That didn't last long. ABC Cancels Roseanne after tweet about Obama aid.

[jamil]

In-group fighting/insults is never looked at the same way as out-of-group fighting/insults.

As an example, imagine a professional baseball game. If two players on the same team fight, the other team stays out of it. Their own team will either let them fight or break it up, but they most likely won't join in and make it a general melee. Fighting within the same group is a fight between INDIVIDUALS and treated as such. Now, same scenario but the players on are different teams. Even if the exact same thing caused the fight, now the benches are cleared because two people fighting is suddenly a fight between GROUPS.

Barr's problem is no matter how you look at it, it was an out-of-group fight. Particularly with the racist overtones, it became a group fight and those hosting her show had no intention of clearing the benches with her.

Samantha's slur is a woman using a slur against women to "fight" another woman. Those who view it through that lens will see it as an in-group fight, thus between individuals, and see no hypocrisy in Roseanne being treated more severely. Being crude and hateful toward an individual is a lesser offense than being crude and hateful toward an entire group, so the social punishment is less (particularly if you can justify the victim "deserving" it). Those who view it as a political attack will view it as an out-of-group "fight" and see no difference, they're still ready to clear the benches. If Roseanne was black, I think the response (if any) to her tweet would have been much more subdued. And if Samantha were a man, a harsher response to her skit/speech/whatever. As it stands, Roseanne is stuck with an out-of-group and Bee has people in the debate with both perspectives. People will see a legitimate difference or a contrived one based on which perspective they have.

Something to consider... I think this is mostly right, except that the grouping around Samatha Bee is more political. It's true enough that woman-to-woman alone isn't going to clear the benches. But that's not the predominant grouping. It's ideological fringes, with the sane middle kinda siding with one or the other. In the case of Bar, the fringe right is with her, the fringe left is against her--that dynamic is unchanging. The middle sided against Bar because they see her as disparaging a group. Whether she did or didn't is at least a little nuanced, but not enough to split the middle.

With Bee, the grouping is again with the same fringes taking the obvious sides, but this time the middle is more aligned against bee. People aren't outraged because a woman called another woman a ****. They're outraged because a personality on a network show called the president's daughter a ****.

Of course the middle is a little more split over Bee than they were over Roseanne Bar. But I think that has more to do with the middle left's popular membership in #resist. However it appears that most of the middle are not with Bee. And several advertisers have pulled their ads from her show. But in her case, there's not a network exec loathing her popularity, eager to find an excuse to fire her, like there was with Roseanne.

The big question is, is there hypocrisy in all of this? Well, not with the sane middle. It seems to me they've picked the socially consistent sides both times. But I'd say that there is evident hypocrisy in both fringes. Flip the circumstances and both fringes will reliably flip the words.

 

[jamil]

Yeah, those monologues are written, reviewed, edited, and typed into teleprompters. She read that line. It was 100% intentional. No one in the whole line of people thought enough to stop it.

yet Rosanne does a spontaneous post at 2am and she’s evil. Samantha bee did this with intentional forethought and malice. If she says this intentionally on her show, imagine how far she goes in the recesses of her mind or in private conversation

Well. C'mon. This is Roseanne Bar we're talking about here. She tweeted what she thought at 2AM. Would the thought have been any different at 2PM? At most the difference may have been that she would have only thought instead of tweeting it. Tweeting her thoughts may have been thoughtless, but it's more obvious that her thinking is consistent with other things she's said in the past.

The right shouldn't regard her as the ally they do. Being a trumper shouldn't protect her from reasonable backlash.

 

[T.Lex]

If Roseanne had been on rock cocaine instead of ambien, would she have been the...

... Trumper of crack cow?

ETA:

Upon reflection, I'm wondering if that might be a bit too obscure....

 

[jamil]

Are you suggesting Barr's remarks were against a group? If so, what group? The only group mentioned was the muslim brotherhood, otherwise, I see it as a jab against one person - Valerie J.

The media may be spinning it towards a group, but the reference was not even close.

C'mon. You know the ire isn't about muslim brotherhood. It's about Bar calling a black woman an ape. It's the implied grouping. An infamous slur. Whether she knew VJ was black or not is at least a little in doubt, but it seems the most evident context sort of makes it clear she must have.

 

[jamil]

Well, if you're conducting a poll, today I don't give a flying feck at a rolling donut.

Does that make you an indifferent feck?

 

[jamil]

If Roseanne had been on rock cocaine instead of ambien, would she have been the...

... Trumper of crack cow?

Oh that was baaaaad. Reeeeely REEEELY baaad.

 

[T.Lex]

Oh that was baaaaad. Reeeeely REEEELY baaad.

From you, that brings me copious amounts of glee.

 

[printcraft]

Here is a comprehensive list of all the fecks I give about this:















It’s true.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Well. C'mon. This is Roseanne Bar we're talking about here. She tweeted what she thought at 2AM. Would the thought have been any different at 2PM? At most the difference may have been that she would have only thought instead of tweeting it. Tweeting her thoughts may have been thoughtless, but it's more obvious that her thinking is consistent with other things she's said in the past.

The right shouldn't regard her as the ally they do. Being a trumper shouldn't protect her from reasonable backlash.

i’m not Excusing Rosanne. I’m saying what she did was careless and stupid, what the other chick did was calculated, intentional, had the support of her show and producers, and much worse. Yet she’s fine

 

[jamil]

Here is a comprehensive list of all the fecks I give about this:

[...]

It’s true.

wait. You didn't list any fecks. That's illogical. If you don't give a feck, that's kinda feckful. Dude. Yer burning my head!

 

[jamil]

i’m not Excusing Rosanne. I’m saying what she did was careless and stupid, what the other chick did was calculated and intentional and much worse

Fair enough. One was accidentally transparent. The other was intentionally transparent.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Fair enough. One was accidentally transparent. The other was intentionally transparent.

I added a line to my post. Her show and producers went along with it. Where are their penalties? Rosanne’s were fired for something they had no control over.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Her show and producers went along with it. Where are their penalties?

They have to keep working with Samantha Bee?

 

[jamil]

I added a line to my post. Her show and producers went along with it. Where are their penalties? Rosanne’s were fired for something they had no control over.

Several advertisers pulled their adds. People are condemning it. It appears to me that the sane middle mostly sides with NOT calling the president's daughter a feckless ****.

The reason Roseanne's show won't get canceled is because she, her producers, and the network execs are in the same group. They side with Bee. Of course they're not going to cancel the show, unless advertisers leave in droves.

Roseanne's show was canceled because of advertisers, sure. But it was evident that the network execs were eager to do it anyway because they're in opposing in-groups.

 

[jamil]

They have to keep working with Samantha Bee?

I don't get the feeling they're adversaries.

 

[Mark 1911]

I've never been a Roseanne fan and don't have a problem with her getting fired if her comments were truly racist. I think Bee's comments were very crude and I wouldn't have a problem if they fired her for it. I can't blame any father for protecting his daughter, and if I were the POTUS and someone attacked my daughter, you can bet I would use my influence in my daughter's defense.

Corporate policies should at least be applied fairly and consistently. That might be a tall order for ABC.

 

[T.Lex]

Corporate policies should at least be applied fairly and consistently.

There's only one policy that matters: profitability.

 

[Mark 1911]

There's only one policy that matters: profitability.

I must agree. Sad but true. Or maybe we're both just getting old and cynical.

 

[hoosierdoc]

There's only one policy that matters: profitability.

Nah. Agenda matters a lot too. Look at the book advances Hillary gets. Then book falls way short and she doesn’t pay it back

 

[T.Lex]

I must agree. Sad but true. Or maybe we're both just getting old and cynical.

Yeah, part of me wonders if ABC knew something about the ongoing profitability of the show that made the decision easier.

Nah. Agenda matters a lot too. Look at the book advances Hillary gets. Then book falls way short and she doesn’t pay it back

Compensation takes many forms.

I'm sure an affiliation with HRC opens many doors to deals that might otherwise be closed.

In terms of media companies, IMHO agenda is a function of profit. It is a numbers game. By leaning left, they attract better writers and creative types, who put on "better" shows, and get better ratings by appealing to a larger demographic of viewers, which attracts more marketing dollars.