Double Standards So Obvious that Only a Progressive Wouldn’t be Appalled

Roseanne Barr’s racially tinged tweet was wretched, but she immediately deleted it an apologized profusely. No matter, to insult a member of the blessed Obama’s inner court is the highest of crimes in the view of the Hollywood progressive elite. Meanwhile, obscene slanders lobbed at the current U.S. president, his children and, well, any Republican are of no consequence.

Roseanne the show was always, and when rebooted continued to be, about a struggling working-class family with close black and LGBT friends. No matter, Roseanne the tweeter lost it and, being a Trump supporter, must not be forgiven.


Actually, this makes sense:

More. Andrew Klavan writes in the Wall Street Journal:
>>Roseanne Barr and Samantha Bee seldom have anything interesting to say. But their recent controversies explain our political situation. Taken as one, the story has the precision of a parable.
Ms. Barr, a Trump supporter—in one of her many thoughtlessly grotesque moments—tweets a vulgar remark about longtime Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett. People reasonably interpret it as racist. Within hours, Ms. Barr’s No. 1 television program is canceled. Even reruns of her decades-old show are taken off the air.
Ms. Bee, a leftist who hates Mr. Trump—in one of her many well-scripted and vetted grotesque moments—makes an obscene remark about Ivanka Trump. That it is misogynistic is beyond dispute. The audience cheers. Her producer brags that the obscenity is trending on social media. After a day of outrage from the right, Ms. Bee issues a halfhearted apology. She receives an award. Her unpopular and unprofitable show stays on the air. Influential cultural voices earnestly debate whether her ugly comment was really all that bad. The conversation trails into silence.<<

18 Comments for “Double Standards So Obvious that Only a Progressive Wouldn’t be Appalled”

  1. posted by Lori Heine on

    I think what Roseanne did was certainly stupid, but more childish than racist.

    As much as I love her show–I even had an essay in Liberty magazine praising the reboot–she is an awfully strange person.

    Some people simply ought to stay away from Twitter. And I mean, far, far away. It’s not for those lacking in introspection or self-control.

    • posted by David Bauler on

      Roseanne Barr has said and done lots of really weird and or wretched stuff. This tweet was just the latest. Public figures — on both sides — get a fair share of criticism, but the racist nature of her comments were wretched.

      Oddly enough the ORIGINAL Roseanne TV series had a center-left political slant to it. It didn’t talk down to ‘middle America’, but it also did not cater to their wretchedness.

      It dealt with interracial relationships, racism, gender roles, abortion, depression, teen sexuality, lack of access to health care, etc, labor unions, outsourcing, etc.

      The writing was generally quite good, I think Josh Whedon (of Buffy fame) worked on the show. It had lots of appeal from across the socio-economic spectrum. But, it was mostly a moderately feminist, center-left platform.

      The series had quite a few gay characters, and they were actually given a bit of development. Not as good as say, Buffy, but impressive for a 1990s network TV series set in a blue collar/lower middle class household.

      The series also got lots of complaints from [conservative] people who felt that Barr was not patriotic or that the series was ‘promoting’ homosexuality.

      I am not sure if Barr always believed in wild conspiracy theories, but her right-wing politics seems sudden and forced. As if, she wanted to lift up her career by appealing to Trump supporters, and was willing to say or do anything to show that she had, ‘drank the kool aid’, if you will.

      If she had not come off/sounded racist in her tweet, it would have just been another case of Barr catering to wild conspiracy theories or catering to Trump supporters.

      In America, when a celebrity or public figure says something that sounds or comes off as racist, their are social consequences. Barr had to know that, but, I suspect that she wanted appeal to Trump supporters and sell the show accordingly .

      For better or for the worse, when the something in question sounds or comes off as being sexist or homophobic or ableist or something other then racist, its much less clear what social consequences will be, if any.

  2. posted by Jorge on

    Ooooooh! A progressive self-breathalizer test. Let’s try it!


    Yay! I’m a progressive again!

    But I notice something interesting. I’m losing my instinct of running far, far, far away from this controversy.

  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    I see that Stephen is following the script this morning.

  4. posted by MR Bill on

    I will content my self noting that T Rump and his adherents have used the word “cunt” in discussing Female Democratic politicians and indeed any woman they disapproved of.
    And I am bloody sick of feigned outrage.

  5. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    And I am bloody sick of feigned outrage.

    It is all about energizing the base. Dimes to donuts, Perkins & Company are going to drag Jesus into this sooner or later. That’s the piece missing so far.

  6. posted by Jason S. on

    Those attacking the blogger seem completely unable to address the issue of Hollywood hypocrisy and double standards. Wonder why that is?

  7. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Those attacking the blogger seem completely unable to address the issue of Hollywood hypocrisy and double standards. Wonder why that is?

    Perhaps because there isn’t a double standard. Media tend to tolerate almost anything from the stars that make big money for them, tossing them if and only the situation becomes so untenable that the bottom line will be affected.

    Take ABC and Roseanne Barr, for example. Barr has a long history of inflammatory comments, and the situation has gotten worse in the last few years. ABC certainly knew that but fronted her show anyway, because it was the biggest moneymaker of the season.

    Take Fox and Bill O’Reilly. Fox paid out millions upon millions in settlements to cover O’Reilly’s ass while he was riding high in the ratings, and dumped him only after advertisers began to drop him in droves.

    CBS held on to Charlie Sheen through years and years of incendiary comments and behavior, dumping him only when he went beyond what advertisers would tolerate.

    Mel Gibson has a long history of virulent anti-Semitism and abhorrent behavior, but continues to hang on, although tarnished and somewhat diminished, because he continues to be a money-maker.

    Keith Olberman is much like Gibson in that respect. He continues, apparently, to be valuable enough to ESPN to survive (why is beyond me), although in a much diminished role than he played years back. The minute he loses his value, he’s gone.

    Samatha Bee is, in the niche market she serves, a valuable commodity. Like ABC, Fox and CBS, TBS is unlikely to drop her just because she called Ivanka a cunt. If she goes too far in the future, TBS will drop her like a hot rock.

    I have no idea what will happen with Joy Reid. She is the most popular regular on MSNBC after Rachel Maddow. As such, she has a lot of currency with MSNBC and she may survive the increasing drumbeat of revelations. Or she may not. We’ll see.

    The moral outrage being ginned up by conservatives is based on a false premise, the premise that media companies like ABC, Fox, CBS, TBS and the like keep/drop stars on moral grounds. That’s simply not true. These companies, like all companies, operate off the bottom line.

    If Rosanne Barr hadn’t turned herself into an economic third rail for sponsors, ABC wouldn’t have dropped her. That’s not a double standard; that’s the way it works.

  8. posted by Jorge on

    It is all about energizing the base.

    I agree, and I find it rather embarrassing.

    Those attacking the blogger seem completely unable to address the issue of Hollywood hypocrisy and double standards. Wonder why that is?

    This is not a double standard. As a recently reformed neo-progressive :* allow me to explain.

    Among slurs against blacks in the US, only the n-word is more offensive than comparisons to apes and monkeys is the n-word. It demeans them physically, intellectually, and temperamentally in a way that is dehumanizing and evokes comparisons to savagery, frivolity, and imbicility that are not far removed from justifying slavery. The term comes up publicly several times a decade and is very well established among African Americans and mainstream Americans (and certainly those of Roseanne’s generation) that the word is offensive and used offensively to demean blacks.

    So sensitive are African Americans to the comparison to animals, that the term “water buffalo” was once misinterpreted as a racial attack of the same nature.

    Racism is the cardinal sin in the United States. And however much that is something a lot of mainstream America thinks is unfair, if there is any example of a statement that richly deserves social condemnation, it is what Roseanne wrote, a statement so loaded it serves to demean an entire race to whom the promise of equality was granted, a statement that could have gotten her fired twenty years ago.

    To talk of hypocrisy because a white woman called a white woman a nasty name and another white woman did it again two months later comes across as the height of callousness when African Americans are assaulted in word by people who should be their most trusted peers. And that is precisely why the African American vote turns almost universally to the Democratic party.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I think you are wasting your breath trying to explain why Roseanne Barr’s “ape” tweet was more offensive than Smantha Bee’s “cunt” line. Guys like Stephen and Jason S are so wrapped up in white privilege that they can’t see the difference.

      • posted by Jorge on


        Progressives have an annoying habit of thinking every offense known to man must be looked at interconnectedly, conservatives pick and choose what they are and are not concerned about. The result is the same: there are winners and losers, some people are left behind. Who wins and who loses becomes more about categories than about justice.

        A situation in which some people are concerned with Roseanne and others are concerned with Samantha Bee has consequences. It is quite another thing entirely when one tries to avoid negative consequences by persuading other people to ignore a racist incident. It’s bad enough when a majority of blacks are on the wrong side of an issue, but refusing to draw any line whatsoever? That’s the difference between the Republicans getting less than 10% of the black vote and getting 20-30%. I don’t think the right realizes just how much it contributes through its callousness to some of the truly horrid social ideas and policies among the left.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        Tom: Guys like Stephen and Jason S are so wrapped up in white privilege that they can’t see the difference.

        Jorge: Perhaps.

        Well, pick your poison — cluelessness or intention.

    • posted by David Bauler on

      —-among African Americans and mainstream Americans

      Extra! Extra! Jorge degrees that black Americans are not mainstream Americans. Read all about it.

      Seriously, this ‘virtue signaling’ from conservatives has got to end.

  9. posted by Kosh III on

    Where was Teanut outrage at Ted Nugent called Sen. Clinton a cunt? Or his many insults to Obama?
    Barr has called Clinton a cunt.
    I’ll don’t have a free month in which to cite the many insults Trump has uttered.

    “woe unto you….hypocrites.” JC

    • posted by Jorge on

      President Trump could do more to reassure Hispanic Americans that he has no ill will toward illegal immigrants who are not members of MS-13 and especially to convince the right to adopt his evenhanded rhetoric toward illegal immigrants, but that’s about it. It would be very helpful if the left accepted that his evenhanded rhetoric on race and immigration is appropriate. Some of the left, I assume, are good people.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Where was Teanut outrage at Ted Nugent called Sen. Clinton a cunt?

      Hey, guys get to say that.

      Barr has called Clinton a cunt.

      Well, in Barr’s defense, she didn’t actually call Hillary a cunt. She tweeted that “Anyone Who Thinks Hillary isn’t a Cunt is a Pussy”.

      And while I’m on a roll defending TrumpNation, let me categorically say that the rumor that President Trump cut off foreign aid to Nepal after being told that May 29th was the 65th anniversary of Hillary’s ascent is FAKE NEWS!

  10. posted by Kosh III on

    The Supremes just decided discrimination against gays and ONLY gays is AOK. Frak them!

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I just read the decision, written by Justice Kennedy. The decision is very narrow, limited to that particulars of this instance, and is not likely to affect future cases going forward.

      I’ll post more in the coming thread where Stephen crows and gets it wrong.

      I wonder if the decision, limited as it is to the particulars of this instance, is the reason that the Court granted cert to a similar case, not yet argued. Kennedy may have a favorable ruling in his pocket.

Comments are closed.