The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by elphenor

I've said it before, but I could make an alt and just pick basic wishy washy positions on everything and as long as I typed in a dry enough manner it would be seen as intellectual

I know you think that, but I don't think you understand how frustrating it is to put forth what at least you feel is a thought out argument with paragraphs and ****, and then have you respond with a two-sentence McPost because you don't feel like writing more on a smart phone. After a few go-rounds it just becomes more trouble than it's worth.

[DwnWthVwls]

I already said, that if in fact Roseanne is a known racist that the joke was most likely meant to be racist. Heres a question for you:

Is it possible to make a joke about a black guy looking like a monkey that isn't racist?

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by elphenor

it's based on the notion that blacks are less than human

I do not think blacks look more like monkeys really

They kinda do though. I'd liken it more to Neanderthals or cavemen with the more sloping forehead and pronounced brow, but it's there. It doesn't matter but it is what it is.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

I already said, that if in fact Roseanne is a known racist that the joke was most likely meant to be racist.

In the context of a vacuum, the tweet is racist.

Heres a question for you:

Is it possible to make a joke about a black guy looking like a monkey that isn't racist?

Yes.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by elphenor

I say more in my 2 sentences than you do in a paragraph ramble, Trollheart

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

[DwnWthVwls]

Originally Posted by Frownland

Yes.

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.

Originally Posted by elphenor

I've said it before, but I could make an alt and just pick basic wishy washy positions on everything and as long as I typed in a dry enough manner it would be seen as intellectual

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.

[OccultHawk]

Bad ass monkey mother****er yo

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

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.

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.

[DwnWthVwls]

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

[DwnWthVwls]

Originally Posted by Frownland

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.

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.