No you actually do suck. I have the meta-analysis and everything.

So we agree... and knowing nothing about Roseanne, it is correct to assume the joke is NOT racist. That's how the null hypothesis works.

I don't think you can. You have a very neanderthal idea of what logical reasoning is.. Your counter-points almost always belong in the encyclopedia of what not to do in a debate. Fallacy after fallacy, after emotional pleading, after lazy answer, after obliviousness to nuance after whatever.. Like I said, you'll make a wonderful politician, but don't ever join the debate team or tell people youre a polisci academic, cause it'd be an insult to your institution.

Bad ass monkey mother****er yo

We can discuss how a strawman argument works too if you like lol.

The joke is racist on its face. Assuming that the joke is not racist because it could have just been an observation either suggests that racist instincts are not racist if the person doesn't have a negative intent or that you harbor those instincts yourself.

It's not a strawman, but why don't you go ahead and explain.

If the joke is racist on it's face then you can't hold the position that it's possible to make a monkey joke about a black person that isn't racist, which you already accepted as true.

So pick a side and get back to me.

I imagine your teachers agree.

"I know you only turned in half a page on a 10 page assignment but god damn do I love the Clash now."

You misrepresented my point.

Huh? Just because it's possible for a joke about a black person looking like a monkey to not be racist (I was thinking of a joke with some kind of sci-fi experiment gone wrong where the looking like a monkey part wasn't the punchline btw; a rather extreme example), it doesn't mean that I can identify something that I recognize as blatantly racist as racist?

#notagotchabitch

You misrepresented your point.

I asked you if there could be jokes comparing black people and monkeys that werent racist. I'd say you should have answered "No" because I know you're not an idiot and that "extreme example" is a cop out considering the entirety of this discussion. Don't make me start spelling everything out to prevent you from using such a nonsense example to prove your point. You know full and well when I asked you that question what the punchline was about.

I was considering every possibility. What happened to the love of nuance?