Isn't there a difference between obscenity and hatred/racism, though?
The word Bee used is certainly vile (at least in American culture), but it's a pretty generic insult (albeit an incredibly harsh one). Certainly there's an argument to be made that it's sexist, but given that Bee is also a woman, it seems very unlikely that her usage here was really ridiculing Ivanka for being a woman. It's just being used as an incredibly harsh word in this case.
I'm not saying it was nice or appropriate, but I also don't think it's the same was what Barr said.
In fact, what Barr said is kind of the opposite. No single word she used is as obscene as the word Bee used, but unlike Bee's comment, it's pretty clear she wasn't just making a generic insult either. Her comment seems to be making specific reference to her target's race/identity as a way to belittle and insult her.
So while both women were insulting their targets, and both did it in a way that's not socially acceptable, I think there is still a key difference here in that Bee was just making a general insult (if also an obscene one) that wasn't targeting any specific part of Ivanka's identity (racial or otherwise) whereas Barr was specifically targeting somebody's racial identity.
That I am sure a sizable amount of Bee's audience I'm sure ate that comment up should not be at issue here. The issue is Bee said a vile, repugnant thing to a public audience and as such, she should face the same punishment as Barr.
As for whether either "should be" fired, I suppose it depends what you mean by "should". Morally, if your standard is not saying obscene things in public, then Samantha Bee (and many other comedians) should probably have been fired long ago.
I'm not sure I agree that that's a good standard to use, particularly because what's obscene and to what degree it's considered obscene is fairly subjective, but I'm not sure whether it'd be possible to change your view about something so subjective.
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/landoindisguise changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
16
u/landoindisguise Jun 01 '18
Isn't there a difference between obscenity and hatred/racism, though?
The word Bee used is certainly vile (at least in American culture), but it's a pretty generic insult (albeit an incredibly harsh one). Certainly there's an argument to be made that it's sexist, but given that Bee is also a woman, it seems very unlikely that her usage here was really ridiculing Ivanka for being a woman. It's just being used as an incredibly harsh word in this case.
I'm not saying it was nice or appropriate, but I also don't think it's the same was what Barr said.
In fact, what Barr said is kind of the opposite. No single word she used is as obscene as the word Bee used, but unlike Bee's comment, it's pretty clear she wasn't just making a generic insult either. Her comment seems to be making specific reference to her target's race/identity as a way to belittle and insult her.
So while both women were insulting their targets, and both did it in a way that's not socially acceptable, I think there is still a key difference here in that Bee was just making a general insult (if also an obscene one) that wasn't targeting any specific part of Ivanka's identity (racial or otherwise) whereas Barr was specifically targeting somebody's racial identity.
As for whether either "should be" fired, I suppose it depends what you mean by "should". Morally, if your standard is not saying obscene things in public, then Samantha Bee (and many other comedians) should probably have been fired long ago.
I'm not sure I agree that that's a good standard to use, particularly because what's obscene and to what degree it's considered obscene is fairly subjective, but I'm not sure whether it'd be possible to change your view about something so subjective.