• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Wood Man

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,449
I saw this clip a couple weeks ago promoting the show. After watching I didn't know what to think at first. I was like,"That sounded racist... was that racist or am I thinking too much into it?" I wasn't aware that the show also focuses on the character's political views.

Do you think this show is trying to bridge a gap between Trump supporters (Roseanne) and just about everyone else? It does feature characters from different races, sexuality and lifestyles. It's pretty dangerous territory and Roseanne might not be the best person to attempt it. But the joke in the OP kinda implies even a Trump supporter watches the black & Asian shows, so we're not that bad.

I only watched a few minutes of the show and it wasn't my kind of comedy. Roseanne is overly brash and unapologetic. It's annoying.
 

TAJ

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
12,446
I'm watching Roseanne because I tend to like the comedy. I loved the original show. But I'm not watching it on TV so you know.

That said, this was the one joke that I was like "uhm...what?". Immediately felt it was uncomfortable. Most other times it's been funny still, though some of the actors/actresses are kinda stuff and their dialogue isn't flowing very well. Roseanne included. John Goodman on the other hand just slides back into his role with ease.

Edit: One way I've convinced myself to watch despite Roseanne is that I imagine a chunk of the rest of the cast (Sara Gilbert, John Goodman) are probably pushing against Roseanne to make sure the show doesn't go insane with her views. I figured, if they can deal with her insanity and return to the show know her shitty beliefs and who she supports, I can watch it to see what they have to offer. I just don't have to be part of the "ratings", though not being a Neilsen family means I wouldn't be anyways.

If they had any self-respect then they would have passed on the show.
 

Deleted member 28076

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 30, 2017
1,147
Do you think this show is trying to bridge a gap between Trump supporters (Roseanne) and just about everyone else? It does feature characters from different races, sexuality and lifestyles.

As I said in an earlier post, the show could be seen as "bridging the gap" if Roseanne's character was ever wrong about anything. She isn't.
 

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
50,044
im so sick of hearing about this show and that Nazi shit woman.

its nuts that a few decades ago she was considered somewhat progressive.

Never cared for Roseanne, so I'm not too familiar with the show or the actress. But I remember Drew Carey complaining that he was forced to be more liberal than he'd like in The Drew Carey Show (which I always found weird because the show was so simple and cartoonish, even Friends had more commentary, but that's for another day). Could the case have been similar here, and that be the cause of the shift?
 

BDS

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
13,845
This is a decent article and several other people have hit on the core idea here, which is normalization of repulsive far-right ideas, not necessarily demonization of the left.

For many decades (or even centuries), cultural conservatives were obsessed with turning back the clock on social progress. Racial segregation, blocking gay marriage, etc. But in this modern, hyper-connected internet era, many of them are realizing that they can't win that fight. They have given up.

Instead, their new focus is on trying to normalize their own repellent views by suggesting they are "just like everyone else." There are two types of propaganda: there's the type where you insist your views are superior to all others ("Whites are better than blacks"), and then there's the type where you insist your views are just as normal as all others ("White identity and black identity politics are the same thing"). This type of propaganda is extremely hard to fight because any opposition makes it seem, to moderate white observers, like you're being bigoted ("anti-white racism"), which in turn causes those moderate whites to slowly become radicalized too ("Hey wait, why isn't there a White History Month? This guy makes a good point!"). Over the last decade, as whites have slowly lost more and more of their political and cultural power, we have seen this type of white identity politics become increasingly popular, culminating with Donald Trump, who ran essentially entirely on a platform of white identity grievance politics.

When you argue with Trump supporters -- not just regular Republicans, but the really vile, dyed-in-the-wool Trumpers -- you'll notice that they rarely make any effort to defend Trump himself or his actions, or the actions of white supremacists. Instead, they immediately deflect blame by suggesting some other group on the other side (usually Hillary Clinton, the DNC, Black Lives Matter, etc) is doing the same thing, or something similar. In other words, their politics revolves entirely around a basic assumption that everyone in the world is just as disgusting and hateful as they are. You see this manifest time and again in their cynical insistence that any person who supports any sort of cause or issue is "virtue signaling" or participating in some kind of scam, their bitter anger at any demographic group that embraces their heritage and culture. They are angry, bitter, cynical people who are ugly and rotten on the inside, and they know it. They have no illusions about it. They have lost all interest in improving the world and instead, simply want to watch it burn down around them. In their minds, the best case scenario is that the world is rebuilt stronger and whiter than before. The worst case scenario is that they die, but everyone dies eventually anyway and these people have given up all hope and no longer care about their own self-interest.

To borrow a line from The Dark Knight: their goal is to prove that deep down, everyone is as ugly as them.

They are people who have given up on life and are filled with anger and resentment when they see others succeeding. Roseanne is designed to make them seem sympathetic, to make their views and ideas seem understandable, just as so many dozens of thinkpieces since November 2016 have been designed to help us coastal liberal elites get into the mindset of the poor, downtrodden Trump voter. And the strategy works; just look at how many fence-sitters on this very forum regularly piss their pants at the slightest suggestion that the views expressed by Trump's supporters are abhorrent and should be condemned. "It's just another opinion and you have to respect them! How dare you suggest Trump voters are all racists! They're just normal, cuddly working-class people like anyone else!"

Normalization of disturbing views is their goal. Asserting their superiority comes later. If Roseanne came blaring out of the gate with overtly homophobic or racist storylines, the show would have been cancelled or never even made it to the airwaves. Roseanne knows this. The goal is to normalize her white identity views, alongside other media and other political platforms designed to normalize white identity, so that eventually they can replace white identity with white supremacy and begin to truly roll the clock back. It's about playing the long game.
 

Ensorcell

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,458
I can't tell if you're genuinely confused or you're being intentionally obtuse.

Roseanne as a show claims to represent Trump supporters.
Trump ran a racially charged campaign. Roseanne has one reference to race, and it serves to dismiss the differences between the experience of people of color and white people.

This isn't about luctures accompanying throwaway lines. This is about how lines are used.

No it doesn't at all so you're just making things up at this point. It claimed to represent the blue collar family.
 

JetSetSoul

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,185
Aw the show is hilarious though, I love it's characters. Only tv comedy I've enjoyed and laughed with in a while.
 

Davidion

Charitable King
Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,086
This is a decent article and several other people have hit on the core idea here, which is normalization of repulsive far-right ideas, not necessarily demonization of the left.

For many decades (or even centuries), cultural conservatives were obsessed with turning back the clock on social progress. Racial segregation, blocking gay marriage, etc. But in this modern, hyper-connected internet era, many of them are realizing that they can't win that fight. They have given up.

Instead, their new focus is on trying to normalize their own repellent views by suggesting they are "just like everyone else." There are two types of propaganda: there's the type where you insist your views are superior to all others ("Whites are better than blacks"), and then there's the type where you insist your views are just as normal as all others ("White identity and black identity politics are the same thing"). This type of propaganda is extremely hard to fight because any opposition makes it seem, to moderate white observers, like you're being bigoted ("anti-white racism"), which in turn causes those moderate whites to slowly become radicalized too ("Hey wait, why isn't there a White History Month? This guy makes a good point!"). Over the last decade, as whites have slowly lost more and more of their political and cultural power, we have seen this type of white identity politics become increasingly popular, culminating with Donald Trump, who ran essentially entirely on a platform of white identity grievance politics.

When you argue with Trump supporters -- not just regular Republicans, but the really vile, dyed-in-the-wool Trumpers -- you'll notice that they rarely make any effort to defend Trump himself or his actions, or the actions of white supremacists. Instead, they immediately deflect blame by suggesting some other group on the other side (usually Hillary Clinton, the DNC, Black Lives Matter, etc) is doing the same thing, or something similar. In other words, their politics revolves entirely around a basic assumption that everyone in the world is just as disgusting and hateful as they are. You see this manifest time and again in their cynical insistence that any person who supports any sort of cause or issue is "virtue signaling" or participating in some kind of scam, their bitter anger at any demographic group that embraces their heritage and culture. They are angry, bitter, cynical people who are ugly and rotten on the inside, and they know it. They have no illusions about it. They have lost all interest in improving the world and instead, simply want to watch it burn down around them. In their minds, the best case scenario is that the world is rebuilt stronger and whiter than before. The worst case scenario is that they die, but everyone dies eventually anyway and these people have given up all hope and no longer care about their own self-interest.

To borrow a line from The Dark Knight: their goal is to prove that deep down, everyone is as ugly as them.

They are people who have given up on life and are filled with anger and resentment when they see others succeeding. Roseanne is designed to make them seem sympathetic, to make their views and ideas seem understandable, just as so many dozens of thinkpieces since November 2016 have been designed to help us coastal liberal elites get into the mindset of the poor, downtrodden Trump voter. And the strategy works; just look at how many fence-sitters on this very forum regularly piss their pants at the slightest suggestion that the views expressed by Trump's supporters are abhorrent and should be condemned. "It's just another opinion and you have to respect them! How dare you suggest Trump voters are all racists! They're just normal, cuddly working-class people like anyone else!"

Normalization of disturbing views is their goal. Asserting their superiority comes later. If Roseanne came blaring out of the gate with overtly homophobic or racist storylines, the show would have been cancelled or never even made it to the airwaves. Roseanne knows this. The goal is to normalize her white identity views, alongside other media and other political platforms designed to normalize white identity, so that eventually they can replace white identity with white supremacy and begin to truly roll the clock back. It's about playing the long game.

.

I've found very little lost by completely dismissing pretty much any kind of political argument, or any idea involving general complexity outside of factoids, from Trump supporters whatsoever. There's zero value in considering their positions.
 

SugarNoodles

Member
Nov 3, 2017
8,625
Portland, OR
You obviously have not seen the show(which is fine) but then don't talk out of your ass about what it's portraying. The family is represented by different people who have different views. The show isn't even that political.
So it represents Trump supporters then?

Honest question here: did I at any point say or imply that the show exclusively represents Trump supporters?
 

Ensorcell

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,458
So it represents Trump supporters then?

Honest question here: did I at any point say or imply that the show exclusively represents Trump supporters?
So how does it represent Trump supporters? Because a character in it is a Trump Supporter? You made the statement it doesn't represent liberal blue collar families which is just patently untrue since some of the character have liberal ideas. i.e. Darlene, Mark, Becky.
 

SugarNoodles

Member
Nov 3, 2017
8,625
Portland, OR
So how does it represent Trump supporters? Because a character in it is a Trump Supporter? You made the statement it doesn't represent liberal blue collar families which is just patently untrue since some of the character have liberal ideas. i.e. Darlene, Mark, Becky.
If the central figure of the family voted Trump, they aint a liberal family.

And if you're asking me how the show represents Trump supporters, you're officially arguing in bad faith.
 

FeistyBoots

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,506
Southern California
This is a decent article and several other people have hit on the core idea here, which is normalization of repulsive far-right ideas, not necessarily demonization of the left.

For many decades (or even centuries), cultural conservatives were obsessed with turning back the clock on social progress. Racial segregation, blocking gay marriage, etc. But in this modern, hyper-connected internet era, many of them are realizing that they can't win that fight. They have given up.

Instead, their new focus is on trying to normalize their own repellent views by suggesting they are "just like everyone else." There are two types of propaganda: there's the type where you insist your views are superior to all others ("Whites are better than blacks"), and then there's the type where you insist your views are just as normal as all others ("White identity and black identity politics are the same thing"). This type of propaganda is extremely hard to fight because any opposition makes it seem, to moderate white observers, like you're being bigoted ("anti-white racism"), which in turn causes those moderate whites to slowly become radicalized too ("Hey wait, why isn't there a White History Month? This guy makes a good point!"). Over the last decade, as whites have slowly lost more and more of their political and cultural power, we have seen this type of white identity politics become increasingly popular, culminating with Donald Trump, who ran essentially entirely on a platform of white identity grievance politics.

When you argue with Trump supporters -- not just regular Republicans, but the really vile, dyed-in-the-wool Trumpers -- you'll notice that they rarely make any effort to defend Trump himself or his actions, or the actions of white supremacists. Instead, they immediately deflect blame by suggesting some other group on the other side (usually Hillary Clinton, the DNC, Black Lives Matter, etc) is doing the same thing, or something similar. In other words, their politics revolves entirely around a basic assumption that everyone in the world is just as disgusting and hateful as they are. You see this manifest time and again in their cynical insistence that any person who supports any sort of cause or issue is "virtue signaling" or participating in some kind of scam, their bitter anger at any demographic group that embraces their heritage and culture. They are angry, bitter, cynical people who are ugly and rotten on the inside, and they know it. They have no illusions about it. They have lost all interest in improving the world and instead, simply want to watch it burn down around them. In their minds, the best case scenario is that the world is rebuilt stronger and whiter than before. The worst case scenario is that they die, but everyone dies eventually anyway and these people have given up all hope and no longer care about their own self-interest.

To borrow a line from The Dark Knight: their goal is to prove that deep down, everyone is as ugly as them.

They are people who have given up on life and are filled with anger and resentment when they see others succeeding. Roseanne is designed to make them seem sympathetic, to make their views and ideas seem understandable, just as so many dozens of thinkpieces since November 2016 have been designed to help us coastal liberal elites get into the mindset of the poor, downtrodden Trump voter. And the strategy works; just look at how many fence-sitters on this very forum regularly piss their pants at the slightest suggestion that the views expressed by Trump's supporters are abhorrent and should be condemned. "It's just another opinion and you have to respect them! How dare you suggest Trump voters are all racists! They're just normal, cuddly working-class people like anyone else!"

Normalization of disturbing views is their goal. Asserting their superiority comes later. If Roseanne came blaring out of the gate with overtly homophobic or racist storylines, the show would have been cancelled or never even made it to the airwaves. Roseanne knows this. The goal is to normalize her white identity views, alongside other media and other political platforms designed to normalize white identity, so that eventually they can replace white identity with white supremacy and begin to truly roll the clock back. It's about playing the long game.

Fucking CHRIST is this an utterly fantastic post. You absolutely nailed it.
 

Ensorcell

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,458
If the central figure of the family voted Trump, they aint a blue collar family.

And if you're asking me how the show represents Trump supporters, you're officially arguing in bad faith.
What? Are you for real? Do you have any idea what is going on in this country as far as blue collar families. Don't try that bad faith cop out just because you can't support your argument.
 

Antrax

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,286
Roseanne and Dan aren't the moral compasses of the revival show, and anyone who gives it a watch will see that the much more progressive Darlene is the backbone, this time around. Including conservative viewpoints to be ridiculed and foiled does not make it a conservative show. This is why it's important to see the show to understand the full context and not take moments out of context to pretend that this is the morality the show is trying to sell.

Are you saying that crack at black and Asian shows got pushback in the show? I genuinely don't know
 

SugarNoodles

Member
Nov 3, 2017
8,625
Portland, OR
Only one person voted for Trump in the family, and it was clear it was an anti-Clinton vote.
Anti-Clinton voters are Trump supporters too.

Do you really want to break down whether someone can vote for Trump and still be liberal? Because I definitely dont care enough to have that conversation. If you want, you can have a category called "liberals who voted for Trump" and put Roseann's character in that basket.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,201
It's not like Roseanne is any better wrt to the topics it deals with. At most it's surface level "we're all the same" rehtoric without any of the nuance while still taking pot shots at others. Not to mention Black-ish did more to humanize a Trump supporter in the post-election episode than Roseanne has this new season (imo).
I find myself in a strange position of defending Roseanne, the show, when I really don't want to because of Roseanne the person. But even the 90s version of the show was very much insular and about the family. Dan had a "Black friend" and that was basically the only time race entered the equation, and why they somehow ended up talking more about being gay than they did about race. I don't know if that's good or bad, considering so many other white family sitcoms barely touch race at all, but it is what it is.

Also I don't think they care about Trump, and it's a bit unfortunate that they touched on that in the first episode when it's clear that they weren't really interested in that at all based on the next four episodes. Jackie is presumably in the same position as Roseanne in terms of her (lack of) class mobility and she was depicted as the hapless liberal in that episode.

I think this is a problem with liberals trying to explain poor people to other poor people. It's not really as simple as all these writers in their privileged positions as people who get to earn a living watching TV seem to think it is.

Huh? The Middle consistently go on about being poor and how strained their finances are. It's integral to a large number of episodes and storylines and jokes.


- Axl's football scholarship meant they avoided paying for college for him
- You mentioned Sue getting financial aid to get help with college expenses
- The beginning of season six involves the parents working 4 jobs to help raise college funds for Sue.
- Frankie buying 200 dollar make up that sends them into a financial spiral that also involves 4 jobs.
- Sue's Halloween movie show is for college funds.
- They went without a sink for multiple episodes and in the end got one from Mike's dad for free and they installed it themselves.
- Multiple episodes about them needing Black Friday to pay for Christmas gifts otherwise it would be unviable
- Fire damaged iPad
- The family finances spiralling when Frankie is between jobs in S4.
- Church van B-plot when their car windshield gets smashed in.


I could go on.
These are all jokes though. They are never in trouble of losing their house, Sue's never in trouble of being forced out of college because she can't afford it... even when Sue's rich friend is cut off by her parents, it's not like it's a big deal. They somehow still can afford the apartment that they stay in. Their economic situation ever affects them in a meaningful manner, because the show isn't really about that. For example, they shop at the "Frugal Hoosier", which I assume is supposed to be even shittier than Walmart, but at least in the text of the show, that doesn't necessarily mean anything.


That's one hell of an article. Also explains while I enjoy The Middle and Speechless. They may serve the same group of people, but they beat you on the head over it.


Okay. That's a hell of a hot take. The Heck's house is constantly in shambles (they still have a hole between Sue's and Brick's house) and the only reason they made it to college was due to Axl's football skills and Sue doing great at her SAT as well as working multiple jobs and various fund drives and even then Mike had to give up his stake in his diaper business to keep her there. Meanwhile in Speechless JJ and his crew got kicked out of their house at the end of the season and there have been multiple stories of that family fighting the school to support their son with cerebral palsy (sometimes to his dismay... but that's another topic.

The thing is, those two shows are more than just being blue collar families. They're both dysfunctional families going about their lives. The problem with Roseanne is that they flout their identities to everyone's faces, making things a tribal affair whether to support them or not.

Minority shows don't have that luxury because they aren't that many of them. One mistake is all it takes to cancel them. Because of which, one can learn a lot from them. Yeah, FOTB has strayed a lot from Asian tropes, but they're still there. Hell, this season alone they discussed flush reaction and spent half an episode taking in Mandarin.

In conclusion, everyone wants representation, but few people like it when one spouts superiority over the others. Also, if the writing's good you can enjoy all sorts of shows.
Axl is kicked off of the team and somehow still gets scholarship money I guess? Or was he just benched after the first year? Certainly the show doesn't really care because it's not really about that. :p

I mean, if you've watched the 5 episodes and think it's about normalizing Trump voters, then I don't know what to tell you. Episode 3 is about being ashamed of being poor. Episode 4 is about unable to cope with the death of your husband and finding out that you can't have children any more. Episode 5 is about relationships that seem fated to succeed can also fail, and trying to pick up the pieces when you both realize that you have to be in each other's lives for the sake of the children.
Episode 7, according to critics, is about the lack of healthcare in America and Roseanne splitting her drugs with Dan.

People keep talking about Fresh Off the Boat, but I just find it hilarious that no one gave a shit when Dr. Ken was cancelled. I think it's a good sign when an Asian sitcom can come and go and the critics don't all decide to wring their hands about ABC being racist or whatever, because it shows that shows can live and die in 2018 and it may not necessarily be about race. The same with NBC and The Carmichael show, which was both good and doing decently in terms of being a summer show that they burned off (and arguably better than Black-ish), but just couldn't work for business reasons. A few people wrote about how it was unfortunate that it died, but there wasn't really an outcry about it either.

---

It's very odd that I find myself in this position of defending the show, since I am typically very sensitive to these things. I also hate that this is the first time I've ever considered "virtue signalling" to be a legitimate criticism of a liberal position, but I almost feel like the way critics and commentators have attacked this show wholesale feels like trying to own the narrative of being "better" than a show about poor people.
 

NoName999

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
5,906
I wonder if the same ones who are defending this show threw a bitchfit about a show titled "Dear White People"?

I'm gonna say most likely yes
 

nenned

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,099
Normalization of disturbing views is their goal. Asserting their superiority comes later.

Can you please point out to me exactly what views expressed by Roseanne Conner have tried to normalize conservative views? Was it when:

- She supported Becky's decision to be a surrogate mother because "her body, her decision"
- She said she would have loved and supported Darlene if she were gay
- She expressed gratitude to DJ's wife (an African American)
- She expresses her love for DJ's daughter (mixed race)
- She supported Mark's decision to wear dresses

Thus far, the only reason Roseanne Conner has given for voting for "him" was that he was promising jobs when their family was in danger of losing their house. THAT IS IT! The other quoted lines about taking a knee, making America great again, fake news, or liar. liar, pants suit on fire were done to antagonize her sister (Jackie) who she was arguing with (and btw, Jackie does her share of antagonizing by wearing a pink pussy hat, calling Roseanne a "deplorable," bringing Russian dressing to dinner, and calling them irresponsible for having guns in a house with children). We are talking 3 scenes from 1 episode of 5 aired. Politics has not come up in any other episode at all. And if it comes up in future episodes, Roseanne's mandate to the writers was that if one side gets slammed, the other side has to as well.


If Roseanne came blaring out of the gate with overtly homophobic or racist storylines, the show would have been cancelled or never even made it to the airwaves. Roseanne knows this. The goal is to normalize her white identity views, alongside other media and other political platforms designed to normalize white identity, so that eventually they can replace white identity with white supremacy and begin to truly roll the clock back. It's about playing the long game.

This is sensationalist nonsense. Roseanne didn't come out of the gate blazing with homophobic or racist storylines because she isn't racist or homophobic. Do you really think that at some point, the Roseanne Conner character is going to all of a sudden start supporting racist and homophobic views and all the characters will just agree with her? You can't be serious.
 

AwShucks

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,953
I mean, if you've watched the 5 episodes and think it's about normalizing Trump voters, then I don't know what to tell you. Episode 3 is about being ashamed of being poor. Episode 4 is about unable to cope with the death of your husband and finding out that you can't have children any more. Episode 5 is about relationships that seem fated to succeed can also fail, and trying to pick up the pieces when you both realize that you have to be in each other's lives for the sake of the children.
Episode 7, according to critics, is about the lack of healthcare in America and Roseanne splitting her drugs with Dan.

Outside of the first episode, which unfortunately was election focused, it's basically been Roseanne of the old. That first episode was also pretty split between Trump and Clinton jokes, so it's not like it came out and said "This show is a show for Trump supporters". If anything I felt that Trump was hit harder than Clinton.

But hey, the right wants things that represent them and pokes fun at liberals so they will make it that. And the left will fail to look past Roseanne and refuse to watch the show. As I mentioned before, it's tough for me. I love the old Roseanne show, I hate that they made Roseanne a Trump voter and Roseanne the person is insane with her beliefs.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,201
Outside of the first episode, which unfortunately was election focused, it's basically been Roseanne of the old. That first episode was also pretty split between Trump and Clinton jokes, so it's not like it came out and said "This show is a show for Trump supporters". If anything I felt that Trump was hit harder than Clinton.

But hey, the right wants things that represent them and pokes fun at liberals so they will make it that. And the left will fail to look past Roseanne and refuse to watch the show. As I mentioned before, it's tough for me. I love the old Roseanne show, I hate that they made Roseanne a Trump voter and Roseanne the person is insane with her beliefs.
I have a similarly complicated relationship with the show... but this is where intersectionality kicks in - Roseanne in 2018 is still probably the one show I can relate to most out of all the family sitcoms that are on the air right now (that I've seen anyway).
 
OP
OP
UnpopularBlargh
Oct 26, 2017
8,206
Can you please point out to me exactly what views expressed by Roseanne Conner have tried to normalize conservative views? Was it when:

- She supported Becky's decision to be a surrogate mother because "her body, her decision"
- She said she would have loved and supported Darlene if she were gay
- She expressed gratitude to DJ's wife (an African American)
- She expresses her love for DJ's daughter (mixed race)
- She supported Mark's decision to wear dresses

Thus far, the only reason Roseanne Conner has given for voting for "him" was that he was promising jobs when their family was in danger of losing their house. THAT IS IT! The other quoted lines about taking a knee, making America great again, fake news, or liar. liar, pants suit on fire were done to antagonize her sister (Jackie) who she was arguing with (and btw, Jackie does her share of antagonizing by wearing a pink pussy hat, calling Roseanne a "deplorable," bringing Russian dressing to dinner, and calling them irresponsible for having guns in a house with children). We are talking 3 scenes from 1 episode of 5 aired. Politics has not come up in any other episode at all. And if it comes up in future episodes, Roseanne's mandate to the writers was that if one side gets slammed, the other side has to as well.




This is sensationalist nonsense. Roseanne didn't come out of the gate blazing with homophobic or racist storylines because she isn't racist or homophobic. Do you really think that at some point, the Roseanne Conner character is going to all of a sudden start supporting racist and homophobic views and all the characters will just agree with her? You can't be serious.
Not Connor. The show is being used to normalize Roseanne Barr and others like her. The show never mentions or glosses over the actual issues people have with Trump, his administration and his supporters.
 

nenned

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,099
Not Connor. The show is being used to normalize Roseanne Barr and others like her. The show never mentions or glosses over the actual issues people have with Trump, his administration and his supporters.

So the character of Roseanne Conner is being used to represent and normalize conservatives even though most of her views are pretty liberal? OK.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,201
Not Connor. The show is being used to normalize Roseanne Barr and others like her. The show never mentions or glosses over the actual issues people have with Trump, his administration and his supporters.
Honestly the NFL is a more racist organization as a whole, involving billionaires actively boycotting a single player because he decided to kneel during an anthem, yet it feels like critical commentators are more interested in spilling ink over Roseanne than on the NFL.
 

Naijaboy

The Fallen
Mar 13, 2018
15,296
I mean, if you've watched the 5 episodes and think it's about normalizing Trump voters, then I don't know what to tell you. Episode 3 is about being ashamed of being poor. Episode 4 is about unable to cope with the death of your husband and finding out that you can't have children any more. Episode 5 is about relationships that seem fated to succeed can also fail, and trying to pick up the pieces when you both realize that you have to be in each other's lives for the sake of the children.
Episode 7, according to critics, is about the lack of healthcare in America and Roseanne splitting her drugs with Dan.

People keep talking about Fresh Off the Boat, but I just find it hilarious that no one gave a shit when Dr. Ken was cancelled. I think it's a good sign when an Asian sitcom can come and go and the critics don't all decide to wring their hands about ABC being racist or whatever, because it shows that shows can live and die in 2018 and it may not necessarily be about race. The same with NBC and The Carmichael show, which was both good and doing decently in terms of being a summer show that they burned off (and arguably better than Black-ish), but just couldn't work for business reasons. A few people wrote about how it was unfortunate that it died, but there wasn't really an outcry about it either.

---

It's very odd that I find myself in this position of defending the show, since I am typically very sensitive to these things. I also hate that this is the first time I've ever considered "virtue signalling" to be a legitimate criticism of a liberal position, but I almost feel like the way critics and commentators have attacked this show wholesale feels like trying to own the narrative of being "better" than a show about poor people.
Dr. Ken was never that critically acclaimed to begin with, so there weren't that many people mourning, even if people liked the lead actor.Carmichael split off from NBA due to scheduling conflicts. The network was clearly preventing him from expressing himself. Shame too, because I liked it. I just wish I hoped in earlier.

I get that you want more stakes, but if you did it would be more of a drama than a comedy. If you want a show where things don't go the way of the protagonists, there's Game of Thrones or Always Sunny, but those guys are either charismatic or assholes so people are okay with them succeeding/suffering. Do that to a show like the Middle and not that many people would want to stick around. Besides, the main entertainment are the family interactions and how that relates to real people.

I can't say much from Roseanne because I haven't even watched the original much less the new one. I didn't have a need to watch it even if Roseanne voted for Clinton. I think television has produced many great struggling families like Malcolm in the Middle, My Name is Earl and Raising Hope. I mostly came by defending the other shows mentioned. The Middle reminds me a lot about my life even if I'm in a better economic standing. A great comedy can do that and make you laugh your ass off.
 

Cipherr

Member
Oct 26, 2017
13,436
Via The New Yorker:







Emily Nussbaum on point. Roseanne isn't about bridging a divide. It's about taking pots shots at things they don't like or agree with and going "lol jokes!". There's more at the link above.


I mean, I think many/most people know this though. I would hope anyway. I guess Im glad these are still being penned to those that haven't decoded this extremely subtle code (/s) can see through it.
 

HP_Wuvcraft

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,267
South of San Francisco
Thus far, the only reason Roseanne Conner has given for voting for "him" was that he was promising jobs when their family was in danger of losing their house. THAT IS IT! The other quoted lines about taking a knee, making America great again, fake news, or liar. liar, pants suit on fire were done to antagonize her sister (Jackie) who she was arguing with (and btw, Jackie does her share of antagonizing by wearing a pink pussy hat, calling Roseanne a "deplorable," bringing Russian dressing to dinner, and calling them irresponsible for having guns in a house with children). We are talking 3 scenes from 1 episode of 5 aired. Politics has not come up in any other episode at all. And if it comes up in future episodes, Roseanne's mandate to the writers was that if one side gets slammed, the other side has to as well.
You seriously do not see these things as trying to normalize this stuff?

Fake news isn't a joke. Neither is Russia meddling in our elections.
 

Inceptional

Member
Apr 16, 2018
60
Totally agree with this. It's crazy that everyone I know thinks this revival is so "powerful" and "woke" when it's just Roseanne being stupid and racist while everyone around her walks on egg shells. I think it's fucking awful and taints what the Roseanne show originally stood for...good moral values and a sense of family.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,201
Dr. Ken was never that critically acclaimed to begin with, so there weren't that many people mourning, even if people liked the lead actor.Carmichael split off from NBA due to scheduling conflicts. The network was clearly preventing him from expressing himself. Shame too, because I liked it. I just wish I hoped in earlier.

I get that you want more stakes, but if you did it would be more of a drama than a comedy. If you want a show where things don't go the way of the protagonists, there's Game of Thrones or Always Sunny, but those guys are either charismatic or assholes so people are okay with them succeeding/suffering. Do that to a show like the Middle and not that many people would want to stick around. Besides, the main entertainment are the family interactions and how that relates to real people.

I can't say much from Roseanne because I haven't even watched the original much less the new one. I didn't have a need to watch it even if Roseanne voted for Clinton. I think television has produced many great struggling families like Malcolm in the Middle, My Name is Earl and Raising Hope. I mostly came by defending the other shows mentioned. The Middle reminds me a lot about my life even if I'm in a better economic standing. A great comedy can do that and make you laugh your ass off.

That's the thing though, Roseanne managed to portray a real family living month to month, paycheck to paycheck, and still be a sitcom. Just because you live a struggle-life doesn't mean you don't have your own moments of joy and levity, even if it's just a matter of shit happening to your family. It was what made it unique in the 90s, and honestly it's what makes it unique now. The fact that they didn't make the family upwardly mobile, playing into the assumption that your kids will automatically have a better life than the parents, is in itself another reason why the current iteration of the show hits home with people. In fact, there are people who are maybe worse off than their parents.
 

Mariachi507

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,296
I wonder if the same ones who are defending this show threw a bitchfit about a show titled "Dear White People"?

I'm gonna say most likely yes

Not me, but I guarantee a good portion of those millions upon millions of viewers are. That's the conundrum I find myself in as being a viewer of the show. The character of Roseanne has regressed from her former self and the bullshit propaganda the actress throws around sickens me. I consider Roseanne to be the greatest sitcom ever made and one of the most important socially progressive shows to ever air. That's the reason why the first episode really rubbed me the wrong way with its attempt to normalize Trump supporters by basically being "both sides: the show" in regards to Roseanne and Jackie's fued. Thankfully the rest of the characters are being mostly consistent with their former selves and I consider the show to be predominately liberal one, which makes sense given the people behind it. However, thanks to Roseanne Barr, watching the show feels like this dirty secret I have where I've compromised one aspect of myself just to get more of something I love. Ever since that first episode there hasn't been any other occurrences of pro-Trump bullshit, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I watch every new episode dreading any possible inclusion of it.

Dear White People is amazing and fuck those snowflakes who dismiss it because they're offended by the title and premise.
 

nenned

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,099
You seriously do not see these things as trying to normalize this stuff?

Fake news isn't a joke. Neither is Russia meddling in our elections.

Have you ever watched Roseanne? In its initial run, her show tackled issues such as child abuse, racial equality, domestic abuse, alcohol abuse, and drug use. She has never been afraid to introduce serious topics into a sitcom. She wasn't trying to trivialize those issues then and she's not trying to trivialize Russian meddling now. Do you seriously think Jackie bringing a bottle of Russian dressing to dinner to antagonize "conservative" Roseanne Conner is trying to normalize Russian involvement in our elections? If you do, more power to you. I think I'm a little more level headed when saying it was a joke told in a sitcom to get its audience to laugh, which it did.

Totally agree with this. It's crazy that everyone I know thinks this revival is so "powerful" and "woke" when it's just Roseanne being stupid and racist while everyone around her walks on egg shells. I think it's fucking awful and taints what the Roseanne show originally stood for...good moral values and a sense of family.

Please point out to me the episodes in which the new show does not have a sense of family?
 

Fugu

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,733
I wonder if the same ones who are defending this show threw a bitchfit about a show titled "Dear White People"?

I'm gonna say most likely yes
I still haven't watched the remake, but I like the original show a lot. I would be careful about generalizing people who are willing to give the new stuff the benefit of the doubt because the original show espoused values that were... y'know, commendable.
 

Messofanego

Member
Oct 25, 2017
26,184
UK
This is a decent article and several other people have hit on the core idea here, which is normalization of repulsive far-right ideas, not necessarily demonization of the left.

For many decades (or even centuries), cultural conservatives were obsessed with turning back the clock on social progress. Racial segregation, blocking gay marriage, etc. But in this modern, hyper-connected internet era, many of them are realizing that they can't win that fight. They have given up.

Instead, their new focus is on trying to normalize their own repellent views by suggesting they are "just like everyone else." There are two types of propaganda: there's the type where you insist your views are superior to all others ("Whites are better than blacks"), and then there's the type where you insist your views are just as normal as all others ("White identity and black identity politics are the same thing"). This type of propaganda is extremely hard to fight because any opposition makes it seem, to moderate white observers, like you're being bigoted ("anti-white racism"), which in turn causes those moderate whites to slowly become radicalized too ("Hey wait, why isn't there a White History Month? This guy makes a good point!"). Over the last decade, as whites have slowly lost more and more of their political and cultural power, we have seen this type of white identity politics become increasingly popular, culminating with Donald Trump, who ran essentially entirely on a platform of white identity grievance politics.

When you argue with Trump supporters -- not just regular Republicans, but the really vile, dyed-in-the-wool Trumpers -- you'll notice that they rarely make any effort to defend Trump himself or his actions, or the actions of white supremacists. Instead, they immediately deflect blame by suggesting some other group on the other side (usually Hillary Clinton, the DNC, Black Lives Matter, etc) is doing the same thing, or something similar. In other words, their politics revolves entirely around a basic assumption that everyone in the world is just as disgusting and hateful as they are. You see this manifest time and again in their cynical insistence that any person who supports any sort of cause or issue is "virtue signaling" or participating in some kind of scam, their bitter anger at any demographic group that embraces their heritage and culture. They are angry, bitter, cynical people who are ugly and rotten on the inside, and they know it. They have no illusions about it. They have lost all interest in improving the world and instead, simply want to watch it burn down around them. In their minds, the best case scenario is that the world is rebuilt stronger and whiter than before. The worst case scenario is that they die, but everyone dies eventually anyway and these people have given up all hope and no longer care about their own self-interest.

To borrow a line from The Dark Knight: their goal is to prove that deep down, everyone is as ugly as them.

They are people who have given up on life and are filled with anger and resentment when they see others succeeding. Roseanne is designed to make them seem sympathetic, to make their views and ideas seem understandable, just as so many dozens of thinkpieces since November 2016 have been designed to help us coastal liberal elites get into the mindset of the poor, downtrodden Trump voter. And the strategy works; just look at how many fence-sitters on this very forum regularly piss their pants at the slightest suggestion that the views expressed by Trump's supporters are abhorrent and should be condemned. "It's just another opinion and you have to respect them! How dare you suggest Trump voters are all racists! They're just normal, cuddly working-class people like anyone else!"

Normalization of disturbing views is their goal. Asserting their superiority comes later. If Roseanne came blaring out of the gate with overtly homophobic or racist storylines, the show would have been cancelled or never even made it to the airwaves. Roseanne knows this. The goal is to normalize her white identity views, alongside other media and other political platforms designed to normalize white identity, so that eventually they can replace white identity with white supremacy and begin to truly roll the clock back. It's about playing the long game.
Yo, this post is fire. Impressive use of a Dark Knight quote.
giphy.gif
 

Scarecrow

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
3,519
Never saw the original series but am giving the revival a shot. Besides the first episode, there hasn't been that much in the way of politics, or "supporting Trump." It's mostly been an inoffensive sitcom of a family trying to make ends meet. Users here are blowing this show out of proportion.
 

Nothing Loud

Literally Cinderella
Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,987
I can't believe they chose to write a hot take about this dumb joke. I barely remember the joke. I don't think there's as much to extrapolate here as they are.

Meanwhile, last nights episode was good.
 

oo7

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
146
Much a-do about nothing in my opinion. Everything doesn't have to have an underlying meaning. If you like Roseanne, you'll enjoy the show, if you don't, then you won't.
 

Deleted member 3058

User requested account closure
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,728
This is a decent article and several other people have hit on the core idea here, which is normalization of repulsive far-right ideas, not necessarily demonization of the left.

For many decades (or even centuries), cultural conservatives were obsessed with turning back the clock on social progress. Racial segregation, blocking gay marriage, etc. But in this modern, hyper-connected internet era, many of them are realizing that they can't win that fight. They have given up.

Instead, their new focus is on trying to normalize their own repellent views by suggesting they are "just like everyone else." There are two types of propaganda: there's the type where you insist your views are superior to all others ("Whites are better than blacks"), and then there's the type where you insist your views are just as normal as all others ("White identity and black identity politics are the same thing"). This type of propaganda is extremely hard to fight because any opposition makes it seem, to moderate white observers, like you're being bigoted ("anti-white racism"), which in turn causes those moderate whites to slowly become radicalized too ("Hey wait, why isn't there a White History Month? This guy makes a good point!"). Over the last decade, as whites have slowly lost more and more of their political and cultural power, we have seen this type of white identity politics become increasingly popular, culminating with Donald Trump, who ran essentially entirely on a platform of white identity grievance politics.

When you argue with Trump supporters -- not just regular Republicans, but the really vile, dyed-in-the-wool Trumpers -- you'll notice that they rarely make any effort to defend Trump himself or his actions, or the actions of white supremacists. Instead, they immediately deflect blame by suggesting some other group on the other side (usually Hillary Clinton, the DNC, Black Lives Matter, etc) is doing the same thing, or something similar. In other words, their politics revolves entirely around a basic assumption that everyone in the world is just as disgusting and hateful as they are. You see this manifest time and again in their cynical insistence that any person who supports any sort of cause or issue is "virtue signaling" or participating in some kind of scam, their bitter anger at any demographic group that embraces their heritage and culture. They are angry, bitter, cynical people who are ugly and rotten on the inside, and they know it. They have no illusions about it. They have lost all interest in improving the world and instead, simply want to watch it burn down around them. In their minds, the best case scenario is that the world is rebuilt stronger and whiter than before. The worst case scenario is that they die, but everyone dies eventually anyway and these people have given up all hope and no longer care about their own self-interest.

To borrow a line from The Dark Knight: their goal is to prove that deep down, everyone is as ugly as them.

They are people who have given up on life and are filled with anger and resentment when they see others succeeding. Roseanne is designed to make them seem sympathetic, to make their views and ideas seem understandable, just as so many dozens of thinkpieces since November 2016 have been designed to help us coastal liberal elites get into the mindset of the poor, downtrodden Trump voter. And the strategy works; just look at how many fence-sitters on this very forum regularly piss their pants at the slightest suggestion that the views expressed by Trump's supporters are abhorrent and should be condemned. "It's just another opinion and you have to respect them! How dare you suggest Trump voters are all racists! They're just normal, cuddly working-class people like anyone else!"

Normalization of disturbing views is their goal. Asserting their superiority comes later. If Roseanne came blaring out of the gate with overtly homophobic or racist storylines, the show would have been cancelled or never even made it to the airwaves. Roseanne knows this. The goal is to normalize her white identity views, alongside other media and other political platforms designed to normalize white identity, so that eventually they can replace white identity with white supremacy and begin to truly roll the clock back. It's about playing the long game.
Great post. I agree with Messofanego that your use of The Dark Knight quote is very apt. Anecdotally, when my cousin told me that he voted for trump he literally couched it as being frustrated by both sides and wanting to elect the most unqualified person possible because he wanted to see the world burn. My mind immediately went to
5rie24s.png



PS: Messofanego your image doesn't load. change the https to http when using that site.