The 2nd episode was made to calm SJW rage...
...over Roseanne daring to support Trump in the first episode. Cheap tactic to appease the nutters and avoid instant cancellation.
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Roseanne (1988) Discussion > The 2nd episode was made to calm SJW rag...
Didn't think about it at first but it makes a lot of sense. Good call.
shareCare to explain how so??? BTW it doesn't take a made up to shut down everything that upsets me down term like "SWJ" to hate Trump. Since I said that, I suppose I'll have to hear the expected insults and rantings used to defend the Orange Man.
shareIt was about Roseanne forcing an entire class to be accepting of a boy who wears girl's clothing.
shareIt seems the nutters were appeased...
shareSorry for your agony.
shareApology not accepted.
shareDid you expect her to go all Pat Robertson about it to audience applause and approval? Maybe make jokes about him going to hell? Or for Rosanne to disregard the continuity with her oringinal series that also focused on awareness and acceptance of issues?
shareI wanted a believable resolution like the kid agreeing to fit in to society and dress normal for school. Instead we got a ridiculous resolution where everyone had to go along with the kid's insanity. Completely bad message to send and unrealistic.
shareI do think the message should've been that there's a time and a place for everything. He needs to learn that as an adult he will probably be forced to wear a suit or an uniform to work, which a lot of us don't really like either. What he wears in his own, private time is his own business.
shareWell at the end of the day you can't expect everyone to go along with your idea of insanity in regards to issues such as those Guitar King.
shareThat sentence made no sense. Maybe you have a problem with punctuation and replying to the right post?
shareI said Guitar King. Wasn't that clear? No I don't have a problem with punctuation. I was trying to be inoffensive. If it wasn't somehow clear enough and where gonna be fucking snarky about it then I'll make my point clearer - not everyone agrees that a cross dressing boy is insanity in this more enlightened age.
Not all media is going to conform to the view that cross dressing is insanity especially in this day and age.
And to add, it's ironic to be triggered by a fictitious show and affirming that it does damage while complaining about apparently easily offended "SJ'Ws" - a made up term by Neo-Nazi assholes who were broadcasting live from their mother's basement.
You replied to my post, but my name isn't Guitar King. And there was no comma, so it wasn't at all clear if you were talking ABOUT Guitar King or talking TO Guitar King.
As for the rest of your post, you're obviously the one who's easily "triggered", just like those "SJW's". Apparently they're not just a myth...
Easily triggered? Yeah that's hilarious when I'm not the one giving a shit about how Roseanne handles the issue of simple cross dressing. You lot are the most easily offended of the modern age, while trying to project the 'Other' as the easily offended in a desperate attempt at edginess and hipness, going along with the use of the "SWJ" card - where at the end of the day it's all the same dull, reactionary conservatism.
It's pretty damn obvious that my response was addressed to Guitar King, unless you have poor comprehension. If you wanna continue arguing that point with me then go right ahead but I'm gonna have to start a new text box below as the current one keeps getting narrower on my phone.
Yeah, that rant sure proves you're not easily triggered.😑
In the future, reply to the post you're addressing and use punctuation.
Nah it just proves you're a moron with no real counter argument :p And of course you have a problem with comprehension since it's clear as day who I was addressing in my own thread, even including their name. Hilarious that you argue an apparent lack of a comma confused you, as if it makes a clever defense.
shareYes, because name-calling is SUCH a good argument.😑
Why should I offer a counter-argument? I thought you were addressing Guitar King, hmmm???
You can deflect all you want, but, like I said in my very first reply to you, you do have a problem with punctuation and replying to the right post if you were addressing Guitar King. But I guess it's not that strange coming from someone whose reason for not using punctuation is trying to be "inoffensive"...
Also, this is not YOUR "thread".
I've been having exactly the same problem with this idiot on another thread, Strat, and a previous one before that. He's clearly got a track record of repetitive behavior.
shareOkay, thanks for the heads up, db! What a weirdo.
shareIn case you're curious, check out my exchange with him on the " Are you a misanthropist " thread on the GD board. I'm sure you'll see the parallel.
shareWow, I just read it. Is this poster doing it on purpose or is he really that dense?
shareWow, are you's really the same person? It's a testament to both your stupidty and oddness trying to cleverly argue that I wasn't clear who I was addressing despite saying their name. That's addressed to you Stratego, not God or someone else...
Yeah name calling is justifiable argument for me when someone just appears to be trolling you and acting like an overcompensating and pompous shit. You and db20db need to go get a life. Weirdos :p
So are you going to use punctuation and reply to the right post next time???
I mentioned Guitar King by name in my response. Are you dense?
shareIs your name Guitar King and did you say anything about insanity? Do you feel someone is talking to you on social media when they've tagged someone else after your comment and are not responding to anything you're saying?
shareDid you reply to the right post and use punctuation? No, so stop complaining about me pointing out your stupidity.
shareNot sure why you keep assuming I didn't get that you were trying to address Guitar King. My first reply to you obviously shows I did. So you're just going to continue replying to the wrong post and using no punctuation? Good luck with that!
It's also obvious you had no idea what punctuation was, which is hilarious!
"Not sure why you keep assuming I didn't get that you were trying to address Guitar King"...
..."so it wasn't at all clear if you were talking ABOUT Guitar King or talking TO Guitar King."
So again, you contradict. Who are you speaking for then if you knew I was responding to GK now? You're coming across as a troll just trying to shift attacks. Absolutely pathetic.
For once and for all, I referred to his name in my response. Get the fuck over it.
shareNo contradiction. The fact that your post didn't make clear who you were addressing, doesn't mean I couldn't guess who you were trying to address. I was simply pointing out your stupidity.
You're the one who comes across as a troll with your habit of replying to the wrong post and then attacking people for pointing that out.
If it wasn't confusing to you and you knew who I was responding to then it just goes to show how much of a snarky idiot you are.
Oh my...my comment in a continuous thread clearly responding to GK followed after yours and it missed a comma...What a purposeful act of trolling...What an affront!
This is beginning to amuse me. Keep it up.
Your attitude deserves a snarky reply.
This is a discussion board, if you want to discuss, at least respond to the correct person. Don't you want Guitar King to read your post and respond to it? There's a reason we have punctuation, people shouldn't just guess what you're trying to say. Instead of an idiot who responds to the wrong post and doesn't use punctuation, you could very well be an idiot who does respond to the right post, but leaves out a few essential words.
And what's this missing punctuation? That made my response that addressed someone by name and referred to something you never mentioned so confusing to no one?
Are you just as snarky and confused when someone on FB comments under you while tagging someone else and talking about something you never mentioned?
I assumed that when we comment under the comments of other people in a continuous thread they would all get it. Pardon me off all over the place for my mistake, even though I took the precaution of clearly addressing someone else by name.
Which still didn't stop you from being a snarky, overcompensating shit. You deserve every ounce of disrespect for persisting with your trollish attitude.
No, you did not address someone by name, you simply mentioned someone's name. Your English teacher would not have accepted that. Your mistake, don't blame someone else. Just like you thinking Guitar King will ever read your post addressed to him if he never gets a notification.
As I said, good luck posting any further. You'll definitely need it.
"Well at the end of the day you can't expect everyone to go along with your idea of insanity in regards to issues such as those Guitar King."
Who does it look like I'm referring to there?
You wanna be snarky just for the hell of it? Go get a life snowflake.
You're referring to Guitar King, NOT addressing him.
I'm snarky because you're stupid. Next time just reply to the right post, although it doesn't seem you learn from your mistakes.
Why would I be saying GK's name if I wasn't referring to him? Add to that, what I wrote had nothing to do with you what you said. So who's stupid? You also never answered my FB question of course.
Oh and Im replying to a different response to yours because the text book became to narrow. I hope you can handle that snowflake :p
What you wrote made no sense even if you had properly addressed it to Guitar King. He doesn't expect anyone to go along with "his idea of insanity ". If anything he expects them to go along with his idea of SANITY. Your post was complete nonsense in every way.
Now just learn from your mistakes and move on.
PS. Your FB question is completely irrelevant. I don't even have Facebook.
Yeah lucky you. You would be getting into constant arguments and making yourself look like an idiot as you are here.
What I wrote is comprehensible unless you're a complete numbskull. Oh wait...
Learn from your mistakes and move on :p
What you wrote is absolutely pointless if you were addressing Guitar King.
As for who's looking like an idiot here, you never got a response from Guitar King to that post, now did you?
Yeah okay keep responding that you don't understand. Works for me.
shareYou 're either a troll or truly a moron who doesn't know how to reply to the right post. An idiot either way.
sharewhere at the end of the day it's all the same dull, reactionary conservatism.
Which somehow we've gotten to the point that one could have their professional or personal life ruined for openly expressing. Because of that muh 'enlightenment' that you're a cockroach (or NAHZEE) for mildly disagreeing with. And nice try, but it's very hard to top being more offended than someone who cries at being 'misgendered', or claims yoga is a form of white cultural oppression or that video games are 'misogynistic and unwelcoming' for having attractive women in them.
"Not all media is going to conform to the view that cross dressing is insanity especially in this day and age."
Of course not, for better or worse. Funny thing though, is that approved media narratives (or so-called 'enlightened' culture) don't necessarily reflect how the majority of people think and feel. And these 'masses' have a right to their thoughts..
"And to add, it's ironic to be triggered by a fictitious show and affirming that it does damage"
It's not being 'triggered' to disapprove of intentional assaults on accustomed-to norms. You could call it being offended, but the newer concept of 'triggered' goes deeper than that (which your side should already know, it originated with you). Expressing a critical opinion is different from screeching for something (or someONE) to be censored/shut down(/fired) accompanied by apologies that won't be accepted.
We can see that our baby crossdressing prime time sitcom character (whom would be nowhere to be found just ten years ago) has shown up without threat of sabotage from less than receptive viewing audiences.
"by Neo-Nazi assholes who were broadcasting live from their mother's basement."
*eyeroll* That good old 'enlightenment', any wonder everyone is not on board.
No being triggered is framing any acceptance or even any depiction of homosexuality or cross dressing in film or TV as an intentional assault on "norms" and as part of some media conspiracy - sorry narrative...This is the 21st century, programming would look pretty damn stupid demonizing LGBTQ'S or cross dressing.
*Eye roll* It's always been the conservative side, by and large, promoting the idea of moral offenses perpetrated by various media. The "Moral Majority", anti-pornography advocates, Fox News etc. I love how "Alt-Righters" deem themselves so edgy and hip while being outraged by anything diverse, while bowing down to a President who's speaks out against violent media and is supported by the "Moral Majority". Who was screeching when Janet Jackson's nipple seemed exposed during one Super Bowl show, and who continues to screech and campaign aganist sexuality and cuss words on TV?
Homosexuality used to be classified as a mental disorder until 1973. What changed? Homosexuals protested and rioted to make the psychiatric community change the classification.
shareAcceptance of homosexuality came about through gradual enlightenment through the 1970's to the present. The medical community recognized that a preference for one's own gender is not a harmful condition and no different to heterosexuality.
Do you still consider homosexuality a disorder? Since I'm bisexual, would you consider me as suffering from a disorder?
But aren't schools nowadays super liberal to the point that kids would be forced to except whatever is on the agenda? Even in conservative small towns? Its to the point that the Heathers remake had to make the LGBT the bullies of the school. So it wasn't that hard from me to believe.
shareNo, conservative small towns don't put up with that crap.
share"Apology not accepted."
Aww that sucks.
Well... I didn't think it was appeasement. I mean he's still a boy. Couldn't care less how he dresses as long as he isn't forcing me to call him by some friggin made up special snowflake gender. So he's a little different, so what? Think Roseanne was just trying to straighten the kids out to not pick on her grandson is all, being right wing or not.
shareYeah, it was dumb and completely unrealistic of her.
shareBTW it doesn't take a made up to shut down everything that upsets me down term like "SWJ" to hate Trump.
It's "SJW", first of all. Second of all, what??
so, right in production of the first episode they thought "nah, let's rewrite the second episode not to offend anyone"?
share