• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Roseanne Reboot

I won't.

Wrong.
This is not something from 40 years ago, it is from the much more recent past.
Really? It has been at least 40 years since US has been hypersensitive on the issue of race, but very differently when it comes to blacks and whites. Overreaction to any perceived anti-black racism, but anti-white racists are completely acceptable. That has not been a good development, and I think many of our problems vis-a-vis race stem from that embrace of double standards.

And the only way to move on from it - to allow time to make it pass into, if not respectability, then at least rehabilitation - is to NOT DO IT for a long enough time that all those who were subjected to the insult are now dead.
Slavery has been over for 150 years and still it is used as a justification for special treatment of blacks.

Every time you raise the spectre of this racist insult again, you restart the clock. IF you want to rehabilitate jokes about people being apes, such that they are NOT racist when applied to black people, THEN you need to stop making such jokes. Your grandchildren might thank you for it.
As I said, if you continue to make such jokes about whites acceptable, but treat one with a black subject as an unpardonable sin, you are perpetuating a racist double standard. And your grandchildren will definitely not thank you for it, because we will not have moved from our present state.

Humour is tragedy plus time. If you try for humour without giving it enough time, you just look like a fucking jerk.
And how long should that be in bilby's opinion?

For fucks sake, it doesn't matter what my opinion or yours is. What matters is the consensus of the society in which we live.

Grow the fuck up. You are NOT, and never will be, entitled to insult other people on the basis of exercising personal freedom - you will ALWAYS come across as an arsehole rather than a comedian, if you misread or misunderstand the boundaries. Children fuck this stuff up a lot, to the great embarrassment of their parents. Adults are supposed to learn to cope with living as part of a wider society. If they don't, then they only have themselves to blame when the rest of society condemns them.

It's on you - take responsibility for the things you say that insult others, or expect to be derided as a rude piece of shit. Those are all of the choices you have, and it's entirely up to you to pick one.
 
Derec, the history you speak of is far from over. Racial hatred and discrimination did not end when slavery was repealed. That's when the lynchings and the Jim Crow era began. Thousands of former slaves, not to mention Republican "carpet baggers", were murdered and driven away. That period lasted for another century. Nor did the problem end with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Nor did it end with the election of President Obama, as the most recent election of Donald Trump has brought home. People are not free to resurrect racist tropes such as comparing African Americans to apes and pretend that they don't matter anymore.
 
I remember Roseanne on Colbert promoting reboot. She was a bit unhinged there in her pro-trump position. I don't think she is a racist, she is just dumb and folksy and hates establishment which she equates with democrats only.
 
One thing I have to wonder about, she is so dumb did she understand that she was being racist with her comparison? I'm not so sure.

VJ is a pretty light skinned black. What exactly makes her black anyway? One drop of blood rule? I have to wonder whether Roseanne really knew she was insulting a person society classifies as black.

And if she was sufficiently white, would the tweet be ok? How much black does the tweet become unacceptable? 25%, 12.5%, 6.25%? What is the cutoff?

That being said, she was an obnoxious tweeter. What exactly was ABC expecting when they decided to do this show? She has tweeted things just as offensive in the past, if not more so.
 
One thing I have to wonder about, she is so dumb did she understand that she was being racist with her comparison? I'm not so sure.

VJ is a pretty light skinned black.

So her intent was just to be racist against a Middle Easterner.
 
And if she was sufficiently white, would the tweet be ok? How much black does the tweet become unacceptable? 25%, 12.5%, 6.25%? What is the cutoff?
Doesn't matter how black the individual is, no more than it matters exactly how observant a Muslim she is.

Saying 'evil Muslims fucked apes and we got VJ' is an offense against all Muslims. The very old racist taxonomy of classifying blacks as apes is an offense against all blacks.
 
So her intent was just to be racist against a Middle Easterner.
She is saying that she thought Jarrett was Saudi.

So, like, you know how you never, ever, ever ask a woman when she's expecting, or otherwise indicate that she looks pregnant? Maybe, like, in the same file, note that you never, ever compare anyone to apes? I mean, outside limited applications in referring to humans as being one of the species of apes...

Or telling a bunch of primates that you have a boomstick. Maybe.
 
Also, why is comparing a black person to an ape inherently racist and an unpardonable sin while comparing a white person to an ape is considered completely acceptable?

I think that's bull shit question and you very much know the answer.
 
As I understand, part of the deal to getting the reboot back on was that Roseanne was explicitly told she needs to keep her crazy in check in public. She couldn't do that.
 
So her intent was just to be racist against a Middle Easterner.
She is saying that she thought Jarrett was Saudi.

So, like, you know how you never, ever, ever ask a woman when she's expecting, or otherwise indicate that she looks pregnant? Maybe, like, in the same file, note that you never, ever compare anyone to apes? I mean, outside limited applications in referring to humans as being one of the species of apes...

So....It wasn't cool to call W the 'chimp-in-chief' all those years? I thought it was funny, because he so reminded me of Curious George.
 
I remember Roseanne on Colbert promoting reboot. She was a bit unhinged there in her pro-trump position. I don't think she is a racist, she is just dumb and folksy and hates establishment which she equates with democrats only.

No, and this is precisely the problem that she, Derec, and many others simply do not understand, or refuse to accept. One does not have to be wearing a hood and burning crosses in some poor family's front yard to be a racist. We are all racist to some degree, and put simply, some of us are more open-minded and introspective or possess more empathy in order to realize it. Also, and I think this cannot be overstated, one doesn't have to feel a burning hatred in their heart for non-whites as a white person, in order to be identified as a racist.

If you feel righteously indignant anger for being accused of racism to the degree that you are always busy defending your behavior you will not see your own racism or your own privilege. It's simply another sort of mental bias. People feel justified in holding this bias for a variety of reasons, like feeling like they earned their place in society, as opposed to privilege and luck having a greater influence on their success than they would like. These two, racism and feeling like one earned their place, is so hand in glove they are barely indistinguishable anymore.

This is a byproduct of living in the society we live in, and it takes careful consideration and courage to admit to it. It is as ingrained certain aspects of gender, and I have yet to meet a racist that has no issues with gender in today's society, why could that be? Because it's two sides of the same coin. My little girl is 8. Yesterday she said she was a tomboy. I asked her why. She said (paraphrasing here) that it's because she likes physical play, science, and dinosaurs. I myself do not consider those "male" traits, and I did not raise her that way, nevertheless, because of the society she lives in, she got the idea in her head that those are things for boys. This is a perfect example of how the society we live in influences us without us even realizing it.

<Personal references to another board member deleted--Staff edit> Of course, various other people of color were raised in their society as a subsection of ours, and instead of acknowledging that, they expect people of color to think, act and behave as if they were raised in ours alone. They fail to understand that these expectations are the very definition of racism. It denies people of color their own experiences and invalidates that lived experience.

Some of us realize that we as white people benefit from a society with pre-baked views like that, even if we don't support it. Even if we had no hand in creating it. Yet, if we want to change, if we want an even playing field for all, we have to admit to these things. Acknowledging that is difficult. To believe that your life's circumstances are due entirely to your own good or bad choices in that life when the largest determination of success is how wealthy your parents were is absurd. We live in a society where wealth trickles down through families over time. This is simply undeniable. Exceptions only prove the rule here. The fact that people of color were severely denied opportunity, housing and wealth in the past is also undeniable. Yet, many white people expect people of color to pull hard on those bootstraps and not acknowledge that those terrible past acts currently affect the present, in both social attitudes and concrete accumulated wealth. They have blinders on while they insist that everyone else is just making these concepts up because they literally like to feel guilty. It would be comical if it didn't perpetuate so much damage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Many have said that Mitch McConnell kinda looks like a turtle. Can't say I disagree. Is he owed an apology?

No, it's not the simple comparison to an animal which is the problem. It's the comparison of black people to apes which is one due to the historical context associated with that comparison.
 
...

Also, why is comparing a black person to an ape inherently racist and an unpardonable sin while comparing a white person to an ape is considered completely acceptable?

Because there is an historical context in which racists have frequently compared ALL black people to apes, but no similar context in which people have compared ALL white people to apes. So one insult refers back to a previous insult now considered unacceptable (and so becomes unacceptable in its own right), while the other does not, and so has not.

As you REALLY should know by now, unless you are a primary school student masquerading as a grown adult.

And this imagery goes back to the slave trade days to explain why Africans deserved to be chattel slaves.
Of course an undereducated bigotted mad person like Roseanne Barrnold would not have bothered to get informed about this. She began her career as a feminist at a time when white feminists were regularly being called out for racism; but she somehow never got the message. And now she's just another one in a subset of racist white ladies who you can see getting caught in their bigotry on Youtube videos.

- - - Updated - - -

Roseanne reruns are off all my cable channels. Four networks were carrying them.


FOX, MSNBC, and CNN/HLN are having feeding frenzies. Like starving rats finding a small road kill and battling over who gets to eat. Push mg. shoving, biting, climbing over each other.

So much for cable news credibility, it is all tabloid journalism.

Yes, I agree with you, but it's in a spirit of hypocrisy, since you and I am both participating in this, one of the livelier threads on the site right now.
 
Derec, the history you speak of is far from over. Racial hatred and discrimination did not end when slavery was repealed. That's when the lynchings and the Jim Crow era began. Thousands of former slaves, not to mention Republican "carpet baggers", were murdered and driven away. That period lasted for another century. Nor did the problem end with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Nor did it end with the election of President Obama, as the most recent election of Donald Trump has brought home. People are not free to resurrect racist tropes such as comparing African Americans to apes and pretend that they don't matter anymore.

And then there was social Dawinism, and the eugenics movement, and within my lifetime the active enforcement of miscengenation laws in the US--the last of which state laws was repealed in the 21st century. All of which portrayed black people as more animalistic than whites. And then there was the lookism, which said that African facial features (and sometimes supposedly typical body shape) were less attractive, because more "ape-like" than European features. Thus, whereas an individual white person might be compared to an ape for that person's particular look (or behaviour), the "ape" designation for a person with African descent feeds into this racialized lookism, which is a raciallly based negative stereotype, and which is therefore racist. This form of racism is still around, particularly in relation to black women. It's hardly a feminist thing to mock another woman's inborn appearance. (Remember too that Michelle Wolf caught flack from the right and the mainstream press for making fun of Sarah Suckstobeme Slanders' MAKEUP, and was told she would not be welcome back at the press shindig she was at.)
 
Many have said that Mitch McConnell kinda looks like a turtle. Can't say I disagree. Is he owed an apology?

No, it's not the simple comparison to an animal which is the problem. It's the comparison of black people to apes which is one due to the historical context associated with that comparison.

Fair enough. Here's a picture of Michelle Obama looking like a horse (which is not a "racial thing" AFAIK. See Sarah Jessica Parker).

9eaef60a5a50d0fe18ed1b85c0bd1249.jpg

Is there a difference between someone calling Mitch McConnell "Turtle" and someone calling Michelle Obama "Horse"? Something tells me that the latter would be unacceptable and an apology would be in order, but the former would be OK, but I'm not sure I can formulate a rational, logical reason why. In fact, I've seen people on this forum call Mitch, "Turtle" with no objections, but if someone here called Michelle, "Horse", there would likely be some outrage.
 
There's not much more wrong with calling Obama a horse than there is calling McConnell a turtle. She does kind of look like the horse there. It's considered more out of line to make fun of a woman's appearance, again because of the historical context surrounding doing so regarding a woman's value being tied to how attractive she is, but it's still a far cry from comparing black people to apes.

Nobody over 12 is unaware of this.
 
Mitch is a shrewd and ruthless operator who looks like a fucking turtle and whose testosterone has not manifested in his looks but he has used it instead to have a tremendously intense bullying personality. Actually looking like a turtle has probably made it better for him because people underestimate him.

Why not compare Pelosi to McConnell?
 
Many have said that Mitch McConnell kinda looks like a turtle. Can't say I disagree. Is he owed an apology?

View attachment 15925

Sure, black people are murdered by the police for being black, neo-Nazis are openly calling for the extermination of Jews while conservatives use "both sides" arguments to make them seem less bad, and African-Americans are facing systemic racism that jams a boot on their neck at every corner, but this one white guy got compare to a turtle! Can't everyone see that white people are the real victims here? [/sarcasm]

Even if we ignore the tu quoque fallacy this kind of "what aboutism" argument is based on, the argument still fails. Other people being wrong doesn't make you right, even if both sides were just as bad, and they aren't. It's not even close.
 
Back
Top Bottom