Bdon Posted May 31, 2018 Report Share Posted May 31, 2018 Oh I 100% believe she knew the comparison but I'm not sure if she meant it here. I really dont think she's racist but she might be. I think she's always been pretty insensitive. She just doesn't have the care or capacity to control herself. She never has. Her old days of stand up were the same. Either way the network still had every right to can her show. It's their network and it was tasteless. And she is a celebrity so more eyes are on her but to be fair, social media in general is straight cancer. Everyone uses it as a soapbox. I use them to look at memes but most just trash people and most of the time it's those in politics. There is far nastier shit said about others on the regular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WNX Posted May 31, 2018 Report Share Posted May 31, 2018 I just hate the sensitivity of [blacks] being called a monkey/ape especially if it's one particular target as opposed to the generalization of the entire race. That was the majority of this problem. They saw "Planet of the Apes" and immediately went to "Apes, black, racist!" I only saw a brief shot of this lady so I don't know what she looks like off top but, if she looks like a primate, I don't think it should matter what color her skin is. I can't sit here and act like the funniest meme I associate GW Bush with wasn't the side by side chimp comparisons. So that's fine, but you can ruin several lives if you do it to someone black. That sheeit's irritating as hell. Double standards of equality in a nutshell. You wanna treat being called an ape like being called a n****r and they're not the same sheeit. I don't give a good gaddamn about connotations of the past, but of course I don't speak for anyone but myself Nope, and nope. You don't give a *Censored* about it, but it's still a racist thing to say. That connotation is still used all over the world, So you are speaking for yourself, but you don't really have a say in that matter, and yes. That joke was in bad taste and it sounded racist as *Censored*. If she wanted to insult her, she could have found something else. Okay, referring to blacks as apes being a racist thing is a fact. It was, you say it still is, whatever. I haven't personally heard it. But if you hear somebody refer to somebody else as an ape who just so happens to be black and just assuming that's racist because "well, back in the day [and even now]...", I still see that as an opinion. I would really like to know how I "have [no] say in that matter" What prompted that response? because I very well should have a say if it would effect me or the people around me. You're saying because I'm in the minority and the mass majority are hurt by a comparison to an animal because their ancestors were attacked with it, my opinion doesn't matter? I guess that's how this whole thing started to begin with huh? The majority thought it was cool to call the minority apes and it became law of the land, huh? That's the nature of things around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted May 31, 2018 Report Share Posted May 31, 2018 Apparently the right want to get revenge by getting Bill Maher ousted, but I see a lot of left saying that's a good thing because he's bigoted as well. Can't feel bad if Maher goes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedmaniac Posted May 31, 2018 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2018 Maher was already busted once for saying the September 11 terrorist were brave. They also want the View to be cancelled, I guess because they must criticize Trump every show, I don't know since I don't watch it. I don't mind at all, get rid of all this opinionated shit on TV and just go back to basic news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nWo_Kevin Posted June 1, 2018 Report Share Posted June 1, 2018 Maher was already busted once for saying the September 11 terrorist were brave. They also want the View to be cancelled, I guess because they must criticize Trump every show, I don't know since I don't watch it. I don't mind at all, get rid of all this opinionated shit on TV and just go back to basic news. If a show gets canceled it should be because it sucks. There are too many on the left and the right who hear something controversial and honestly don't even care about it. They are simply out for blood and want to make the opposite side suffer. I don't get it personally but its shame regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedmaniac Posted June 1, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2018 I agree that shows shouldn't be cancelled because they talk about or mention something that offends someone if it's in the interest of starting up a discussion about key issues, and one comment shouldn't be cause for getting the whole show canned. I do however understand why ABC cancelled Roseanne, she seems like a loose canon that will probably say more racist and embarrassing shit, causing even more trouble for the network. In short she does not have a good reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted June 1, 2018 Report Share Posted June 1, 2018 I don't think the liberals/left/democrats want to make the other side suffer, they just don't like bigotry. If it was about the other side, then they'd be fighting for Bill Maher, not be happy that another bigot might be taken off air. From what I've seen and read, especially from actual conservatives/the right, they care more about sticking it to the liberals. Hell, even Lena Dunham isn't popular among the left because she sexually assaulted her sister and went from speaking up for assault victims to defending her friend accused of assault. in the meanwhile, Roy Moore nearly won the nomination despite being accused of kissing a minor, and I've heard and read conservatives say they want MOore to win just because he's a conservative and to stick it to the liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nWo_Kevin Posted June 1, 2018 Report Share Posted June 1, 2018 I agree that shows shouldn't be cancelled because they talk about or mention something that offends someone if it's in the interest of starting up a discussion about key issues, and one comment shouldn't be cause for getting the whole show canned. I do however understand why ABC cancelled Roseanne, she seems like a loose canon that will probably say more racist and embarrassing shit, causing even more trouble for the network. In short she does not have a good reputation. Roseanne is defiantly a loose cannon, but ABC had to know this already right? I think what they didn't expect was that the show would be this successful. Remember ABC also canceled Last Man Standing. A show with high ratings, but with conservative views (though its coming back now and lets not confuse Rosanne as a conservative show). I have no way of proving this obviously, but i think ABC was just waiting for something to happen so they could pull the trigger and this was their opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted June 1, 2018 Report Share Posted June 1, 2018 Lol...in absolutely no way was ABC hoping something would happen so they could cancel one of their shows. Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? They were certainly hoping Roseanne wouldn't be a complete *censored*up. They definitely expected her to control herself, and I'm sure they would have loved to have kept the show running well into the future. That's such a backwards way to spin the blame...saying they expected (or even wanted) a reason to cancel their own show. Lmao. Where do you even come up with this stuff? I guess it's because ABC is Disney, and they were out to embarrass and bury Roseanne. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nWo_Kevin Posted June 1, 2018 Report Share Posted June 1, 2018 Lol...in absolutely no way was ABC hoping something would happen so they could cancel one of their shows. Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? They were certainly hoping Roseanne wouldn't be a complete *censored*up. They definitely expected her to control herself, and I'm sure they would have loved to have kept the show running well into the future. That's such a backwards way to spin the blame...saying they expected (or even wanted) a reason to cancel their own show. Lmao. Where do you even come up with this stuff? I guess it's because ABC is Disney, and they were out to embarrass and bury Roseanne. Right? As I already mentioned they canceled Last Man Standing. Which got high ratings. Clearly some working there care more about politics than viewers. That much is clear. They were pretty quick to cancel this show. So either they were waiting for an opportunity to do so. Or they caved to pressure immediately instead of taking time to think about if it would be a good idea or not. Now perhaps the latter is the reason and if you say thats the case I probably wouldn't argue with you. But do you think politics played 0% in this? I'd be shocked if so and perhaps that's' the wording I should of used instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted June 1, 2018 Report Share Posted June 1, 2018 They were quick to cancel it because they wanted to portray themselves as a family friendly company that doesn't tolerate bigotry. There's no deeper meaning than that. They didn't "want" to do it...they knew it would cost them revenue. They were thinking long term. Roseanne forced their hand. It wasn't "looking for a reason to cancel it"... Is it really that hard for you to understand the meaning behind a company distancing themselves from shitty people in the public eye? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango kid Posted June 1, 2018 Report Share Posted June 1, 2018 The funny thing is they weren't planning to it the same day they cancelled it was the same day the writers were supposed to come back to work for season two story lines But I do think Disney does to cave any sort of negative publicity or pressure from anyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted June 2, 2018 Report Share Posted June 2, 2018 Most companies would cave to any negative publicity and usually to pressure. It's business, they don't want to lose profits. Plus, as Gen said, Disney is supposed to be a family friendly entertainment, and supporting Trump is not family friendly. Though, Channing or whatever-is-his-name does seem to have a thing against conservatives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango kid Posted June 2, 2018 Report Share Posted June 2, 2018 Yeah but no one caves as fast as Disney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango kid Posted June 3, 2018 Report Share Posted June 3, 2018 Has everyone heard about the admitted pedophile running for congress in Virginia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted June 3, 2018 Report Share Posted June 3, 2018 I thought I posted the link here, but yeah. The more you read the article though, the worse it gets, from admitting he raped his ex-wife to supporting incels to wanting protection for women to be repealed or something. This dude should be thrown in jail or something before he hurts someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedmaniac Posted June 3, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2018 I think I read about him being an independent I believe. That should make it easy for both sides to hate on this guy and not have any support whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted June 3, 2018 Report Share Posted June 3, 2018 But some of his beliefs lean more towards the right, and if the left and liberals are against him because of his views, then that might spur the right to vote for him just to spite the left and liberals. I dunno, ever since Moore's near victory, I just don't have any faith in the right at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bdon Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 So Scotus rules in favor of the Colorado cake baker that refused to make a cake for a gay couple. 7-2 ruled (even democrats) that it was his right to exercise his freedom of religion. Good choice. Never even should've made it this far in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 I mean...the baker is still an asshole for being petty and intolerant. But, there was never any reason why he should have been forced to make a cake for a client he didn't want. That much is true. Either way, dead horse is dead; Has been beaten for far too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango kid Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 It had nothing to do with being intolerant just come on why should he gave up his beliefs The couple was in tolerant and for suing him for not respecting his beliefs Why is it when is always you don't believe in homosexuality or this and that you're intolerant and don't respect beliefs but it's okay for the other side to bash your beliefs and not respect your beliefs and have nothing happened to them It's happening more and more and you're seeing it more and more And it's not really intolerant when he serves gay people regularly included the ones that are suing him he just refused to make a wedding cake has no problem selling them a premade cake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bdon Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 It had nothing to do with being intolerant just come on why should he gave up his beliefs The couple was in tolerant and for suing him for not respecting his beliefs Why is it when is always you don't believe in homosexuality or this and that you're intolerant and don't respect beliefs but it's okay for the other side to bash your beliefs and not respect your beliefs and have nothing happened to them It's happening more and more and you're seeing it more and more I have to agree here. And they usually don't see their own intolerance in the process. No one talks about how the couple targeted this bakery with intolerance of the bakery's religious views when they could've went elsewhere. Pretty obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 Refusing to make a cake for gay people has nothing to do with being intolerant? Yes, the *Censored*, it does. And the religious excuse is a blatant cop-out. There is no religion that outright tells you to treat homosexuals as sub-human or deny them services. Even if you're considering homosexuality a sin, or whatever nonsense it is that some Christians believe...that only goes as far as your own actions. As long as you aren't taking it up the pooper from the mailmain, I think you're safe. There's no line in the bible that says "thou shalt not bake cakes for gays"...that's just a personal choice based on intolerance. Nothing more. Nothing less. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of religious folks don't believe it goes against their religion in any way to interact with gay people...so long as they aren't being gay themselves. Either way, the entire situation revolves around intolerance. Even with the religious reasoning. Intolerance is still intolerance...whether it's religious intolerance or not. I mean...do you understand the definition of intolerance? It's incredibly straight forward by definition. That man was being intolerant. That man is intolerant of homosexuals. There's no argument to be had. His reasoning for it is irrelevant. He's entitled to run his store however he wants. But he should have the balls to outright say "I'm intolerant of gay people" without using religion as a cop-out. Because, there are a ton of other religious folks who don't see their religion the same way he does. That's a personal interpretation of something, not "the word of god". Taken at the base level, homosexuality being a "sin" would obviously mean that you don't get into heaven if you are a homosexual yourself; It doesn't say that you should go out of your way to be an asshole to people who chose that way of living...at no point does it suggest that. Want to get into heaven? Don't sleep with the same sex. That's all I'm getting from that. Show me where it says you need to treat gay people like shit, and I'll sign off on that. Until then, it's a shop-owner who is using religion as a crutch for his own insecurities and intolerance towards gays. It's not illegal for him to do that. He can do that. It's his shop. But he is absolutely being an asshole. Unquestionably so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango kid Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 Refusing to make a cake for gay people has nothing to do with being intolerant? Yes, the *Censored*, it does. And the religious excuse is a blatant cop-out. There is no religion that outright tells you to treat homosexuals as sub-human or deny them services. Even if you're considering homosexuality a sin, or whatever nonsense it is that some Christians believe...that only goes as far as your own actions. As long as you aren't taking it up the pooper from the mailmain, I think you're safe. There's no line in the bible that says "thou shalt not bake cakes for gays"...that's just a personal choice based on intolerance. Nothing more. Nothing less. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of religious folks don't believe it goes against their religion in any way to interact with gay people...so long as they aren't being gay themselves. Either way, the entire situation revolves around intolerance. Even with the religious reasoning. Intolerance is still intolerance...whether it's religious intolerance or not. I mean...do you understand the definition of intolerance? It's incredibly straight forward by definition. That man was being intolerant. That man is intolerant of homosexuals. There's no argument to be had. His reasoning for it is irrelevant. He's entitled to run his store however he wants. But he should have the balls to outright say "I'm intolerant of gay people" without using religion as a cop-out. Because, there are a ton of other religious folks who don't see their religion the same way he does. That's a personal interpretation of something, not "the word of god". Taken at the base level, homosexuality being a "sin" would obviously mean that you don't get into heaven if you are a homosexual yourself; It doesn't say that you should go out of your way to be an asshole to people who chose that way of living...at no point does it suggest that. Want to get into heaven? Don't sleep with the same sex. That's all I'm getting from that. Show me where it says you need to treat gay people like shit, and I'll sign off on that. But until then, it's a shop-owner who is using religion as a crutch for his own insecurities and intolerance towards gays. Except it's not as he constantly sells them cakes all the time even the couple who sued Edith refuses to make one that's not really intolerant Let's ask this if let's say the klan asked him to make a cake and he refused and he got sued because it was against his beliefs and in the Supreme Court ruled that Baker would anyone be mad no W praising the Supreme Court you would not be all upset about it or calling him and intolerant This is the same case It's not like you refuse to sell sell them than anything or they can't shop there he just refused to make a cake People need to stop making other people give up their beliefs for their beliefs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 If he constantly sells homosexuals cakes...then what the *Censored* is this story even about? I don't have time for this shit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.