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?

That's actually horrendous logic since your first point would make any comparison of any human to a monkey pointless and redundant. There'd have to be a greater physical appearance to monkeys among black people for it to make sense.

When did he say that?

No I wasn't, and I've already said, in light of discovering her racist history that yes, there likely was a racist undertone. However, that was never what I was arguing.

He didn't directly say it. It's a fold of crusading against rather apparent accusations of racism.