Sanofi, the maker of Ambien, responded with a statement full of shade: "While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication."

I thought that was a clever and inoffensive remark.

@MFJohnston wrote:

That's garbage.

We all acknowledged that nobody is perfect. However, that does not mean than nobody should be held accountable for wrongdoing. What Roseanne tweeted was abhorrent and clearly racist in meaning. She is simply suffering the natural consequences of her action. I can guarantee that if I were to spout off like Roseanne, I'd be terminated from my job.

Ambien: She brought Sanofi (maker of Ambien) into it. All Sanofi did was state that the medication does not cause racism.
ABC: After Roseanne's remakes, the show was doomed. It was going to lose cast members, advertisers, and viewers. ABC made a good business decision.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

Now. The folks who cancelled the show and the folks at Ambien should prove that they never made any offensive (intentional or unintentional) remark. Can each and every one of those persons do that?

What would you call this? Shop-et-al does not dispute one witty remark. Shop-et-al knows that some people consist of some witty and some wretched remarks. Roseanne Barr does. Do you? Shop-et-al is asking people not to cast stones. Some people might not withstand scrutiny and they might be embarrassed by their own poor or controversial word choices.

People spend lifetimes learning. Some have learned faster or more than others about the various offensive -isms. Be patient with Roseanne and others who may lag behind you in the mastery of what is and is not acceptable.

You are a teacher. Not all students in school or in life can work at the pace of your AP Calculus students.

1. Roseanne's comment was not a single mistake, a witty error gone wrong, or an isolated incident. It was a blatant pronouncement of her racist feelings. She has repeatedly compared folks with dark skin to apes and monkeys. She has dressed as Hitler and likened Jewish folks to cookies. She has likened Israel to Nazis and Islamic folks to pedophiles. Etc.

2. Casting Stones: If we do not call out racism when we see it, we enable it. Yes, we are all imperfect. However, that does not mean that we cannot be working towards a higher standard for all of society.

3. I am a teacher and I do recognize that some folks learn more slowly than others. However, when a student does something that harms others (emotionally or physically), they are held accountable - even if they need to "learn" the lesson multiple times. However, yes, kids need to get multiple chances as they learn. Roseanne is 65 years old and has been spouting off like this for over 10 years. It was over 20 years ago when she mocked the National Anthem before a Padres game. She is not a teenager who is still learning her way in life. She needs to be held accountable.

4. "Various offensiv-isims???" She was equating African-American folks to something sub-human, using terminology that comes from a time of slavery in this nation. This was not merely a little misstep in a world of hard-to-navigate micro-aggressions or a matter of mastering the "acceptable" v. the "unacceptable." This was a blatant and intentional disregard for human decency.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

@MFJohnston wrote:

That's garbage.

We all acknowledged that nobody is perfect. However, that does not mean than nobody should be held accountable for wrongdoing. What Roseanne tweeted was abhorrent and clearly racist in meaning. She is simply suffering the natural consequences of her action. I can guarantee that if I were to spout off like Roseanne, I'd be terminated from my job.

Ambien: She brought Sanofi (maker of Ambien) into it. All Sanofi did was state that the medication does not cause racism.
ABC: After Roseanne's remakes, the show was doomed. It was going to lose cast members, advertisers, and viewers. ABC made a good business decision.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

Now. The folks who cancelled the show and the folks at Ambien should prove that they never made any offensive (intentional or unintentional) remark. Can each and every one of those persons do that?

What would you call this? Shop-et-al does not dispute one witty remark. Shop-et-al knows that some people consist of some witty and some wretched remarks. Roseanne Barr does. Do you? Shop-et-al is asking people not to cast stones. Some people might not withstand scrutiny and they might be embarrassed by their own poor or controversial word choices.

People spend lifetimes learning. Some have learned faster or more than others about the various offensive -isms. Be patient with Roseanne and others who may lag behind you in the mastery of what is and is not acceptable.

You are a teacher. Not all students in school or in life can work at the pace of your AP Calculus students.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2018 08:32PM by MFJohnston.

@MFJohnston wrote:

1. Roseanne's comment was not a single mistake, a witty error gone wrong, or an isolated incident. It was a blatant pronouncement of her racist feelings. She has repeatedly compared folks with dark skin to apes and monkeys. She has dressed as Hitler and likened Jewish folks to cookies. She has likened Israel to Nazis and Islamic folks to pedophiles. Etc.

2. Casting Stones: If we do not call out racism when we see it, we enable it. Yes, we are all imperfect. However, that does not mean that we cannot be working towards a higher standard for all of society.

3. I am a teacher and I do recognize that some folks learn more slowly than others. However, when a student does something that harms others (emotionally or physically), they are held accountable - even if they need to "learn" the lesson multiple times. However, yes, kids need to get multiple chance as they learn. However, Roseanne is 65 years old and has been spouting off like this for over 10 years. It was over 20 years ago when she mocked the National Anthem before a Padres game. She is not a teenager who is still learning her way in life. She needs to be held accountable.

4. "Various offensiv-isims???" She was equating African-American folks to something sub-human, using terminology that comes from a time of slavery in this nation. This was not merely a little misstep in a world of hard-to-navigate micro-aggressions or a matter of mastering the "acceptable" v. the "unacceptable." This was a blatant and intentional disregard for human decency.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

@MFJohnston wrote:

That's garbage.

We all acknowledged that nobody is perfect. However, that does not mean than nobody should be held accountable for wrongdoing. What Roseanne tweeted was abhorrent and clearly racist in meaning. She is simply suffering the natural consequences of her action. I can guarantee that if I were to spout off like Roseanne, I'd be terminated from my job.

Ambien: She brought Sanofi (maker of Ambien) into it. All Sanofi did was state that the medication does not cause racism.
ABC: After Roseanne's remakes, the show was doomed. It was going to lose cast members, advertisers, and viewers. ABC made a good business decision.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

Now. The folks who cancelled the show and the folks at Ambien should prove that they never made any offensive (intentional or unintentional) remark. Can each and every one of those persons do that?

What would you call this? Shop-et-al does not dispute one witty remark. Shop-et-al knows that some people consist of some witty and some wretched remarks. Roseanne Barr does. Do you? Shop-et-al is asking people not to cast stones. Some people might not withstand scrutiny and they might be embarrassed by their own poor or controversial word choices.

People spend lifetimes learning. Some have learned faster or more than others about the various offensive -isms. Be patient with Roseanne and others who may lag behind you in the mastery of what is and is not acceptable.

You are a teacher. Not all students in school or in life can work at the pace of your AP Calculus students.

How can you "Shop-et-al" compare Math to Racism.....get real.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2018 07:41PM by Irene_L.A..

I thought Regal's reports were odd because I have to write in the third person. I find it really odd when people make posts and refer to themselves in the third person (Shop-et-al).

Oh, and would I throw stones at a blatant racist? You bet. A whole big bag of them. Too bad someone didn't do that to Hitler when he was young, and all of the KKK members, too.

Roseanne at 65 knows the difference between right and wrong but just doesn't care. She has been getting away with being a nasty, offensive racist b*&%# for many years and her "base" of other racists support her, so I am sure she was stunned to have her show cancelled. Kudos to the network that gave her what she deserved. And defending her by asking anyone to not "cast stones" is unimaginable.

Some of you have cast stones at me. One poster in the "what are you doing today..." thread put words into my post that i did not write. If I had not seen that, I would not have had an opportunity to state my position and draw attention to the discrepancy.

These behaviors are not much better than Roseanne's racism. They might not be an offensive -ism, but they are not truthful. I always forgive. I always remember that the members might be tired, frazzled, busy, or just giving more attention to other details. Some posters have asked for truthfulness, and others have not provided it. When an untruth goes on, unchecked, what happens? Some of you might know the answer to that question. If so, you might apply the Hitler reasoning to this concept. You would pillory Shop-et-al for lack of truth. Now, you might ask yourselves: do we want to harm someone based upon our lack of information? Are there convenient and inconvenient truths here?

Here is a question. How did someone conclude that asking people not to cast stones was the equivalent of defending Roseanne? I am not a lawyer! Roseanne can afford oodles of lawyers, if she decides that she needs some defense. Some people seem to be angry. I hope that she does not bodyguards to defend her from that anger. Here is another question: How does anyone know what Roseanne knows and does not know? Here is a third question: How does posting personal attacks at Roseanne make the forum and the membership any better than the racist remarks that Roseanne has made?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2018 08:58PM by Shop-et-al.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

Some of you have cast stones at me. One poster in the "what are you doing today..." thread put words into my post that i did not write. If I had not seen that, I would not have had an opportunity to state my position and draw attention to the discrepancy.

These behaviors are not much better than Roseanne's racism. They might not be an offensive -ism, but they are not truthful. I always forgive. I always remember that the members might be tired, frazzled, busy, or just giving more attention to other details. Some posters have asked for truthfulness, and others have not provided it. When an untruth goes on, unchecked, what happens? Some of you might know the answer to that question. If so, you might apply the Hitler reasoning to this concept. You would pillory Shop-et-al for lack of truth. Now, you might ask yourselves: do we want to harm someone based upon our lack of information? Are there convenient and inconvenient truths here?

Here is a question. How did someone conclude that asking people not to cast stones was the equivalent of defending Roseanne? I am not a lawyer! Roseanne can afford oodles of lawyers, if she decides that she needs some defense. Some people seem to be angry. I hope that she does not bodyguards to defend her from that anger. Here is another question: How does anyone know what Roseanne knows and does not know? Here is a third question: How does posting personal attacks at Roseanne make the forum and the membership any better than the racist remarks that Roseanne has made?

WHY are you making such a fuss to defend her, a racist for years...do you agree with her tweet, sounds like you do. Let's hear from YOU, not the hiding behind outlandish statements that she has a right to free speech. You always seem to be on the side of the offender, you can't be fighting for the cause of racism, or are you purposely trying to be offense.

Well, for one thing, her racist comments were not only hurtful, but they also were not truthful. VJ does not look like an ape and is not affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. But calling her (Roseanne) a racist is truthful and it is not a personal attack. If someone says the moon is made of green cheese and I say it isn't, I am not attacking them by pointing out the fact that it just isn't true.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2018 09:21PM by JASFLALMT.

@Shop-et-al
You asked how "not casting stones" can be equated to the racist statements themselves....

When nobody speaks up against evil, hatred and bigotry, the person/s displaying that speech is emboldened and believes that his/her speech is not only accepted, but a shared belief with those who hear it. Moreover, those who share similar tendencies will be emboldened as well and join and young folks may not realize just how harmful it is, enabling them to adopt similar ideas and outlooks as they come of age. This creates a culture that justifies, accepts and even glories the speech. It does not take much for such speech to turn into actions of violence.

By waving it off, turning our heads away, and ignoring it, we give such speech and attitudes the ability to fester, grown, and even flourish. In other words, if we are not willing to condemn the speech, we are very much part of the problem.

If this were a one-time bad drunken moment for Roseanne, letting her off the hook after an apology would make sense. But, she has a very long track record of this. Moreover, AFTER she was called out, she sent additional racist tweets. This is not somebody who is sorry for a mistake. This is somebody who feels justified for her actions. She is free to say what she wants. We are free to condemn her. ABC is free to make a business decision to terminate her.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I LOVE Ambien for stating that!

@walesmaven wrote:

She claimed that the medication Ambien caused her to make the racist post. I heard that the makers of Ambien issued a statement to the following effect: Like all medications, those that we make have numerous side effects. To date, none of those include racism.

I understand TBS is picking up the show. They seem to be OK with abhorrent remarks.

I understand TBS is picking up the show. They seem to be OK with abhorrent remarks.

You mean picking up reruns of previous episodes?

Roseanne's twitter comments were most definitely racist. She does indeed have a long history of making racist comments. She did not break the law because of the First Amendment. The definition of freedom of speech is the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. To the best of my knowledge ABC did not break any laws by cancelling the series. There were many people who lost their jobs as a result of that decision. I don't know how many people are involved in a series production, but an educated guess would be in the hundreds. It would have been great if ABC could have let Roseanne go, keep the series, and at least give it a chance to succeed for all the other people.

It's an excellent example for all to know while although it is not against the law to exercise their right to free speech, it can also have dire consequences. But sometimes not for every one.

Yeah, they could have killed her off and it just been "The Connor's"...might have even been a better show.

@JASFLALMT wrote:

You mean picking up reruns of previous episodes?

No. I'm being facetious. TBS is the network that has Samantha Bee. I don't watch either but I can't help notice many are jumping all over Roseanne but not a word about Samantha. Both were abhorrent remarks. Both offered a day late apology. Roseanne is fired, Samantha not. But perhaps that will change with sponsors starting to cancel out of the Samantha Bee show.

I don't know who Samantha Bee is...never heard of her. I don't watch much TV other than CNBC and The Weather Channel, Discovery, NatGeo, that kind of thing.

Samantha Bee was let go, and it is a big deal...on the news all the time...her vicious remark about Ivanka Trump posting a picture of her and her young son, called her the C word.....once something starts, the wannabees follow, their 15 minutes of fame. I really never dealt into Roseanne's personal beliefs, so was shocked to find out the depth of her racism. Her ex husband Tom Arnold said he wasn't surprised it came out, he was waiting for her to show this side of herself, and with social media, he said it was a matter of time. They had talked about just replacing her on the show with a comedian, but cancelled as many walked out. Don't you love how she blames a pill, although she did apologize, she had no choice, everyone apologizes when caught per Harvey Weinstein.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2018 11:21PM by Irene_L.A..

@LIJake
Folks are jumping all over Samantha Bee. What she said was absolutely crude and inappropriate. However, there are some differences to consider:
1. While crude and personal, Samantha made her comment as a part of a political point (knocking immigration policy), whereas, Roseanne's comment was pure insult.
2. Roseanne has a history of racist remarks for the sake of racist remarks. Samantha has a history of stepping over the line as a part of her commentary.
3. Samantha Bee has apologized, and come across as if she meant it. Roseanne sent out more racist tweets in response.
4. They are/were working for different networks. Each network has its own model for success. TBS certainly has the right to terminate Samantha, should it deem it in its best interest.

The reason that folks on this site were knocking Roseanne and not Samantha is that the posts on this thread were largely made before Samantha Bee made her comment.

I like what Sara Gilbert and Michael Fishman said. They disapproved of Roseanne's remarks, but they did not stop there. Sara pointed out that the show is distinct and apart from one cast member's behaviors. They and the show are more than Roseanne. Michael said that he worried most about the cast and crew who had turned down other work in order to work on the Roseanne show.

These are constructive comments. They spoke freely about their response to Roseanne's offensive remarks. However, no one is blamed, and no one is shamed. These are just two perspectives from people who are much closer to the situation than I am. Nice!

Yes, it is sad that the cancelling of the show hurt innocent folks. That happens in business all the time.... I am certain that ABC would have kept the show going if they thought they could do so. However, it's very understandable that they were not thrilled about keeping the show "Roseanne" around with out Roseanne..... We can't expect them, however, to run a show that will not be profitable....

Without reading everything, am I understanding Samantha Bee's commentary on one political figure is being likened to Rosanne's comments reducing an entire race of human beings to animals?

Now, now. Evolution, which is ever more popular or blamed as an explanation of humans, might be somewhat related to those remarks. Depending upon the education packet you believe, humans portray just one phase or representation of life and are not distinct from animals such as those in zoos and wild spaces. (Irene would scold me if I started a religio-political discussion, so I have to stop this post right now. Right, Irene?)

Pointing out the obvious, network and cable content and business decisions differ, due to audience, time slots, and revenues. Remains to be seen whether statements against one person will be dealt with similiarly, as opposed to an entire race, because of surname.

BTW, tonight's talking heads discussed the possibility of The Connor's show, following the death of Roseanne.

They are in damage control mode. It is too late for a viewer poll and a proactive response. How many people would have chosen something less draconian than cancelling a show? How many would have demanded a creative solution that considered all involved or affected?

I'm pretty sure that "making racist remarks on Twitter" was not a part of the contract so, although they cancelled the show, they have to pay whatever the cancellation fee is and I'm sure it's not small. Anyone can bring a show concept to the networks and they can do test shows and pick up the show. That's what happened with "Rosanne". It was her show and she sold it so they can't use the same concept or keep the show with different actors.

@Shop-et-al. Not cancelling the show would say that the network approves. She didn't over-salt the fries at Red Robin and can be retrained or have half the holes plugged in the shaker.

And a feckless #$%^ is not the same at all, not even close. Fighting words, maybe. But not the same at all.

ABC had all the power to handle this as they saw fit. Perhaps the network panicked instead of taking a few extra hours to figure out what to do for all involved or affected. Not cancelling the show may have indicated that the network stood for the show, even if it stated publicly that the network did not share the views that Rosanne expressed elsewhere. If the new version of the show is/was as adept with controversy and issues as the original version (which I watched), there was/is plenty of talent to pull off a change without cancelling the show. About that contract: were the tweets in question specifically mentioned in the contract?
It is time for me to find out who the advertisers were. Do I want their products and services? Do I want to pay my money to companies who withdrew expected finances from crew members and others who did not offend me?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2018 03:32PM by Shop-et-al.

Or, maybe, ABC realized that having a show associated with somebody who could not help but to spew racist garbage was not worth the the constant headaches it would cause.... (Even with Roseanne Barr out, the show title of "Roseanne" would haunt them.) ..... Their polling right now will determine if they think it worth their while to have a spin-off with the other cast and crew members.

I'm sure ABC and their advertisers are fine with you boycotting their products.