Yeah, youre right, that was poor wording.

Or you could point out what you think I'm being disingenuous about and we can have a grown up conversation. Pouting in the corner won't change my mind, which I'm always very open to do.

The position I invented was how I read it. Feel free to correct me. It's pretty hard responding to multiple people at once as quickly as possible.

Presuming that racism can't exist in anything but a cartoonish form.

I think it's more eye rolling at the public reaction to the tweet since the public generally elicit eye rolling.

I think I've been here and involved with these discussions long enough for you to know that's not how I feel. Now who's being disingenuous?

You're not interested in a grownup conversion, buddy. That's the issue.

WTF more do you want? I’m not dodging your question.

Let's rewind to the part where I asked how the tweet is racist, and you and Frown both respond with some version of "because she's black". That says nothing about if the comment is actually racist. Pointing out that Roseanne has a history of racism and when considering things I wasn't the tweet is likely racist is a much better point than "because shes black".

I'm always open for adult discussions. Seems like you're just being stubborn because I annoyed you.

Nah, that's not DWV. He's a wanker for many reasons, but not wanting to have intellectual discussions is not one of them.

By taking up the opposite eyeroll worthy stance that racism is virtually nonexistent?

You were suggesting that Roseanne was not being racist because she was simply being observational. That implies that people with racist instincts are not racist if they more subtle about it.

1. I said that it was the history of the term. In a vacuum, blacks don't have a longstanding history of being the victims of racism so I couldn't have said that it was because she was black. Boom, gotcha bitch!
2. It's literally dehumanizing. Any other questions?