Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
This is worth a read.
Roseanne’ Is Gone, but the Culture That Gave Her a Show Isn’t
It was the kind of thing Roseanne Barr has been doing online for years. This time, however, the backlash was immediate and vigorous. Ms. Barr apologized for her “joke” that wasn’t really a joke and said she was leaving Twitter as if Twitter were responsible for her racist behavior. That apology was not enough. ICM Partners, her agents, stopped representing her. The comedian Wanda Sykes, who was a consulting producer on the reboot of “Roseanne,” announced that she was quitting the show. Within a matter of hours, ABC canceled the new “Roseanne” and the original show’s reruns were pulled from TV Land, CMT and the Paramount Network.
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.
The cast, the writers and the producers knew what Ms. Barr stood for when they agreed to work on the show. Everyone involved made a decision to support the show despite its co-creator’s racism. They decided that their career ambitions, or desire to return to network television, or financial interests would best be served by looking the other way. It was only when Ms. Barr became an immediate liability that everyone involved finally looked at her racism and dealt with it directly.
I watched and enjoyed the first two episodes of the “Roseanne” reboot but I could not continue watching, given everything Ms. Barr represents. I also watched the original version of “Roseanne” when it aired. I remember the Conner family as working class and solidly invested in the greater good of their community. They seemed to be liberals, which is antithetical to the Roseanne in the reboot, who is a working-class Trump supporter. Certainly, the Conner family may have changed political affiliations and become Republicans and there would be nothing wrong with that.
The problem is that Donald Trump is a toxic president who amassed his power through the provocation of hate. He has behaved as if conservatism and racism are synonymous when, in fact, they are not. The problem is that having a major character on a prominent television show as a Trump supporter normalizes racism and misogyny and xenophobia.
President Trump often seems like a living embodiment of Ms. Barr’s Twitter feed, and many of his most vocal supporters revel in that. They revel in the freedom and the permission to be racist. The reboot contributed to a cultural moment that makes white people feel exceedingly comfortable and entitled as they police black bodies in public spaces.
I have, as of late, been thinking a lot about such policing and how, historically, black people have negotiated white entitlement to their bodies. The “Negro Motorist Green Book” was an annual guidebook curated during the Jim Crow era to let black people know where they could safely find gas, food and lodging while traveling across the United States by car. The “Green Book” was created out of necessity, and though it ceased publication in 1966, recent events have made it clear that there is still a need for some kind of guidebook detailing where it is safe to be black. Recent events have made it clear that such a guidebook would be a very slender volume indeed.
Lolade Siyonbola, a black Yale graduate student, was napping in her dorm’s common room when a white woman came upon her, told Ms. Siyonbola she couldn’t sleep there and called the police. Ms. Siyonbola then had to prove she had a right to be in her dorm, on her college campus.
In Southern California, three black women were checking out of an Airbnb rental and loading their luggage into the car when they were suddenly surrounded by police cars. A white woman had seen three black people with luggage, assumed they were criminals, and because the women didn’t smile or wave at the white woman, she called the police on them.
Three black teenagers in St. Louis shopping for a prom at a Nordstrom’s Rack were followed by two store employees throughout their time there. When the teenagers left the store with their purchases, the police were waiting.
Five black women were golfing in Pennsylvania when the police were called because the women were, purportedly, golfing too slowly.
Some black people were having a barbecue in an Oakland, Calif., public space and a white woman called the police on them for using a charcoal grill.
In Philadelphia last month, two black men waiting for a business meeting with a third person in a Starbucks were arrested for sitting in a Starbucks while black.
In each of these encounters, white people took it upon themselves to police black bodies in public spaces. They felt entitled to do so because of racism, which they used to delineate the borders of what they arbitrarily determined as acceptable behavior for black people. They felt this entitlement because that’s what racism does — it allows one group of people to feel superior to and imagine dominion over another.
On the same day that Ms. Barr sent her vile tweet, Starbucks closed all its American stores for a few hours of training about racial bias, as part of its campaign to rehabilitate the company’s image and ensure that what happened in Philadelphia doesn’t happen again.
When asked to comment about Ms. Barr’s tweet, Ms. Jarrett, the former Obama adviser, said, “This should be a teaching moment.” It was a dignified statement to be sure, but one wonders just how many teaching moments we need for white people to no longer feel entitled to comment on or police black bodies. And how much longer will we choose to consume pop culture that encourages such policing, either implicitly or explicitly?
Ms. Barr was free to speak her mind, but she was not free from consequences. Now that she is reaping those consequences, many people are praising ABC and its swift action. But there is no nobility in what anyone involved in “Roseanne” has done at any point during the reboot’s trajectory. Certainly, I empathize with all of the people who are now out of work, particularly those in the trades — the grips, best boys, camera people, production assistants and others who are not famous faces. But I also question what kind of empathy the decision makers had for the targets of Ms. Barr’s hateful rhetoric as they supported this show and her. They seemingly had none. Even at the recent network upfronts, ABC executives were joking about Ms. Barr’s Twitter feed.
Channing Dungey, the president of ABC Entertainment, said in a statement, “Roseanne’s Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show.” Bob Iger, the chairman and chief executive of Disney, AB Cs parent company, said, “There was only one thing to do here, and that was the right thing.” The cast member and producer Sara Gilbert lamented the show’s demise and said, “Roseanne’s recent comments about Valerie Jarrett, and so much more, are abhorrent and do not reflect the beliefs of our cast and crew or anyone associated with the show.”
All of these statements sound conscientious and righteous. These statements make it seem as if ABC is invested in doing the right thing. The statements make it seem as if the cast and crew are nothing like the show’s star. These statements are but part of an elaborate and lucrative illusion. ABC is the same network that shelved an episode of “Blackish” because it addressed the N.F.L. anthem protests.
I am more interested in the statement ABC could have made by never making the reboot in the first place.
edited 31st May '18 7:25:42 PM by megaeliz
![]()
The lawyer was asking himself that same question:
The jury consisted of one black man, two white men and five white women, he said.
Court rules forbid him from questioning jurors, so he can't get the answer to a question that's been dogging him: Were they trying to send him and the family a message?
"That a black child's pain is only worth a dollar is exactly the problem with the plight of the African-American right now. This says, black lives don't matter," he said.
Yeah, as others have mentioned, I'm not inclined to give ABC points for removing Roseanne when they gave her the damn reboot in the first place.
edited 31st May '18 7:25:23 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedThe reboot was the brainchild of Sarah Gilbert who wanted to examine the politics of the current political spectrum as well as reunite people she literally grew up with and helped raise her. It was neither Roseanne's idea or baby.
And it was Roseanne Barr who killed it.
Every interview basically said, "it's 200 liberal writers working behind the scenes to write the scripts Barr reads."
edited 31st May '18 7:33:29 PM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.I've always thought that systemic racism is arguably more insidious and harder to combat than overt racism, because there's this veil of pluasible deniablity around it.
What Roseanne said was obviously racist. She used what is often considered a racial slur, and has a history of similar comments.
Systemic injustices, on he other hand, are all about patterns of injustice and inequality, not necessarily individual cases. (For example, the problem isn't that Police arrest Black men, because race doesn't have to do with committing crimes. The problem is that Black people have a disproportionate amount of arrests and incarceration rate when compared to both the general population, and to the White population.)
It's more abstract, and less in your face, then obviously racist comments, so it's much easier to convince yourself that it has nothing to do with color of skin or whatever. I mean, most people don't consider themselves to be professed racists.
This can interact with garden variety racism in a number of ways, of course, and the two are often mixed up, but I do think it's worth discussing.
edited 31st May '18 8:25:50 PM by megaeliz
![]()
The lawyer sure thinks so.
Thirty witnesses were called during the trial, Phillips said, some of whom contested Newman's narrative that he saw a gun and that he demanded Hill drop the weapon before opening fire.
Among those was Hill's oldest child, 13-year-old Destiny, who was 9 at the time. She sat on a bench at the school across the street as the encounter unfolded. She testified that her dad's hands were empty, according to court records.
Responding to the lawsuit claim that Hill never raised his firearm or threatened deputies, Newman retorted simply, "Denied."
Phillips said he has numerous problems with the court proceedings, which will help form the basis of his appeal.
One is what he called the "evasiveness" of a police expert, who, despite answering defense questions, claimed to be hard of hearing when Phillips questioned him, the lawyer said. Phillips also alleged deputies changed their story about how Hill was holding the gun and whether he aimed it at Lopez, the other deputy.
He also said there was no blood spatter on the gun, which seems to back the family's claim that the weapon remained in Hill's pocket the whole time.
There were issues regarding timing as well, the attorney said. It was determined that Newman fired all four shots in less than 1.2 seconds, and an expert said the final shot to Hill's head would have immediately disabled his motor capabilities. This raises the question in Phillips' mind: How did Hill get the gun in his back pocket after he was shot?
Another factor prompting the attorney to seek a new trial is that the defense mentioned Hill was on probation for drug possession, which Phillips feels was meant to vilify Hill, as Newman had no way of knowing this when he responded. Hill's probation was also set to "automatically terminate" 11 days before his shooting, he said.
Phillips has handled many high-profile cases, most notably the Jordan Davis "loud music" trial in Jacksonville, and said he has rarely been left so disturbed by a jury's findings. He said he will be filing his motion for a new trial in the same federal court in coming weeks.
"This one'll haunt me for a long time if we can't get it reversed," he said.
edited 31st May '18 9:47:08 PM by rikalous
Starting in 2019, Vermont will being paying people 10,000 dollars to move there.
As one attempt among others to mitigate its aging population.
So I’m seeing reports of a fake bomb attack at university of Washington in Seattle, specifically by a youtube streamer using text to speech donations and streaming In Real Life.
The suspect has been arrested (though not before people played anti-police donations while the arrest happened) what a fucking mess.
edited 31st May '18 10:17:10 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
One thing I've learned in my decades upon this Earth: it can always get worse. If our luck is really bad we'll end up with a President that makes us miss Trump. A grim prospect, I know.
Remember that a lot of us who previously though Dubya was the worst President we've ever known now kind of miss him.
I'm not saying that it's likely to happen. But it'd be foolish to think that it can't.
edited 1st Jun '18 1:01:16 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedGrim indeed, such a scenario would imply at best a a competent individual who can ensure a slow (though till faster than under Trump) but barley reversible erosion of everyone's rights and what makes America an effective democracy. At worse it implies the nation would metamorphose into something that's blatantly more autocratic, authoritarian and caste-based.
Of course odds are that as long as people maintain a resistance of such efforts on all fronts (like Muller, the Democratic party and their voters), then they can still be averted.
edited 1st Jun '18 1:09:38 AM by MorningStar1337

I've heard Trump supporters bray about how he can pardon someone of a certain charge or aspect of a case, and that double jeopardy prevents a state from pursuing similar charges. Is there any basis in legal reality to that?
I think charges have to be filed first.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.