The Roseanne issue is, itself, a false equivalency to me, because she was't fired from the show and really couldn't be. She owned it. The show was going to be cancelled as a result of her actions, however, and she, ultimately, agreed to leave and hash out the legal ownership issues of the series so it could continue without her. I'm not sure she should have left. Maybe the best thing would have been to keep the show going, and if/when ratings went south leading to the show's cancellation in the wake of her offensive words--or because no sponsor would agree to pay for it--that would have been the better outcome. Or maybe it's good that the show continued, is doing well, and the rest of the cast members still have jobs. I can see it either way.
You can say the answer is cut and dried about pics--as I assumed people who take the position you're taking would--but I don't agree. The morality of the issue is complex, and relates to the situation, the relationship, and even whether one considers naked pics "dirty" or the body something inappropriate to be seen except by certain people. I mean, there are women who argue they should be able to walk down the street topless if they want--after all, men do it all the time. If that's the society we're heading towards, how is sharing a pic of a woman's breasts actually something wrong? Why would it take permission? We're completely up in the air in our society about nudity, sexual expression and things related to both. There's really no standard anymore. That makes a clear moral response we all acknowledge as "obviously" right, well, impossible.
Ultimately, when it comes to keeping him out of the show, you're making an emotional argument about how people will feel. And you're doing that based on assumptions about how they, or the majority of them, would feel (I doubt you've interviewed them). People's feelings are not an issue when it comes to employment, in my opinion. Either there's actually a danger--something that must not be allowed to occur--or there is not. That, and of course ability to perform the job, should be the arbiter in a professional setting.
But let me add one final thought. If, as with Roseanne, the producer decide "It's bad for our brand to keep him. We have to think about all the people we might be depriving of a living if he stays in the show and it flops because audiences will not attend if he's in it. Therefore we are letting him go," I have zero problem with that. Ramasar got himself into this mess, and if he's too toxic for audiences now--or even if producers merely believe he might be--I have no problem with that development.
Updated On: 7/13/19 at 12:14 AM
_/ said: "Today Tix? Already? "
