Trump called Roseanne Barr to congratulate her on huge ratings success

[luthervol]

Why was it okay for Imus to repeatedly call the First Lady vile and disgusting things with no repercussions, yet when he called the Rutgers' women's basketball team nappy headed hos, he is fired?

 

[BowlBrother85]

Why was it okay for Imus to repeatedly call the First Lady vile and disgusting things with no repercussions, yet when he called the Rutgers' women's basketball team nappy headed hos, he is fired?

It couldn't have happened in that order. Imus was fired from MSNBC in April of 2007 for his nappy headed ho's comment about the Rutgers women's basketball team (I remember that because it was the Lady Vols who had beaten Rutgers in the championship game that year). In April of 2007, Barack Obama had just announced he was running for President two months earlier. She obviously wasn't the first lady yet.

 

[Weezer]

I think I did say it was ridiculous, pointless, and done for nothing more than shock value. However, her comment was in no way comparable to Barr's. Barr's comment was "racist" and that makes all the difference.

I also provided the example of Don Imus constantly saying equally crude and derogatory remarks about Hilary while she was First Lady. He never suffered any repercussions. When he called the Rutgers' women's basketball team nappy headed hos, he was fired. The difference....one came across as racist.

It's the way things are and it has nothing to do with republican and democrat, no matter how loudly republicans scream otherwise.

Barr appears to many to be a racist, that is rightfully an unpardonable sin in today's society.

So to sum up, you believe it's okay to spread hate, but racial hate is just wrong? If that's not what you're saying, then simplify it for me. My personal opinion, and note, it's MY personal opinion, I'm in no way saying everyone must share this opinion. My personal opinion is hate is hate. It doesn't matter if it's racial hate, sexist hate, homophobic hate, or any other distinguishing hate, hate is hate and in any form is wrong. It doesn't matter how it was handled in the past, it's about how do we handle it now.

Roseanne was fired for her remarks. I'm okay with that. Sometimes a person's words come with consequences, now she has to pay those consequences. Samantha Bee used hateful words as well, but she has no consequences to pay. That certainly makes me wonder, was Barr fired for her hateful words, or was she fired for her politics in general. If hateful words are offensive enough to warrant a firing, shouldn't that be a consistent standard? The glaring difference between the two women is their politics, so it's only natural for questions to arise. And the way the left in general has rose to the defense of Samantha Bee while condemning Roseanne, well that certainly smacks of a double standard. I've seen several liberal commentators suggest she shouldn't even have apologized. The fact is, they seem to think her words perfectly acceptable because of who they were directed against.

I'm not going to single you, or any other poster on this board out, but the reaction from the left in general tells me they do not have a problem with hateful speech. They have a problem with hateful speech directed toward them. It's a selfish action, in no way heroic, yet they portray themselves as heroes standing up against the bullies. The fact is, more often than not, they are the bullies. And before you go on about Trump and the right being bullies, you're right, they are. That's been one of my primary points all along. Politics is full of hypocrites. They exist on both sides of the aisle. And when you defend one side while vigorously attacking the other, you fall prey to the games that they play.

 

[luthervol]

It couldn't have happened in that order. Imus was fired from MSNBC in April of 2007 for his nappy headed ho's comment about the Rutgers women's basketball team (I remember that because it was the Lady Vols who had beaten Rutgers in the championship game that year). In April of 2007, Barack Obama had just announced he was running for President two months earlier. She obviously wasn't the first lady yet.

I'm talking Hilary in the 90's.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I'm talking Hilary in the 90's.

Oh, gotcha... I never listened to Imus.

 

[Weezer]

Oh, gotcha... I never listened to Imus.

Most sane people didn't.

 

[luthervol]

So to sum up, you believe it's okay to spread hate, but racial hate is just wrong? If that's not what you're saying, then simplify it for me. My personal opinion, and note, it's MY personal opinion, I'm in no way saying everyone must share this opinion. My personal opinion is hate is hate. It doesn't matter if it's racial hate, sexist hate, homophobic hate, or any other distinguishing hate, hate is hate and in any form is wrong. It doesn't matter how it was handled in the past, it's about how do we handle it now.

Roseanne was fired for her remarks. I'm okay with that. Sometimes a person's words come with consequences, now she has to pay those consequences. Samantha Bee used hateful words as well, but she has no consequences to pay. That certainly makes me wonder, was Barr fired for her hateful words, or was she fired for her politics in general. If hateful words are offensive enough to warrant a firing, shouldn't that be a consistent standard? The glaring difference between the two women is their politics, so it's only natural for questions to arise. And the way the left in general has rose to the defense of Samantha Bee while condemning Roseanne, well that certainly smacks of a double standard. I've seen several liberal commentators suggest she shouldn't even have apologized. The fact is, they seem to think her words perfectly acceptable because of who they were directed against.

I'm not going to single you, or any other poster on this board out, but the reaction from the left in general tells me they do not have a problem with hateful speech. They have a problem with hateful speech directed toward them. It's a selfish action, in no way heroic, yet they portray themselves as heroes standing up against the bullies. The fact is, more often than not, they are the bullies. And before you go on about Trump and the right being bullies, you're right, they are. That's been one of my primary points all along. Politics is full of hypocrites. They exist on both sides of the aisle. And when you defend one side while vigorously attacking the other, you fall prey to the games that they play.

These are not equal hates:

She hates brussel sprouts.
She hates Bama fans.
She hates child molesters.
She hates ISIS.
She hates political extremest from the opposing side.
She hates black people.

But I agree overall, especially with your last paragraph.

 

[Squints]

These are not equal hates:

She hates brussel sprouts.
She hates Bama fans.
She hates child molesters.
She hates ISIS.
She hates political extremest from the opposing side.
She hates black people.

But I agree overall, especially with your last paragraph.

Brussel sprouts aren’t living beings
Bama fans participate in incestual relationships
Self-explanatory
Self-explanatory
Don’t blame her (oh, and it’s “extremist”)
She never said that

Hate is hate. Stop trying to marginalize which is worst.

As for puberty, dumbass comment. You’re old, but not that old. My balls dropped long before your college-aged kids were born. Although, it was a nice attempt at a burn. I may need a skin graft.

 

[luthervol]

Brussel sprouts aren’t living beings
Bama fans participate in incestual relationships
Self-explanatory
Self-explanatory
Don’t blame her (oh, and it’s “extremist”)
She never said that

Hate is hate. Stop trying to marginalize which is worst.

As for puberty, dumbass comment. You’re old, but not that old. My balls dropped long before your college-aged kids were born. Although, it was a nice attempt at a burn. I may need a skin graft.

It was a generic "she". I had "I" at first but didn't wish to deal with all of the misinterpretations.

Hate is hate just the same as love is love....which is really not much at all. There are different types and degrees of both.

Hate based on an inborn characteristic is more despicable than hate based on a chosen characteristic.

The hate behind what Barr said is viewed by society as more despicable than the hate behind what Bee said.

 

[luthervol]

Did anyone watch 1968? Fascinating. So many parallels to today, 50 years later.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Who is that specifically? If someone said that, you should point them out, none of this 'some people say' sht.

OK. Should she be fired?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Why was it okay for Imus to repeatedly call the First Lady vile and disgusting things with no repercussions, yet when he called the Rutgers' women's basketball team nappy headed hos, he is fired?

Because Mark Furman was racist.


Same reason.

 

[Weezer]

It was a generic "she". I had "I" at first but didn't wish to deal with all of the misinterpretations.

Hate is hate just the same as love is love....which is really not much at all. There are different types and degrees of both.

Hate based on an inborn characteristic is more despicable than hate based on a chosen characteristic.

The hate behind what Barr said is viewed by society as more despicable than the hate behind what Bee said.

What Roseanne said was despicable. I won't argue that. What Samantha Bee said was despicable as well. Are you suggesting Ivanka Trump deserved to be called a "feckless ****"? Why? Because she supports her father? I could understand your "degrees of hate" comment if SB had limited her hate to Ivanka's politics. She went a step further, making it a personal attack. When you attack a person in such a way, whether over race or sex or sexual orientation or whatever else, the hate is equal. This isn't about hating a food or an abstract concept. This is about directing hate at an individual. And not only was it wrong, it was cowardly. She did it in such a way Ivanka didn't even have the recourse of defending herself. She abused her platform of having a television show to attack a person. Should there or should there not be some level of accountability when someone does that?

 

[luthervol]

What Roseanne said was despicable. I won't argue that. What Samantha Bee said was despicable as well. Are you suggesting Ivanka Trump deserved to be called a "feckless ****"? Why? Because she supports her father? I could understand your "degrees of hate" comment if SB had limited her hate to Ivanka's politics. She went a step further, making it a personal attack. When you attack a person in such a way, whether over race or sex or sexual orientation or whatever else, the hate is equal. This isn't about hating a food or an abstract concept. This is about directing hate at an individual. And not only was it wrong, it was cowardly. She did it in such a way Ivanka didn't even have the recourse of defending herself. She abused her platform of having a television show to attack a person. Should there or should there not be some level of accountability when someone does that?

Bee is a comedian using her platform to push the line. She may have crossed it, that's up to her employer and the public. Comedians have been doing this forever. Twitter is not Barr's platform and "racists" comments are considered worse when determining if the line has been crossed.

I'll grant you the fact that at times there seems to be a double standard but there will never be a way to ever completely separate the act from the underlying intent and motive.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It was a generic "she". I had "I" at first but didn't wish to deal with all of the misinterpretations.

Hate is hate just the same as love is love....which is really not much at all. There are different types and degrees of both.

Hate based on an inborn characteristic is more despicable than hate based on a chosen characteristic.

The hate behind what Barr said is viewed by society as more despicable than the hate behind what Bee said.

Leave it to the resident liberals to normalize and excuse hate. As you were.

 

[Matt2496]

Leave it to the resident liberals to normalize and excuse hate. As you were.

It's a ok to be hateful if you're a liberal, but if you're a conservative, you're fired immediately without second thought.

Roseanne didn't even use a racial slur and was only referencing a movie, whereas Bee actually used the c word. Bee should definitely be fired if liberals are to be held to the same standard as conservatives.

 

[IPleadInsanity]

Bee is a comedian using her platform to push the line. She may have crossed it, that's up to her employer and the public. Comedians have been doing this forever. Twitter is not Barr's platform and "racists" comments are considered worse when determining if the line has been crossed.

I'll grant you the fact that at times there seems to be a double standard but there will never be a way to ever completely separate the act from the underlying intent and motive.

So one is a comedian on the job calling people "C**t" and that is Ok because her employers is OK with it? The other is a comedian "not on the job" using a public forum calling people monkeys and she is fired by her employer.

What's worse that fact it is considered her job to do it or that there is an employer hiring people to do this job?

 

[TennTom]

Leave it to the resident liberals to normalize and excuse hate. As you were.

You mean hate like childishly mocking Gold Star families, POWs, disabled people, political rivals, beauty pageant contestants, protesting American citizens, and countless sexual assault victims?

 

[BowlBrother85]

The use of the c-word reflects the impact of "Game of Thrones" on pop-culture. It used to be very rare to hear it spoken in movies and especially on television. It's prolific usage on GoT has made it more acceptable. That's probably not a good thing.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You mean hate like childishly mocking Gold Star families, POWs, disabled people, political rivals, beauty pageant contestants, protesting American citizens, and countless sexual assault victims?

Oh, you're talking about Trump? He's an idiot.

Good to know there are those among you that excuse "certain" hate while calling your enemies hate-mongers, though.

Kudos?

 

[TennTom]

Oh, you're talking about Trump? He's an idiot.

Good to know there are those among you that excuse "certain" hate while calling your enemies hate-mongers, though.

Kudos?

Well, at least you admitted that the right has normalized and excused his childish, boorish behavior. See, you're making progress. Yes kudos.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Well, at least you admitted that the right has normalized and excused his childish, boorish behavior. See, you're making progress. Yes kudos.

"Admitted"? I typed that a long, long time ago. When will you realize that I'm neither a republican, nor a democrat? I'm a "burn them both down and start serving the people" guy.

 

[Weezer]

Well, at least you admitted that the right has normalized and excused his childish, boorish behavior. See, you're making progress. Yes kudos.

Have they? You guys love to point out how it's the Republicans themselves trying to take Trump down. Remember, Mueller is a Republican after all.

Not only that, but very few on here actually defend his character. Pointing out he cannot be impeached for it is far from excusing it. Find an actual crime, not some made up crap, and I'll side with you on impeachment. The biggest difference between you and I is I want facts and evidence of guilt. You want him impeached because you don't like him. This country is gonna be in for a hell of a ride when we start impeaching on "feelz".

 

[TennTom]

Have they? You guys love to point out how it's the Republicans themselves trying to take Trump down. Remember, Mueller is a Republican after all.

Not only that, but very few on here actually defend his character. Pointing out he cannot be impeached for it is far from excusing it. Find an actual crime, not some made up crap, and I'll side with you on impeachment. The biggest difference between you and I is I want facts and evidence of guilt. You want him impeached because you don't like him. This country is gonna be in for a hell of a ride when we start impeaching on "feelz".

I haven't mentioned impeachment in this conversation. We're talking about normalizing crude, hateful behavior. You know, like the President of the United States exhibits daily. If you are going to interject yourself, do try to keep up.

 

[Weezer]

I haven't mentioned impeachment in this conversation. We're talking about normalizing crude, hateful behavior. You know, like the President of the United States exhibits daily. If you are going to interject yourself, do try to keep up.

So it's Trump's fault that you act crude and hateful on VN?