Thursday, May 31, 2018

Roseanne Barr Is How You Get Shocked By A Trump Win

So Roseanne joked that Obama crony Valerie Jarrett looked like someone from Planet of the Apes. That was enough to have her drawn and quartered, her dismembered body incinerated and the ashes thrown into a swamp. Or something like that.

Scott Adams had a good take on it, one I agree with, mostly. No one seriously thinks Roseanne is a racist. She might be a horrible person as a coworker and a boss, I don't know. She's certainly a ham-fisted comedian. I'd need a couple of beers to be able to watch her show, but I might find it funny after a few pops. She's crude and rough, but Scott (and I) don't see her as disingenuous. I'd say that there is almost no filter between her brain and her mouth or keyboard, in this case.

Roseanne realized her error and almost immediately posted an unqualified apology on her way to the gallows. It didn't do any good, she has now been erased from history.

Lately, in moments of boredom and sloth, I've taken to watching videos of the 2016 election night coverage where one pack of pundits after another watch in evolving horror and shock that Donald Trump is going to beat Hillary Clinton. No one saw it coming and as far as I can tell, they still don't know how or why they got surprised. Roseanne is why.

If a stupid joke from a television superstar leads to her annihilation even after a sincere and complete apology, why would Joe Sixpack ever venture to share an even mildly controversial opinion? You keep your head down and your mouth shut. When you get somewhere that is safe, you can talk (or vote), but in public, you say nothing.

That's how Trump shocked the world. The shock wasn't that Trump beat an unpopular harpy, it's that the public hid their opinions from the elites.

I wonder if Louis XVI and the French aristocracy were surprised when the peasants dispatched them.

CNN's Anderson Cooper in happier times.


Foxfier said...

There's a definite dark humor in watching folks look at the folks denouncing Rosanne... and then going back a few months on their twitter accounts, and finding them saying worse things that are explicitly racist.
None of this funky "if you say anything about apes you basically mean the N-word" stuff.

While it's a very rude observation, there's several examples of Jarrett next to one of the Planet of the Apes characters, the female scientist. It's at least as strong a resemblance and Bush being a "monkey" or whatever the thing with Trump and the gorilla channel is.

My eyebrows are going up because they apparently see nothing wrong with the Muslim Brotherhood part.

tom said...

I've mentioned this before, but it's fun to listen to podcasts leading up to the election. The "he's closing but will never make it" turns into "what the heck happened?" to amusing effect.

K T Cat said...

Foxie, I agree with you, but this is one case where I don't like the whatabout defense. I'm not ready to defend Roseanne or compare her to the swine on either side. I guess it's that by now, the hypocrisy doesn't even faze me.

Foxfier said...

I reject that pointing out double-standards is this new "whatabout" thing; they want to make rules and hold people to standards, they can choke on them. People not pointing out that they hold others to standards which they, themselves, will not follow is part of how we got in this mess.

Doesn't mean the twit they're attacking-- in bad faith, as you point out-- is even an OK person, but basic respect for truth and justice means that we're going to end up defending the Devil, if he's falsely accused.

Otherwise Joe Sixpack knows it's just a tool; when mere accusation is enough, everybody is guilty, so the only option becomes blowing the whole thing up, or joining the howling pack and hope you're eaten last.


Still worrying that they found the Muslim Brotherhood part untroubling.


Hm, got curious when the "whataboutism" thing came about-- it's actually a Briticism from the 90s. And it is not about pointing out a claimed standard not being a standard, it's attacking a claim of truth by attacking the person making the claim.
As the claim of "whataboutism" is thrown out in response to someone not accepting a proposed standard that the person proposing, the claim is based on the declared judgement of the person making a claim. Thus, evidence of that person's judgement ruling otherwise is evidence that the factual basis of their claim is questionable.

"I think that behavior is unacceptable in a public person, and they should be hounded out of the public eye."
"Here are times when the exact same behavior was acceptable to you, when it was not to your political advantage to object; this implies that your objection is not to the behavior."

"It is wrong to kill children, the disabled and the elderly."
"You support the death penalty and are against welfare! Whatabout those kids and people! You don't care about children, you want to punish women for having sex!"

That's whataboutism.

Foxfier said...

podcasts, heck, I am still trying to figure out what the heck happened, without figuring on a lot of fraud in normal elections.

K T Cat said...

Foxie, your points have merit. I'm just not willing to put emotional energy into pursuing them. So that means I agree with you and feel the same way, but I'm too lazy to do or say or blog anything about it.


lee said...

I'm pretty sure that Louis et Al were very surprised...

Foxfier said...

I'm just not willing to put emotional energy into pursuing them.

Totally fair. ^.^

Part of my energy is coming from seeing people making Really Obviously Bad Choices, and defend them with fake logic, and I can't do anything but argue.....