Not true. At all. We started out on a good foot.

You and Jans?

Got it. Sounded like you were describing yourself since you're the only one rejecting that something is a stereotype here.

My guess is that you think I take it more seriously than I actually do. It's a ****ing sitcom star. Let em all rot.

Oh, so you were just being a smartass, haha. I did answer you, idk.

Not really, you detailed how Roseanne was an exception in the stereotype that she utilized.

I never rejected the stereotype. I was criticizing the tweet's racial context in a vacuum. I don't watch TV or participate in social media, how the hell am I supposed to know she's a long time racist? My entire point was the media can cherry pick racism from nearly any derogatory comments and takes full advantage of it, which I find massively insincere (and I know you do to).

Youre the one with the "I dont see it" and "Maybe its easier for racists to see"...

What is "context in a vacuum"?

No, youre missing the nuance: someone actually looking like the thing they are being compared to versus someone being compared to something to dehumanize them.

One is a joke/insult that has a sense of reality behind it and the other is obviously and intentionally racist

You just spent a whole page saying that Roseanne comparing the whoeverthe**** to a monkey wasn't based in a stereotype but on a real observation.

Google

Yep.

Here's a point: approaching situations with that kind of thinking will lead to you denying obviously racist things because of their association to the media.

Would you prefer me to lie?

That tweet. Those words.. nothing else, is it racist or just a lame joke?

You're ideology says: No black person can ever be compared to a monkey because it has a history of being a derogatory slur used against black people.

Mine says: If someone looks like something, regardless of the history, it's okay to call them out on it.

You're basically arguing that we can't call a grindy Hitler if he looks like Hitler, because history, and I'm calling bullshit.