CreateDebate


Debate Info

28
13
Yep It's different
Debate Score:41
Arguments:39
Total Votes:44
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yep (24)
 
 It's different (11)

Debate Creator

brontoraptor(28599) pic



Roseanne fired for comparing someone to a monkey. What about this?

Yep

Side Score: 28
VS.

It's different

Side Score: 13
3 points

Her outrageous comments, which she has attributed to her use of the sedative drug ambien, left her employer with absolutely no alternative but to dismiss her.

The success of this entertainer and her employer is largely dependent on maximizing their public acceptance.

She has just ruined her image and therefore disenfranchised a large % of her fans, leaving ABC with no other option but to go for damage limitation by firing this idiot.

Side: Yep
1 point

It is sad to see that show leave, I only just started watching it and it was pretty amazing that it came back after being off the air for so long, but she really did put her foot in her mouth numerous times. I'm sad that she's bringing her co-workers down with her.

Side: Yep
1 point

Hello A,

Ambien, huh? Snicker, snicker. I just went to their website. Racism is NOT a side effect of Ambien.

excon

Side: Yep
Antrim(1287) Clarified
3 points

Well, I'm not claiming that it is.

I was simply relaying that she attributed her out of character comment to the use of this personality/mood altering drug.

All drugs, booze included, are chemicals that affect the brain by tapping into its communication system and generally interfering with its normal functioning process.

The manufacturers of any drug cannot state specifically, or with any degree of accuracy how their product will affect the behavior of any individual.

I'm absolutely certain that the vast majority of all violent crime as well as non-violent offenses are due to the intake of drugs/booze.

For instance, most police forces throughout the world will confirm that violent and riotous behavior at club scenes, football matches or any venue where rival hordes confront each other is exclusively a consequence to the use-abuse of drugs/booze.

But, I must point out that I am now finding this issue wearisome.

Side: Yep
1 point

What she said was vile and wrong. Libs ignoring it with their other liberals on ABC is equally as vile and wrong, if they feel she should be fired.

Side: It's different
1 point

Anti science, eh Con? Well, let's check it out, shall we?

What Are Some Side Effects of Ambien?

Ambien (generic name: zolpidem tartrate) was designed to provide insomnia relief, without the side effects of barbiturate drugs. Ambien side effects, including:


Rapid heartbeat

Nausea

Vomiting

Diarrhea

Loss of appetite

Impaired vision

Slow breathing rates

Muscle cramps

Allergic reactions

Memory loss

Inability to concentrate

Disorientation

Emotional blunting

Depression and/or suicidal thoughts

Anxiety

Insomnia

Nightmares

Sedation

Confusion

Dizziness

Aggression

Addiction

Withdrawal, which can be life-threatening

https://americanaddictioncenters.org/ambien-treatment/side-effects/

Side: It's different
marcusmoon(576) Clarified
1 point

I thought that it was funny, too, even though I disagree about the tweet being racist.

Side: Yep
marcusmoon(576) Clarified
1 point

Hello, Antrim.

As far as I can tell, the text of the Tweet does not actually compare Jarrett to an ape.

The text I found is if muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.

That sounds like a comment on Jarrett's politics, not her race.

Otherwise, there is no reason to mention the Muslim Brotherhood and there is no reason to specify Planet of the Apes instead of just apes.

However, the combination of the naming of an oppressive Islamist organization with a reference to a movie that centers on the oppression of the human species is an extremely harsh criticism of Jarrett's politics.

That is MUCH more insulting than saying Jarrett is an ape, even if you do not take into account that humans are one of the five great apes (along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans.)

Side: Yep

But pure Negroes DO LOOK like APEs. Not a discriminatory thing. Just observation

Side: Yep
2 points

Let's also not forget that Maher WAS fired from ABC for making inappropriate comments as well but hey, you have to find something to be outraged about right?

Side: It's different
outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

Shortly after losing the Green Party nomination, Barr announced she would run on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket with activist Cindy Sheehan as her running mate. On August 4, 2012, Barr won the presidential nomination of the Peace and Freedom Party.

Wait what Jewel LMAO

Side: Yep
Mint_tea(4641) Disputed
1 point

Shortly after losing the Green Party nomination, Barr announced she would run on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket with activist Cindy Sheehan as her running mate. On August 4, 2012, Barr won the presidential nomination of the Peace and Freedom Party.

And?

Side: It's different
1 point

There's a difference. He, Maher, was instantly desired by other networks and picked up, and didn't meet this type of rage from the left. There are other people on ABC who have made equal or worse comments. They're still there.

1)

https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5853b1111800001b00e42f79.png?ops=crop1749114111736,scalefit820noupscale

2)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeebQGUUwAAXkZm.jpg

3)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWLHQfpWsAUQv39.jpg

[https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/ opinion/white-house/389943-yes-we-should-condemn-roseanne-but-ignoring-others-is-true-hypocrisy?amp]

4)

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/opinion/white-house/389943-yes-we-should-condemn-roseanne-but-ignoring-others-is-true-hypocrisy?amp

Side: Yep
Mint_tea(4641) Disputed
1 point

We honestly don't know if she (or the show) will be picked up by something else yet. She's had a history of tweets that were in bad taste or racist so time will tell.

Side: It's different
outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

Hey Dummy is Maher not working for HBO ????????? LMAO

Progressives have no brain and you exhibit that fact along with Maher might i say

Side: Yep
1 point

But Maher wasn't fired for his Trump vs monkey take, but rather for something else. And? Valerie Jarrett is Iranian, was born in Iran, and looks like this...

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/images/060613.jarrett.jpg

Which means Maher and Barr made the same exact same type of characterization.

Side: Yep
1 point

Hello bront:

Comparing a black person to a monkey is WAYYY different than comparing a white person to one... If you had even a HINT of history, you'd know that.

Ok, lemme give you the readers digest version.. In the beginning, WE, as a nation, believed that black people were worth 3/5's that of a white person.. That's because the prevailing BELIEF was that a black person was closer to an ape, than he was to a white person.. That BELIEF fomented slavery, and all the horrors that came with it, and haunt us to this day.

Some of us understand the slur, and some of us don't.. And/or they don't CARE..

excon

Side: It's different
2 points

WE, as a nation, believed that black people were worth 3/5's that of a white person..

1)Not in my lifetime.

2)What does that have to do with today?

3)My people weren't considered even 3/5 of a person. They had it bad. I don't. I wouldn't dare pretend that my plight is anything like theirs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin(slang))

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/savage

http://www.cherokeehistorical.org/unto-these-hills/trail-of-tears/?tracking=campaign=423025868&ad=48605894839&kw=trail of tears&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9Kzv5pGw2wIVh4bACh0BrAD-EAAYASAAEgID3PD BwE

https://parentingtogetherlivingapart.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/img 2202.jpg

Side: Yep
marcusmoon(576) Clarified
1 point

Bronto,

Please add a single underline symbol at the end of your post. Otherwise, all the posts after you will be underlined.

Side: Yep
1 point

Comparing a black person to a monkey is WAYYY different than comparing a white person to one

Oh? And why is that?

Side: Yep
1 point

Comparing a black person to a monkey

Jimmy Kimmel

https://youtu.be/-wse5lgIDxM

Side: Yep
excon(18261) Disputed
1 point

Hello again, bront:

Yeah. She hates black people. But what about (fill in the blank)????????????????????

excon

Side: It's different
marcusmoon(576) Disputed
1 point

Hello, Excon.

In the beginning, WE, as a nation, believed that black people were worth 3/5's that of a white person.

You left out the important parts of the historical context, and thereby misrepresented (unintentionally, I think) what the 3/5 rule implied.

The 3/5 rule was NOT about people's personal value. (Slavery and the attitude it caused was enough to do that.)

3/5 of the number of slaves was a political compromise for Congressional representation. It counted only for slaves, not for free blacks, so it was not about comparative value between the races, but about how many people to count when determining taxes and the number of Congressional representatives. (Section 2, Clause 3) .

The representatives of slave owning states were the ones who wanted all slaves to count (in the context of the Constitution) which would have allotted more representatives in the House of Representatives to those states with high slave populations.

However, the other states wanted to tip the balance of power in their own favor. Originally they did not want the number slaves to factor toward representative count at all.

That BELIEF fomented slavery, and all the horrors that came with it, and haunt us to this day.

A couple things:

First

I think you have the causal connection backwards. Greed and lust for power over others, NOT racism, is what causes the dehumanization of slavery. Racism did not cause slavery in the Americas. The Africans who sold their slaves to the European slave traders were selling other blacks that were already slaves, for example. NOT racism.

Slavery is one of the oldest and most pervasive human institutions (up there with war and genocide). When Christians (Spanish, English, American, etc.) wanted to do horrible things to people, including enslavement, they always dehumanized the people they wanted to oppress or rob (witches, Inquisition victims, Jews, Aztecs, Incas, Sioux, blacks, etc. ad nauseum.)

The desire for slaves fomented the racism and dehumanization, not the other way around.

Second

It is the categorization by race (and the connected subversion of individual identity in favor of group identity) instead of dealing with everybody as individuals, NOT just the belief ["that a black person was closer to an ape"] that made it easy to perpetuate the nastiness that followed slavery.

More to the point, it is the racists who insist that this categorization should determine what rules apply to whom that "haunt us to this day."

It is a problem even when someone as well meaning as you thinks racial category should factor into social rules. Racism that grows from a desire for justice and sensitivity is ultimately just as destructive of justice and togetherness as racism from any other source.

Side: Yep