Rosie's comments about Asians

angelica

mookie9999 wrote:

Back to the original post, I feel that the pc crowd was all over this, after all it's been in the headlines and on the nightly news. To me that then makes the original post invalid.

Maybe the original poster was referring to people on this board. Why was this not considered an issue for the numerous so-called politically-correct people out here?

As far as focusing on those who receive less consideration, there is again nothing wrong with that, as there is nothing wrong with me focusing on the overall issue of the response to something a coimic says.

I agree, except you and I have different ideas of what the "overall issue" is.

However, my original point has and remains that people are overly sensitive to anything involving race to the point of attempting to induce unneccesary levels of censorship (see the laugh factory banning the "n" word) and attracting plenty of media attention. Remember, the customer that was yelled at by Kramer sole intention (according to him) was to playfully heckle the former Seinfeld star. Did he get what he deserved? Absolutely not! Should he have been kicked out long before the racists remarks were made? Absolutely! Had he been kicked out prior to the incident would he have claimed racism and gotten Sharpton involved? Who knows? Bottom line Censorship was UnAmerican, but America's changing for the worse.

Who has been censored in your view?

NMyTree

angelica wrote:

All people are equal and should be treated as such. What I'm saying is that they are not. And considering such inequity, you'll pardon me if I'm focussing on those who are receiving less consideration and who therefore have an issue as a result.

You're arguing that people should be upset about this and make a big stink about it.

I'm arguing, that based on the context of what Rosie said, people should not be upset about this and they have no business making a big stink about this.

Nor do I think people should get upset and make a big stink out of most of the nonsense that they do.

What Rosie said is not even remotely similar to what Michael Richards did. Not even close. In my opinion, the only ones who should be upset and make a stink are the black people who were there in that club. And even then there's a very incomplete picture of what exactly occured before that video of Richards and his tirade began. It seems those black guys may have verbally heckled Richards with the 'cracker" slur, before he flipped out. So I hardly see them as victims or anyone who deserves a financial settlement.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton should have kept their big mouths shut and kept their noses out of it. Of course Al and Jesse won't be speaking out against the next black entertainer to slam white people, will they?

Equality my ass!

You either want total equality and no discrimination and racism at all; or your one of those who do discriminate through preferential treatment.

Plain and simple.

angelica

NMyTree wrote:

You're arguing that people should be upset about this and make a big stink about it.

Not at all. I'm saying that actual communication and understanding takes place when we seek to understand the other person's point of view. I'm also saying that when our intent is to get the other person to sacrifice their view and pretend to have a view that they do not, we are not acknowledging the actual problem. We're justifying distorting it along with our understanding of it. Therefore, I see that we are not making progress in addressing the problem. We're ignoring it. At least Rosie validated the issue publicly. She acknowledged it which is a step. It may be short a full-fledged apology, depending on how you look at it, and she as much gave herself permission to do something similar in the future due to her nature, according to what I got from the article. It's definitely a step in the right direction, in addressing the hurt feelings and the offense taken.

You either want total equality and no discrimination and racism at all; or your one of those who do discriminate through preferential treatment.

Plain and simple.

I don't buy into "either/or" arguments. I see that as a polarized unrealistic perspective. To each their own view, though.

brainofPJ

dkst0426 wrote:

Rosie O'Donnell apology falls flat

Non-event, huh? Seems pretty convenient when someone from a certain political leaning makes such comments. Can't imagine it would've been a non-event if it had been ohhh, say....a conservative who had made the same comments.

By the way, in case anyone out there happened to find her comments humorous--they're not. I'm Chinese, and what she said ranks right up there with the kung fu/martial arts questions, the rice and noodle comments, the eating cats and dogs comments, etc. etc.

maybe my asian wife should kick the hell out of rosie

bubbamackdaddy69

Man...this makes the news...the world is too PC....fuck man..relax...
anyways...done my smoke...time to go back and watch the GIANTS game

rebornFixer

NMyTree wrote:

This is not a complicated subject matter. The only one's making it more complicated than it really is- are people like angelica and dkst0426. And their motives at best, seem self-serving.

It's a rather simple subject matter.

Either it's okay to poke fun at all groups of people, or it is not.

Anyone who has laughed at any entertainer's jokes, impersonations, parodies or satire of homosexuals, whites, blacks, mexicans or anyone else; has no business spouting off in anger at what Rosie said.

It's that simple.

If it's acceptable to laugh at the culture, mannerisms and speech patterns of homosexuals, whites, blacks, mexicans or anyone else; then it's okay to laugh at everyone.

Otherwise one is practicing preferential treatment and preaching rules of a preferential nature. That's not equality. That's bias and discrimination.

Attempts to delute and fragment the essence of this issue only prove how overly-sensitive and biased people have become, in their discriminatory attempts to silence one group of people, for the pretense of protecting another group of people.

Well said ... It took a while, but finally someone made a clear point. angelica and a few others are just muddying what shouldn't be an overly complex issue. A bunch of hot air in the service of political correctness.

And yes, that "Richeal Richards" thing was a typo ... A damn hilarious one, mind.

sourdough

I agree and I don't mind if people poke fun at different people, but there is a line and certain discretions. In this case I didn't find it particularly funny and offensive. If she had made fun of chinese drivers or something that is more benign than I would probably be okay with it. It depends on delivery and intent as well as degree.

mookie9999

angelica wrote:

Who has been censored in your view?

Any comedian at the laugh factory who usually uses "nigger" in their act. While that may not seem like that big of a deal to some, it is censorship. It will most likely involve other words to be banned at the club as well. In the Rosie O'Donnel instance, she will not do her "impression" again, and I'm sure the higher ups at ABC have let her know in no uncertain terms to "watch it" in the future. Those are just two examples of who has been censored.

angelica

mookie9999 wrote:

In the Rosie O'Donnel instance, she will not do her "impression" again, and I'm sure the higher ups at ABC have let her know in no uncertain terms to "watch it" in the future. Those are just two examples of who has been censored.

Here is where you and I see differently. Imagine I am a very public comic, and I find that my routine has inadvertently become offensive to a group of minorities. If I take that into consideration and decide to make amends and acknowledge the "offense" and change my routine, I call that adapting. I call that problem solving. I don't call that censorship. I'm also not as quick as you are to make "sure" comments about the higher ups at ABC without evidence. So in this case I see evolution/adaptation happening, a point taken. I don't see censorship.

I saw an outcry from the Asian community--a cry of free speech, expressing/voicing their upset, and when I also see that the media and the celebrities who rely on the public for their support, are quick to assess that feedback and proceed accordingly so as to keep public images going strong, and the money flowing to themselves, I don't see that as censorship. I see that as a natural flow of life. Media/celebrities are looking to pander to the masses in order to sustain their positions. That's not censorship, that's awareness of their audience. It would be a different story if Rosie was known for her racist humour, in making a point, and defended it. And was forced to stop. There is a difference between the integrity of her basic routine and a minor mistake she's quite willing to rectify. Although very different situations, similarly in the Michael Richards case, the issue was not about his routine and his artform, the issue was about he, as a man, having a temper tantrum and revealing possible racist tendencies which he was/is quick to work to get past--voluntarily for good reason. As many of us would do, were we to inadvertently reveal a similar side of our personality in our workplace, if we, too, were greeted with being shunned for it. This is how cultural norms work.

In this case, I don't believe Rosie was using her artform to deliberately offend in order to make a point, like other well-known offensive comics have done. To recognize she made a mistake, even if she had her "bosses" hovering over her making clear it was a mistake, for her to assess her situation and solve it to her best interests, and to the interests of those around her, her move looks to me to be a healthy, assertive free choice.

macgyver06

''her panties have dick holes in them'' - player haters ball ( chappelles show )

verb_to_trust

Nmytree,


there are these things called tact and delivery..........you should look into them.


Your exchange with the person who was offended made you sound childish.......even though i don't necessarily disagree with your viewpoint.

onelongsong

if we're talking about rosie O'fatass; i've never heard an intelligent word come out of her mouth. so why the surprise?

onelongsong

angelica wrote:

Here is where you and I see differently. Imagine I am a very public comic, and I find that my routine has inadvertently become offensive to a group of minorities. If I take that into consideration and decide to make amends and acknowledge the "offense" and change my routine, I call that adapting. I call that problem solving. I don't call that censorship. I'm also not as quick as you are to make "sure" comments about the higher ups at ABC without evidence. So in this case I see evolution/adaptation happening, a point taken. I don't see censorship.

I saw an outcry from the Asian community--a cry of free speech, expressing/voicing their upset, and when I also see that the media and the celebrities who rely on the public for their support, are quick to assess that feedback and proceed accordingly so as to keep public images going strong, and the money flowing to themselves, I don't see that as censorship. I see that as a natural flow of life. Media/celebrities are looking to pander to the masses in order to sustain their positions. That's not censorship, that's awareness of their audience. It would be a different story if Rosie was known for her racist humour, in making a point, and defended it. And was forced to stop. There is a difference between the integrity of her basic routine and a minor mistake she's quite willing to rectify. Although very different situations, similarly in the Michael Richards case, the issue was not about his routine and his artform, the issue was about he, as a man, having a temper tantrum and revealing possible racist tendencies which he was/is quick to work to get past--voluntarily for good reason. As many of us would do, were we to inadvertently reveal a similar side of our personality in our workplace, if we, too, were greeted with being shunned for it. This is how cultural norms work.

In this case, I don't believe Rosie was using her artform to deliberately offend in order to make a point, like other well-known offensive comics have done. To recognize she made a mistake, even if she had her "bosses" hovering over her making clear it was a mistake, for her to assess her situation and solve it to her best interests, and to the interests of those around her, her move looks to me to be a healthy, assertive free choice.

i grew up with don rickles and redd foxx among others and this PC stuff is rediculous. why isn't anyone crying about carlos mencia?

mookie9999

angelica wrote:

I'm also not as quick as you are to make "sure" comments about the higher ups at ABC without evidence. So in this case I see evolution/adaptation happening, a point taken. I don't see censorship.



quote]

I also am not sure that ABC made comments to her, however if they did that is something we will probably never know. What I do know is that Rosie said she would probably say something in the near future that will offend. Now I am not a viewer of either the View or her old talk show, but I am willing to venture a guess that it will be a LONG time before she says anything or does impressions that another race or ethnic group could find offensive. You will probably say that is a sign of her becoming more aware of what she says, I say it's the network execs breathing down her neck. With Michael it was not about his artform as you stated, but what it resulted in was censorship, we you have still not touched upon.

mookie9999

angelica wrote:

In this case, I don't believe Rosie was using her artform to deliberately offend in order to make a point, like other well-known offensive comics have done. To recognize she made a mistake, even if she had her "bosses" hovering over her making clear it was a mistake, for her to assess her situation and solve it to her best interests, and to the interests of those around her, her move looks to me to be a healthy, assertive free choice.

First of all I feel you are using the word "artform" far too freely with Rosie. Now with her bosses hovering over her, if it's in her "best interest" to be reminded to change or lose her job then I don't see that as an "assertive free choice". I would understand the move, and probably do the same in her position, however I would not feel that it was by my own free will.

mookie9999

onelongsong wrote:

i grew up with don rickles and redd foxx among others and this PC stuff is rediculous. why isn't anyone crying about carlos mencia?

She already covered that. Because minority issues and insensitivities are often not acknowledged by the mainstream, it is not an equal playing field. As such it is ok for those that are minorities and comedians have free range at what material they like. Double-Standard?? Absolutely. BTW Carlos Mencia is an amazing comedian!!

angelica

mookie9999 wrote:

She already covered that. Because minority issues and insensitivities are often not acknowledged by the mainstream, it is not an equal playing field. As such it is ok for those that are minorities and comedians have free range at what material they like. Double-Standard?? Absolutely.

This is entirely a figment of your imagination, as you have misconstrued my refusal to compare the two situations and you've even gone so far as to add in an actual answer for me, attributed to me, with your own judgment attached. However what I actually believe and stand behind remains outside this exercise in delusion.

mookie9999

angelica wrote:

This is entirely a figment of your imagination, as you have misconstrued my refusal to compare the two situations and you've even gone so far as to add in an actual answer for me, attributed to me, with your own judgment attached. However what I actually believe and stand behind remains outside this exercise in delusion.

I have a very active imagination. Now how 'bout my comments on censorship above

puremagic

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

rosie should just fall off the fucking planet....

and take oprah with her.........

Please, please take roseanne and whoopi with them, PLEASE.

angelica

mookie9999 wrote:

I have a very active imagination. Now how 'bout my comments on censorship above

It looks like you have all you need to answer your own questions. If you're going to misconstrue my ideas to fit your agenda, then, I'll just bow out and and make it easier for you to do so.

My gist throughout this thread is that rather than understand the actual complaint/issue, people are jumping ahead, and to conclusions, and glossing over the issue by sidetracking themselves. You've further proven the point I made about fanch's comments. When someone says something, and you are unconcerned with comprehending what they are saying, and only focussed on your agenda, it makes for non-communication and for complicating the problem, not solving it. Understanding and an intent to problem solve reveals itself with understanding and problem solving.