Should Whoopie Goldberg be suspended?

1. 95

   Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

   I have read what Whoopie Goldberg said on the view.  I watched what she said on the Stephen Colbert show.  I can honestly say I probably hold political and social views that are complete opposite of Whoopie Goldberg.
   
   Do I think she should be suspended for what she said?  My heartfelt answer is NO, hell NO, it shouldn't be done.
   
   Why?  I believe is free speech.
   
   The one major problem Whoopie Goldberg has is the fact she is extremely unintelligent individual and very ignorant on many topics.  Simply watching her responses on her show will illustrate this fact.
   
   She did apologize, but it is obvious she didn't comprehend what she was apologizing for or what she had done wrong. 
   
   So, what?  In my version of America, a person like Whoopie Goldberg has the right to be as ignorant and unintelligent as she wants.  She can go on a national television show and put her lack of intelligence and ignorance on display to the world on a daily basis.  That is her right as an American citizen.
   
   If people don't like it, including myself, we simply don't watch her.  We ignore what she says.  We don't let what she says affect us in any way.
   
   I am very much against her suspension.
   
   "Whoopi Goldberg suspended from 'The View' for 2 weeks over Holocaust comments
   The host apologized for the comments Monday night."
   
   https://abcnews.go.com/US/whoopi-goldbe … d=82613265

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Mike,  I listened to her comment. It would seem she did not mean it as an insult. I think being black she comes from a place where the very word race itself has such a profound meaning.   Her anology that white persecuted white.was strictly something she appeared to feel strongly about. She claimed the holocaust was an act of inhumanity of man. The holocaust was certainly that...
      
      She quickly apologized and was very honest about her feelings. I think in this case she meant no insult to the Jewish people. I  don't feel she should have been suspended. In fact, I think the topic would have been a great follow-up show, to delve deeper into the subject of discrimination, and the inhumanity of man.

      replyreport
2. 77

   Valeantposted 2 years ago

   If you believed in free speech, then you would understand its limitations as it applies to the private sector.  What you believe in sounds more like chaos for the sake of chaos.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "limitations as it applies to the private sector"
      
      What does that mean?
      
      Do you believe Whoopie Goldberg should be suspended?

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Do a very simple search and ask if freedom of speech applies to the private sector.  Become educated on the limitations of the freedom of speech.
         
         The business also has rights, and they chose to enforce their own rights against someone hurting their business by making a statement that potentially offended their clientele.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Do you think Whoopie Goldberg should have been suspended?

            replyreport
         2. 95

            Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "The business also has rights, and they chose to enforce their own rights against someone hurting their business by making a statement that potentially offended their clientele."
            
            Does this mean you are against professional athletes kneeling during the playing of the national anthem?

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Simply noting a business has a right does not necessarily mean being in agreement with their policies.  Businesses had a right to take action against kneeling athletes.  Whether I was for or against it is immaterial to the discussion.  The business had to weigh the damage to their business by doing nothing or taking action.  Either way, someone was going to be offended, so many made the decision to back their talented employees to put winning first.
               
               The Yankees banned facial hair.  I like the Yankees.  Does not mean I dislike facial hair just because I like to watch the Yankees play.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I think facial hair comes more under freedom of expression.  Freedom of speech involves expressing opinions. How about if a Yankees player expressed his love for the Boston Red Sox?

                  replyreport
3. 80

   KC McGeeposted 2 years ago

   Under our Constitution Whoopi has the right to say anything she wants provided whatever she says does out place others in harms way. Although I and many others may deeply disagree with her it doesn't negate her right. I personally don't like her and many of her opinions but as a fellow American I would stand shoulder to shoulder with her to defend her rights.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, she does have a right to say what she wants.  But if you understood your rights, that right has limitations in the workplace.  You cannot just say whatever the heck you want while representing an employer and not expect them to want to have you remain employed there.
      
      Freedom of speech is freedom from persecution from your government.  Does Whoopi work for the government?  No.  This, therefore, is a non-issue.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Did you notice I did not say ANYTHING about her employment or her employer. The reason I didn't is due to the double standards of the far left. She has said many inflammitory things on the View and NOW they decide to suspened her.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            You are absolutely right.
            
            I think the question remains is if someone on an opinion show, such as the view, should be suspended for voicing their opinion?  That is what they do day after day.  The females on the view are not articulate, intelligent or able to understand much.  But their stupidity and ignorance has been offending people for many years.
            
            You are right.  Who determines who can be offended without any repercussions from their network?  Their opinions offend many people.

            replyreport
4. 95

   Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

   It's obvious conservatives are supporting Whoopie Goldberg.  Where are the liberals?  This is one of their own.  Conservative supporting a liberal's freedom of speech while liberals are on the sidelines.  Yeah, not surprised.
   
   "Conservatives argue against Whoopi Goldberg's suspension by ABC: 'Illiberal and irrational'"
   
   A number of conservative voices are speaking out in defense of Whoopi Goldberg, the liberal co-host of ABC's "The View," who was suspended Tuesday following her false claim earlier this week that the Holocaust was "not about race."
   
   Those standing up for Goldberg took to multiple outlets to slam her suspension, arguing it was akin to "cancel culture," and that it didn't make sense given she apologized, admitted her mistake and wasn't fired.
   
   Goldberg made the claim on Monday's episode and argued that, rather than race, the Holocaust was actually about "man's inhumanity to man," despite the systematic killing of an estimated six million Jews that the Nazis viewed as racially inferior.
   
   She issued an apology Monday night on Twitter, and reiterated that apology Tuesday on "The View" as she appeared alongside Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, who explained to the co-hosts why the Holocaust was, indeed, about race.
   
   Goldberg's suspension was announced Tuesday night by ABC News.
   
   "With pay? Without pay? Who cares? This smells like cancel culture, or at least some dank hypocrisy at ABC, and a cheap way to deflect attention from the real problem," one critic tweeted, while another accused ABC of trying to "worm" its way out of bad publicity"
   
   https://www.foxnews.com/media/conservat … suspension

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I don't see this as a free speech issue whatsoever. She made a statement that was uninformed and ignorant of history.  Mistakes like hers often happen because well-meaning people have trouble fitting Jews into their usual boxes. They don’t know how to define Jews, and so they resort to their own frames of reference, like “race” or “religion,” and project them onto the Jewish experience. Her comments don't come from a place of malice, rather a lack of  historical context. Maybe some should rethink banning books like Maus. Her commemt  highlights the need for education in this area.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         "She made a statement that was uninformed and ignorant of history."
         
         Have you ever watched the view?  Making statements that are uninformed and ignorant is what they provide their viewers on a daily basis.  That group regularly makes uninformed and ignorant statements, so, why be upset about it now?  It's an opinion show, you get their uninformed and ignorant opinions.  It their niche in the television world.  Few opinion shows have such a high degree of uninformed ignorance that The View.

         replyreport
      2. 95

         Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Have you ever watched "The View?" Making uninformed and ignorant statements are their niche in the television world.  No other show provides such a high level of uninformed ignorance.  That is the type of entertainment they provide.  Whoopie Goldberg provided her uninformed and ignorant comment on a show that specializes in it.  This group of females has made so many uninformed and ignorant comments over the years there is an expectation by all who watch them for uninformed and ignorant comments to be made.  It's the type of entertainment they provide.

         replyreport
5. 77

   Valeantposted 2 years ago

   https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4344 … nts-report
   
   Where was your outrage to this?  Networks suspend people when they offend.  It's not unusual or a freedom of speech issue.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I not outraged about Whoopie, I just think it's wrong.  I think what happened to Jeanine Pirro was also wrong.  I could see Fox saying her views are not our views, but not being suspended.
      
      Then, there is your argument, "You have a right to free speech but you don't have a right to be free from the consequences of your speech."
      
      This is true.  But how people's opinions are handled speaks to a louder issue of what is and is not censored. 
      
      You know in the UK, Canada and Australia you can be fined and put in jail for what anything their government considers "hate speech."  Now, I hope we in the United States never let our desire to shut down speech we disagree be something done by the government.
      
      How does something like this start?  Maybe by punishing a person's speech on a show where the hosts are expressing their opinions.
      
      The next step may be letting the government determine what is and is not acceptable speech.  To protect Whoopie Goldberg's speech now may prevent a desire for government intervention and censorship in the future.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         The government already does determine when speech crosses a line to hate or threats.  But this is not the government, this is another example of businesses wanting their employees to think before they speak.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I would have to disagree.
            
            The Whoopie Goldberg situation is one where the network is worried for their license renewal, by who? The government.  That is more likely the reason Jeanine Pirro was suspended on Fox.  The FCC issues licenses to the networks.
            
            How many people in the United States have been fined and/or put in jail because the government determined what they said was hate speech?
            
            Read what the Canadian government does to people who express opinions unpopular with the government.
            
            "Father jailed in Canada for using incorrect pronouns"
            
            On March 16, 2021, at 10 a.m., Robert Hoogland surrendered himself to the court after a warrant was issued for his arrest by the attorney general of British Columbia. His crime was to call his daughter, a biological female,  by female pronouns, and refusing to affirm her medical transition to become a trans male."
            
            https://www.independentsentinel.com/fat … -pronouns/
            
            They DON'T have a right to free speech in Canada.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               You can certainly disagree, but I would ask you to provide any sourcing for a claim that they were worried about a license renewal as a reason for a suspension.  We can certainly speculate, as my own guess about it being about offending their consumers is the same, but neither of us may actually be right.
               
               Hate crime stats did not differentiate between threats and violence, but there were over 8,000 incidents in 2020.
               
               Hoogland's case in an interesting one.  I have a few transgender family members, so I can understand the argument that refusing to acknowledge their gender identity as abusive.  The case can be made that it's no different than emotional abuse of a child and that is potentially what the judge determined.
               
               If you think free speech should extend into abusive behavior towards children, we can again agree to disagree.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  "Hate crime stats did not differentiate between threats and violence"
                  
                  VERY different from free speech issue.
                  
                  "abusive behavior towards children"
                  
                  Calling your child, the pronoun of their birth gender being considered "Abusive Behavior" is actually laughable.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Threats are definitely a free speech issue.  Ask any of the people being arrested for making them against elected officials.
                     
                     'Calling your child, the pronoun of their birth gender being considered "Abusive Behavior" is actually laughable.'
                     
                     - Only to someone who has zero experience with trans family members.  If you had that experience, you'd understand the reasons why refusing to use the proper pronouns is such a big deal and affects those people psychologically.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        "Threats are definitely a free speech issue.  Ask any of the people being arrested for making them against elected officials."
                        
                        Little bit of a difference between stating an opinion or belief and making a threat.
                        
                        "Only to someone who has zero experience with trans family members.  If you had that experience, you'd understand the reasons why refusing to use the proper pronouns is such a big deal and affects those people psychologically."
                        
                        Who says I don't?
                        
                        That is another topic for another time.

                        replyreport
6. 82

   emgeposted 2 years ago

   Suspension? What's the use and what will it lead to?

   replyreport
7. 95

   Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

   I never thought I'd see the day when I agreed with Don Lemon on something.
   
   "CNN’s Don Lemon defends Whoopi Goldberg in Holocaust comment fallout: ‘We have to be allies’
   
   The "Don Lemon Tonight" anchor proposed that those on the left must continue an alliance with one another even if there’s been internal wrongdoing.
   
   "In this environment, we have to be allies to each other," he said. "Sometimes your allies say stupid things. Sometimes they say dumb things. But guess what? They’re your allies. They’re at least on your side and they’re trying to learn."
   
   https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnns-don- … out-allies

   replyreport
8. 60

   Live to Learnposted 2 years ago

   I only believe she should have been suspended since she is part of the side that actively seeks retribution against those she disagrees with. Let her have a taste of the ignorance of it all.
   
   Her predicament is interesting though since I think her comment lines up with a lot of thinking on race and modern society, in general. Jews were seen as ‘lower’ by the Germans. Which seems silly. She believes the past is the past and we should view that behavior from a modern perspective. It’s not dissimilar to other discussions on race. The predicament of people of color is nothing like it was historically, yet radical elements want everything to be viewed through a now ancient lens.
   
   Maybe we could learn something from her. Stop seeing through the lens of race and have productive conversations about humanity, in general.

   replyreport
9. 95

   Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

   So, is ABC showing its double standards?  Many people believe they are doing just that.
   
   "ABC slammed for suspending Whoopi Goldberg for Holocaust remark but firing Roseanne for offensive tweet
   
   Goldberg was suspended for two weeks earlier this week, days after claiming on ABC’s "The View" that the Holocaust was "not about race" drawing immediate criticism from Jewish groups and social media users. Following the suspension, many users on Twitter blasted the network for firing actress and comedian Roseanne Barr over a joke aimed at former Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett that the network deemed racist.
   
   "Roseanne: Fired over a tweet. Gina Carano: Fired over an Instagram post. Whoopi Goldberg: makes racist/anti-Semitic statements about the Holocaust and gets a slap on the wrist Liberal privilege is real!" author Brigitte Gabriel tweeted."
   
   https://www.foxnews.com/politics/abc-sl … sive-tweet

   replyreport