the only real america.

        1. Six old Apache dudes and a roadkilled coyote can’t be wrong!

          1. If you want a guy who’s tough you could do worse than an old Apache. They seen some shit.

            1. I would never fuck with an old Apache.

              [shudders]

              1. Yep. Even big, mean, plains indians show a lot of respect to the little people.

      2. The ticket I still have for a “gun bash” says you’re wrong.

        Plus, the average gun basher couldn’t spell or define soiree even with a pistol to the temple.

        1. It’s nice that you keep the tickets to things you hate as fond memories.

          1. You have to prove you’ve “seen the devil” when you keep whinging on about it. So yes, you keep your receipts.

            1. He wrote it off as opposition research

            2. Kind of the same way I kept an old Carter-Mondale pamphlet for years after the 1980 election.

              It was as clunky, condescending, and tone deaf as you would expect from the Carter campaign; the writer patiently explained in detail to every possible voting group what wonderful things they had done for an ungrateful America.

          2. I found it in an inside jacket pocket more than a year later and kept it (so far) because it had a telephone number on it. Also because it was a lucky ticket.

            The event was enjoyable. The food was great, the music was mediocre, the company was good, and the cause also was good. I gave the gun to the guy who provided the ticket.

            1. “I gave the gun to the guy who provided the ticket.”

              Because shindigs where guns are provided as party favors are ubiquitous in flyover country. It’s our version of an ice cream social

              1. I realize you are probably talking about an auctions/raffle, which is a thing, so I’ll change my reply….I’m glad you gave your gun to someone more mature

    3. And I’m sure you’ve done all these things and can report firsthand on your findings?

      1. I spent part of my youth at VFW and American Legion bars, at a shooting range clubhouse, visiting homes in a town that did not value education, at a Klan recruitment rally, etc. I occasionally visit family members in towns in which interracial marriage is still perceived as a damnable provocation. I know the level of intolerance and ignorance that is out there from direct experience.

        1. I don’t believe you

    4. I have, in fact, done all of those things. And while I HAVE encountered bigots, it wasn’t in any of those places.

  14. Gay says public gestures toward racial justice by corporate America and Roseanne actress Sara Gilbert are simply “part of an elaborate and lucrative illusion” that papers over the daily indignities faced by African Americans.

    And that right there is why “racial justice” will never be a thing. There are too many people making too many arguments and getting paid to do so.

    1. Sounds like she just read Meditations on First Philosophy and is adding her own sweet twist to it that thought experiment.

      1. Racism exists because she can imagine nothing greater than it?

        1. I was focusing on the “part of an elaborate and lucrative illusion” part: a evil (and also racist) demon.

          But I think we can draw many parallels to this quintessential work of philosophy.

          1. Ah, yes. It’s been a while since I read it.

    2. Serious question, don’t we all face daily indignities?

  15. Why can’t it be a sign of persistent racism and a sign of progress with respect to racism?

    It appears to be both.

    1. ot neithrr6

      1. neither…jfc

  16. I don’t mean this to be insulting, but Gillespie has got to be the absolute worst cultural critic to ever write. This is an unbelievably horrible take.

    If Roseanne’s single Tweet and firing shows the persistence of racism and our society’s quick response then what does Keith Ellison’s or the Women’s March’s association with noted anti-semite Farrakahan show us about the persistence of antisemitism and our unwillingness to confront it when it comes from the “right people”?

    1. The only thing that Roseanne’s firing shows is that some people can get away with that language, but not if you’re from the “wrong side”

    2. Roseanne was also an ardent Zionist – making her debacle doubly delish.

  17. True progress is when people don’t think comparing a black person to a monkey is any different than comparing a white person to a monkey. What if we tried to raise kids that weren’t even aware of the historical connotation of the monkey used to describe black people? What’s the other option? To continue it forever? Racism will not end that way.

    Also, people like Gay and Coates make hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, lecturing Americans about how oppressed they are and it is impossible to overcome racism. The plurality of poor people in this country are white, and they’re tired of being lectured about privilege from wealthy people.

    1. What if we tried to raise kids that weren’t even aware of the historical connotation of the monkey used to describe black people?

      There are those who believe that there is more to culture than what is passed down. It’s not unreasonable to believe that even with no prior exposure someone would still eventually make that comparison. After all, somebody had to do it first for it to even enter culture.

    2. Racism will not end that way.

      How do you believe it will end (if you believe it will end)?

      I predict it will end through education (which can counteract childhood indoctrination by racists) and after nearly all of our society ostracizes the bigots. So far, too many people appease the bigots.

      1. “I predict it will end through education (which can counteract childhood indoctrination by racists) ”

        but enough about leftists…

      2. Define education

  18. Well, I’ll try not to be cynical here and just say good on Nick for remaining cheerfully optimistic that people who condemn Roseanne’s being immediately fired for making an offhand offensive remark on the grounds that, “Goddammit, that’s just not good enough” are making a good-faith argument. A more cynical person might make the argument that they’re engaged in moving the goalposts and providing evidence that grievance-mongers are gonna monger grievance no matter what you do or say so why bother even trying to assuage their grievances?

  19. A person prone to making outrageous statements was able to generate (too much) outrage. So much so that it cost her, and her castmates some gainful employment.

    Real-deal racism may not be much of a real thing anymore, but racial sensitivity and political correctness sure are.

    1. If her show was not racist, and I have never heard anyone say it was, then how does canceling it stop racism? Nick is too shallow and slow-witted to consider that question.

  20. It’s huge progress. The fact is Roseanne has a long history of horribly racist statements and this reckoning is long past due. They did the show because it was fun to see the reboot, but I actually think they know this was coming. In the last episode, she steal pills from neighbors and hides them around the house. It was truly a shit show and there was no other possible outcome. Roseanne goes to rehab? HAHA well I would have loved that personally but I don’t think you can get away with it any more. Anyway this problem is easy to solve. Don’t tweet racist garbage and you’ll have nothing to worry about.

    1. >>>Don’t tweet racist garbage and you’ll have nothing to worry about.

      yikes.

      1. Spike Lee and Louis Farrakhan hardest hit.

  21. it used to be that whackos like Roseanne were ignored

  22. If tolerance for offensive speech isn’t accepted as a social good, it won’t be long before it is not accepted as a political or legal good, either.

    Nothing about the mob reaction to Barr is “progress.”

    1. +1000

      Nick is a first class fool for not understanding that.

    2. You’ve already shit-canned the employers’ right to manage their own business … to defend a vile racist … which says all we need to know about your contempt for rights.

      it won’t be long before it is not accepted as a political or legal good, either.

      You also repealed the Constitution!

      Nothing about the mob reaction to Barr is “progress.”

      Not to your ilk, so totally obsessed by hated and bigotry that you DEMAND property rights be destroyed so you can spew your venom.

      Thanks for revealing it. And allowing John to do likewise. Will there be others?

      1. You’re either an idiot, insane or a troll … and I suppose I shouldn’t neglect the power of “and.”

        1. He’s a prog.

          And a sock.

  23. If Nick thinks it is so great for it to be the rule that saying something racist means you lose your job, why not just make it illegal? How is the same result okay if it occurs spontaneously because of the mob and not okay if the government does it? From the perspective of the person on the other end of it, it looks the same in both cases. And freedom is just as restrained in both cases.

    1. If Nick thinks it is so great for it to be the rule that saying something racist means you lose your job,
      why not just make it illegal

      John wants to make it illegal for businesses to control their own business.
      Anyone surprised by that?

      1. You are so stupid you don’t even understand what is going on. I mean why not make saying racist things illegal, not make it illegal to fire someone.

        There ought to be some kind of IQ test to get an account on here.

  24. If Nick thinks it is so great for it to be the rule that saying something racist means you lose your job, why not just make it illegal?

    getting fired =/= getting imprisoned

    1. Yes it does. I would rather. Would you rather go to jail for a few days or lose your entire career? And why not just fine people for saying racist things?

      I give you credit, you do try.

      1. Are you seriously arguing that losing one’s liberty is not as bad as losing one’s job?

        1. Yes he is. According to John, everyone is entitled to a career. Even if your a racist asshole and nobody wants to give you a job. Also, she hasn’t “lost her entire career”. Her show got canceled.

          1. ” According to John, everyone is entitled to a career.”

            There is no stupid quite like willful stupid.

  25. Listen closely. Hear all the other racists? Is it so bad that Trump and Roseanne are enablers of racists and other bigots? (See Charlottesville) Or is it a blessing by showing race relations are not as good as many of us came to assume. And publicly revealing the worst of the bigots and haters, the true “animals.”

    They’re now out in the open, where we can see them. Listen closely.

    1. How did Trump enable anyone in Charlottesville? And by that logic, do assholes like you enable Antifa fascist who beat up old ladies in places like Middlebury college?

      At some point, anger ignorant and stupid has to get old doesn’t it?

  26. If people can’t take a joke fuck em

  27. Did you hear the dog whistle?

    When I read and reread Roseanne’s tweet I saw no racial element to it. I find the association of Ape and the coincidence of Valerie Jarret’s race to be a “dog whistle” that I did not hear. Only a race baiter hears a whistle that was never blown.

    References to the Planet of the Apes and to the Muslim Brotherhood are not racist per se. Both references are about stories of political power run amok – exactly what Valerie Jarret did approving warrants to tap Trump’s wires. In the Planet of the Apes, human space explorers crash on an unknown planet run by intelligent apes who evolved. In the last scene, the Statue of Liberty is shown revealing that the space explorers have landed back on earth and humans have blown the place up. A similar lesson is seen in the reference to the Muslim Brotherhood – a group elected to power in Egypt that quickly set social progress and tolerance back.

    The suggestion that “VJ” is a child of reactionary politics is great sarcasm easily missed by the ignorant at ABC and those who intentionally want to imagine victims of an association between black human beings (or other minorities) and apes (monkeys, gorillas, etc.) that don’t exist in real life. Roseanne is the modern-day Archie Bunker ? and just as racist in real life as the kindly Carroll O’Connor was. Her crime was finding something nice to say about Mr. Trump.

  28. Everyone faces indignities pretty much daily. Seeing them as being caused by your race, as opposed to people tending to be selfish and oblivious to others around them is a matter of being taught that.

    When I first moved to Idaho I used to have to step up to people who used the expression “Jewed him down.” I haven’t heard it in a good long while. However, I was never like Woody Allen’s character in “Annie Hall” who heard covert Antisemitism in bad enunciation (“da Jew” instead of “did’jou for “did you”).

    1. These things are definitely taught. I was watching the 1983 Redskins football game during which announcer Howard Cosell described a black receiver as a “little monkey” on national TV. It was only later, listening to the people wanting Cosell fired, that I learned that Cosell’s statement was an insult. Frequently these lessons are taught by those who are offended.

      And if nothing else, that Cosell was not fired until 2 years later, when he criticized his coworkers in a book, demonstrates that something has changed (at least at ABC who also employed Cosell).

  29. So, when are the firings for the staff at CNN, ABC and other networks that have said things as bad or worse?

  30. Not condoning anything Roseanne did, not a fan of hers anyways…However, as far as “President Jarrett” goes…she is an evil individual.

    Since she lived with the Obama’s before the election and currently resides in the Obama D.C. compound….I wonder if she still tucks in Obama and reads him passages from the fictional Autobiographies?

    1. See…now if Roseanne had just said what you did, she’d still have a show.

  31. It’s only progress for the false morality system of political correctness. Our society has pretty much become the politically correct version of the Taliban. If you think political correctness can snuff out insults and acknowledgement of cultural and racial differences then you also probably think polishing a turd is entirely possible and you fail to understand human nature.

  32. If Roseanne tweets had been about someone in the Trump administration there would not have been any outrage and she would still have her job but not her viewers.

    1. Although I completely agree that there is a double standard here, comparing black people to apes is probably egregious enough to overcome partisanism. Roseanne’s slips fall into a category of their own… But true: had someone said something about, say, Sarah Sanders being overly emotional, I guess the left would be more likely to cheer than to call the person out with the same vehemence as they did for sexist attacks on Hillary.

  33. I am of two minds. On the one hand, we need people like her – on the left and on the right. People that speak their minds and explore the outer bounds of convention.

    On the other hand, what she said was truly despicable – even by, say, Breitbart standards. Several dimensions worse than even the more malicious interpretations of James Damore’s screed. Add to that the responsibility of public figures. Anyone who consider Damore’s ousting or Allen’s ostracisation justified could not reasonably condone Roseanne’s slips.

    At the end, the other hand wins – by a slight margin. There are few cases where I think we have a responsibility to muzzle public figures, but this is probably one of them. Calling for top investment bankers to be executed was borderline, but at least it was a dig at some of the strongest, most privileged people in the world. Comparing blacks to apes, on the other hand, is atrocious by any standards – I doubt even David Duke would go that far.

    1. I disagree with respect to any need for poorly educated, vulgar, gullible, boorish, stale-thinking goobers.

      We need precisely none of those. People are entitled to be half-educated, dopey, mean yahoos, but their betters need none of them.

      1. But does that also include the non-white poorly educated, vulgar, gullible, boorish, stale thinking goobers?

      2. The question is not whether you think we need them or not. The question is whether it is justifiable to use the power of the state to prevent them from speaking out.

        In most cases, it is better to defeat them through debate. Any reasonable person who has read Mein Kampf will come away convinced of anything he was not already convinced of. The text is irrational, borderline illiterate, and at times downright psychotic.

  34. This is not a defense of Barr, but this clearly illuminates the Hypocrisy that is today’s Liberal Leftist Prog.
    Let’s start with Chippy-Bush-Hitler… that went on for years. Big joke? Huh?
    The Orange Orangutan? Not a peep.
    Now consider that Iranian is not a race, so where’s the racism?

    So where’s the outrage stemming from? Roseann dared bring up the fact Jarrett was ?bama’s Wormtounge. A Hamas Terrorist sympathizer who ran Mid East foreign policy. How else do you explain the asinine decisions made not to help the Iranian uprising when they were trying to overthrow the Mullahs? instead they gave them hundreds of millions in small denomination, unmarked bills and gold in the middle of the night, without consulting Congress? Ordering the FBI not to say “Radical Islamic Terrorist”? Saying the Radical Islamic Terrorist who murdered all those solders in the DC military hospital was WORK PLACE VIOLENCE! WTF!
    No Obummer had to have at least agreed with all the bad advice (orders) Wormtounge was giving him.
    The Progs want us to forget all that treason ever happened. I think not.
    Remember, Wormtounge lives in ?bama’s domicile to this day.
    Worst. President. EVER.

  35. What Roseanne Barr did to black Americans is dwarfed by the on-going racism by liberals:

    “Why affirmative action failed black families where it matters most” http://malemattersusa.wordpres…..-families/

    This is not what you may think it is. It may be shocking for some.

  36. Well Reason never disappoints me in regards to the dumbest shit out there. Just lump this together with the dumb as shit Robby article on the same subject.

    No the Roseanne incident did not help race relations. It just emphasized that if you insult black people, or almost black people, I mean who knew Jarrett was black? you will lose your job.

    All other insults, no matter how vile are OK if you pretend to be sorry.

    Because that’s how equality works or something.

  37. Roseanne didn’t know Valerie Jarrett was black when she made the remark and if they’re honest most people here didn’t until they were told or Googled her.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.