Social Roseanne tweets outrageously racist comment about former Obama staffer Valerie Jarrett

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

@Fawlty I still don't agree with your premise that it was the funniest joke of all time and that racism is good and correct.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

I didn't mean pics of your sister, I meant pics of you...

 

[Trotsky]

There is no arguing with raging emotions. Making any kind of point with you only deepens and broadens your hate for anyone with a different opinion.
Nearly every post you make, no matter how well you've made a point, is tarnished by blanket insults and seething hatred for anyone not on your team. You are so entrenched in your ideology you really can't have a discussion with any reasonable person with a dissenting point of view.
It seems as though, I don't know you so I may be wrong, you have little, if any, real world experience to reflect on when deciding your opinions. You will learn this quickly in the marketplace. No one has all of the answers.

So for now, I'll just poke fun at you, watch you try to prove how smart you are to a bunch of people who don't really care and be amused.

Lol, I get along fine with plenty of persons with policy opinions different than mine: @PolishHeadlock @Jack V Savage @InternetHero @TheGreatA @Cubo de Sangre and plenty more.

However, an opinion or perspective being held does not make it valid or deserving of respect. You cannot provide reasonable arguments for Trumpian policy, as no one even attempts to do so anymore: they just revel in the fact that they piss off the other guys.

As far as testing our policy perspectives in the marketplace of ideas or the "real world," your delusions of grandeur are hilarious. Pretty sure law school, the courtroom, and the legal community generally provide hotter furnaces than you've experienced. Although, to be fair, I'd wager >95% of gainfully employed lawyers gawk at even the prospect of asserting a pro-Trump policy argument.

 

[S-dot]

It’s not hard.

If there is a long and documented history of a particular race, ethnicity or religious group being compared to a particular animal in a derogatory manner, then making that comparison is racist.

It’s not that cut and dry though my friend. Not necessarily because you’re wrong but because of what will come out of that.

First, I think it’s wrong to conflate the physical resemblance of a single member of a race with an animal, with a racist belief that blacks are inferior monkeys, as was actually thought by people in the past and still pushed by racists today, or used to insult any random black person today. In this case, it wasn’t even a comparison to an actual animal but a character from a movie. I’m not even trying to defend Roseanne but what I’m saying is your own definition doesn’t exactly match the situation. Is it racist if black people play characters in planet of the apes?

All of that stuff though, I’m willing to concede because I don’t care. I don’t like to compare people to things as a way to mock them. I don’t like to insult anyone regardless of race so it’s irrelevant to me. I do occasionally think people look like animals though, like jim lampley looks like a hedgehog and John Chaney looks like an owl.

What I don’t think is right is to racially segregate language. I know the intentions are good, but in the future if monkey becomes a word that can never be used in any way by a white person in relation to any black person, it seems to me we’re just replacing one prejudiced, racially charged system with another. You don’t get equality via inequality. You don’t fix racism with racism. There has to be a line that rational people can agree on between racially abusing a black person by throwing a banana at them, and calling a black kid a lil monkey as a term of endearment innocuously and without thought in the same way I do my own son. For example, if there’s one black kid at my sons bday party, and 10 white kids, is it more racist to call the other 10 monkeys and specifically avoid calling the black kid a lil monkey, or just refer to them all as a bunch of lil monkeys?

Also, do you think it’s good for blacks(or any other group of normally functioning, fully capable people) to be treated with kid gloves based on their race? It doesn’t seem to fit the notion of equality to me.

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

Does it really need to be said that mean-spirited racist jokes are hurtful?

No, and that’s not the point I was making.

Because aside from that pretty obvious statement, it seems like you're implying that black Americans can be more offended than white Americans. Do you believe that is true?

You’re not a reader are you? My point was specifically about monkey jokes and insults and their history among American blacks.

I really can’t figure out who you were unable to discern that from my post.

 

[Strychnine]

I didn't mean pics of your sister, I meant pics of you...

 

[MicroBrew]

.........

Obvious bait for trolling detected sniffs at it and walks away.

For a supposed Black guy, he sure loves to support White supremacist sentiments.

 

[SpartanKhmy]

Lame joke, lame show. Good riddance...

 

[dontsnitch]

Yes, I mean that it is worse to attack someone’s race.

Context matters, I don't agree with this if you're claiming the only reason to disagree must be racism, because one can disagree for other reasons. If you remove that particular claim, I'm with you.

This discussion is not about what the target of the insult should find more offensive, because that would vary from person to person so much that it would make the argument meaningless.

Sure, but that's no reason to deny that it does indeed vary.

We are discussing how third parties, be they other individuals or society as a whole, should judge the person doing the insulting.

The answer should be: by looking at context.

From that perspective, insulting a person’s actions, decisions, or moral character, is nowhere near as bad as resorting to racism, which is, in and of itself, vile and evil.

I think it's best as bad.

Certainly can be as bad, but it can be worse as well. Look, I don't want to be pedantic with you, I agree with you that racism is more hurtful and offensive roughly speaking. If you were just resorting to hyperbole for emphasis and didn't actually mean that the only possible reason to disagree is racism, that's cool, there's nothing wrong with that, but given how conversions about race here normally go, I don't think it's unreasonable to at least ask you if you're being literal.

 

[dontsnitch]

No, and that’s not the point I was making.



You’re not a reader are you? My point was specifically about monkey jokes and insults and their history among American blacks.

I really can’t figure out who you were unable to discern that from my post.

I'll take you at your word and say that I misunderstood you. Your statement is damn near axiomatic is all, so I wanted to know if you had something deeper in mind.

 

[lilelvis]

Lol, I get along fine with plenty of persons with policy opinions different than mine: @PolishHeadlock @Jack V Savage @InternetHero @TheGreatA @Cubo de Sangre and plenty more.

However, an opinion or perspective being held does not make it valid or deserving of respect. You cannot provide reasonable arguments for Trumpian policy, as no one even attempts to do so anymore: they just revel in the fact that they piss off the other guys.

As far as testing our policy perspectives in the marketplace of ideas or the "real world," your delusions of grandeur are hilarious. Pretty sure law school, the courtroom, and the legal community generally provide hotter furnaces than you've experienced. Although, to be fair, I'd wager >95% of gainfully employed lawyers gawk at even the prospect of asserting a pro-Trump policy argument.

All I'll say is that I've been around a while, spent millions on attorneys, taken many civil cases through trial, wins and losses. Attorney's are just like people in every other profession, nothing special. Some are brilliant, most are idiots. Some are conservative, some are liberal. I am quite educated in my field, but that doesn't make me an expert on everything, or even everything in my field. Sometimes I am right, sometimes I'm not.
I've always found it lucrative to recognize when I'm not and learn from those who are. Even the meek.

btw: I didn't mean the "marketplace of ideas". That is for philosophers and politicians. I meant the "marketplace" where ideas turn into revenue and success means bringing people together to obtain a goal for the enrichment of everyone involved.

You forgot to insult me, smelly hippie.....

 

[Jack V Savage]

Lol, I get along fine with plenty of persons with policy opinions different than mine: @PolishHeadlock @Jack V Savage @InternetHero @TheGreatA @Cubo de Sangre and plenty more.

However, an opinion or perspective being held does not make it valid or deserving of respect. You cannot provide reasonable arguments for Trumpian policy, as no one even attempts to do so anymore: they just revel in the fact that they piss off the other guys.

As far as testing our policy perspectives in the marketplace of ideas or the "real world," your delusions of grandeur are hilarious. Pretty sure law school, the courtroom, and the legal community generally provide hotter furnaces than you've experienced. Although, to be fair, I'd wager >95% of gainfully employed lawyers gawk at even the prospect of asserting a pro-Trump policy argument.

I'd like to see someone try to make a real argument in favor of Trump without resorting to some form of "shooting ourselves in the face to own the libs" or making factual errors. When people try to make fact-based defenses, they basically amount to the "pre-Trump trajectory of the economy has continued further" (that is, unemployment was low when Trump took office, and it's continued to fall at a similar rate since). That's mostly a "Trump didn't fuck things up yet" argument, though. Sensible Fed appointments has been a legit positive, but "sensible" in this case means "the same type of people that Obama was appointing."

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

I'll take you at your word and say that I misunderstood you. Your statement is damn near axiomatic is all, so I wanted to know if you had something deeper in mind.

No, just a simple illustration of why monkey jokes and insults carry more weight than others in the eyes of black people. Context is simply secondary to its historically vile origins in this country. So any suggestions that “it was just a joke” or “she only said it cause that’s what she looks like” completely fail to accurately address the reality of the situation.

If an adult is incapable of realizing that they should educate themselves before getting on twitter to tell the world their opinion.

 

[dontsnitch]

No, just a simple illustration of why monkey jokes and insults carry more weight than others in the eyes of black people. Context is simply secondary to its historically vile origins in this country. So any suggestions that “it was just a joke” or “she only said it cause that’s what she looks like” completely fail to accurately address the reality of the situation.

If an adult is incapable of realizing that they should educate themselves before getting on twitter to tell the world their opinion.

I agree it carries more weight, but context is not secondary. Context is everything.

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

I'd like to see someone try to make a real argument in favor of Trump without resorting to some form of "shooting ourselves in the face to own the libs" or making factual errors. When people try to make fact-based defenses, they basically amount to the "pre-Trump trajectory of the economy has continued further" (that is, unemployment was low when Trump took office, and it's continued to fall at a similar rate since). That's mostly a "Trump didn't fuck things up yet" argument, though. Sensible Fed appointments has been a legit positive, but "sensible" in this case means "the same type of people that Obama was appointing."

Will never happen. Trump fans here, when pressed, have admitted they argue for him for nothing other than petty sport. bobgoose has literally stated that almost word for word.

These are people who equated having a fat loser represent them on the world stage with victory. The Clinton Foundation gets a donation and it’s a 14 paragraph thread about her corruption. The same reaction to Cohen selling access to Trump unapologetically?

“That’s politics”

These are people who have no interest in honest discourse. Just look at bob still running with spygate. The people providing his spin have already abandoned it, but he’s still hard at work pretending he doesn’t know what an informant is.

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

I agree it carries more weight, but context is not secondary. Context is everything.

Not in the eyes of an employer looking to protect their brand or in the eyes of the black woman insulted.

And sadly for Rosanne, that’s a simple reality of our country that’s a direct result of our history.

 

[dontsnitch]

Not in the eyes of an employer looking to protect their brand or in the eyes of the black woman insulted.

And sadly for Rosanne, that’s a simple reality of our country that’s a direct result of our history.

Okay, but that doesn't mean that context is always secondary, we look at what was said and if it was over the line. Not every employer fires his employee when someone is insulted without looking at the context first.

 

[Cojopi Extomino]

Okay, but that doesn't mean that context is always secondary,

Which is why I never said that. Context is secondary in this instance.

we look at what was said and if it was over the line. Not every employer fires his employee when someone is insulted without looking at the context first.

Never suggested they do. Where are you inferring these points from?

At no point have I suggested every employer would be right to immediately fire someone over a monkey joke regardless of context.

 

[dontsnitch]

Which is why I never said that. Context is secondary in this instance.



Never suggested they do. Where are you inferring these points from?

At no point have I suggested every employer would be right to immediately fire someone over a monkey joke regardless of context.

Gotcha. I agree.

 

[HereticBD]

@Fawlty is like if Louis C.K., and a fat piece of shit had a kid.


Is that a joke?

Yes.

Now, if you plainly stated "@Fawlty is a fat piece of shit", that would not be a joke.