Race

Roseanne Barr and the Persistence of Prejudice

A reminder of the most illuminating and depressing reality of our time.

|

The tweet that caused an uproar that led to the cancellation of Roseanne Barr's ABC sitcom was a reminder of the most illuminating and depressing reality of our time: the stubborn centrality of race and racism in our national life.

It has been more than half a century since Congress passed the landmark Civil Rights Act, which Americans of that era assumed would set the nation on the road to confronting and eliminating the blight of discrimination and prejudice. But this year, a major network provided a weekly platform to an entertainer who once referred to Susan Rice, President Barack Obama's national security adviser, as "a man with big swinging ape balls."

ABC should have known what it was getting with Barr, whose show it dropped after she likened Valerie Jarrett, another black Obama aide, to an ape. But the network had been willing to overlook her nasty side in hopes of appealing to those forgotten souls who voted for Donald Trump.

Rice and Jarrett are Stanford alumni with enviable records of academic and professional achievement who have served their country in high positions of trust. Yet the only trait that appears to matter to Barr, a high school dropout, is that they are African-American, which to her means they are more like beasts than humans.

When the civil rights laws were enacted, it was common for whites to use the N-word. Even Lyndon Johnson, who pushed these measures through a Congress riddled with segregationists, was known to use it. Today, the epithet is heard far less among whites. But many who know better than to be so frank in their contempt for blacks find other ways to convey it.

Obama himself got this treatment so often that the website The Awl published "A Guide to Racist Obama Monkey Photoshops." Donald Trump's New York campaign co-chair told a reporter that Michelle Obama should be sent to "the outback of Zimbabwe" to live "in a cave with Maxie the gorilla."

The essence of these comments is that no matter how much intelligence, education, money, or renown an African-American has, he or she can never be the equal of a white person.

That prejudice has persisted despite being disowned by our laws and rejected by most whites. Last year, a National Opinion Research Center poll found that 26 percent of Republicans think blacks are less intelligent than whites—as do 18 percent of Democrats. To be an African-American is to be endlessly subjected to assumptions of inferiority.

Obama's election to the presidency appeared to mark a historic achievement, entrusting the most powerful job on the planet to a black man. But it also turned out to be a powerful goad to white fear and anger.

Trump's success would have been impossible without Obama, who was especially threatening to bigots not because he and his wife resembled the racist stereotype but because they refuted it so thoroughly.

Over and over, Trump has voiced and encouraged distrust of blacks, from demanding the death penalty for the teenagers wrongly convicted in a 1989 Central Park rape to questioning whether Obama was born in the United States and whether he was qualified for admission to his Ivy League alma maters. Trump's prejudice is not limited to blacks; Hispanics and Muslims are included.

In the 2016 election, race was a central factor. Whites in every age group preferred Trump to Hillary Clinton. Several studies indicate that racism was his ally.

"Racial resentment, anti-Muslim attitudes, and white identity were all much stronger predictors of support for Trump in the 2016 primaries than they were for prior Republican nominees," wrote Michael Tesler, a political scientist at the University of California, Irvine. "Racially resentful whites without a college degree were most likely to flee the Democratic Party during Obama's presidency."

Obama's election raised hopes that Americans could finally overcome the racial enmities and tensions of the past. "His talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America," wrote Hoover Institution scholar Shelby Steele in 2008.

But despite his caution on the issue, Obama's presence in the White House roused deep anxieties among many white voters. Those anxieties have manifested themselves in overt white nationalism, anti-immigrant furies, the rise of Trump, and the popularity of Roseanne.

Many whites have long thought of our race problem as a national disease that will eventually be cured. But maybe it's a permanent affliction that we can only hope to manage.

NEXT: Recipe: Prison Hooch

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Rice and Jarrett are Stanford alumni with enviable records of academic and professional achievement who have served their country in high positions of trust. Yet the only trait that appears to matter to Barr, a high school dropout, is that they are African-American, which to her means they are more like beasts than humans.

    So, I don’t have any particular urge to defend Roseanne Barr, and I won’t.

    Your usage of her being a high school dropout as a way to imply she’s less then the others is very obnoxious.

    Even beyond asking a libertarian website to give any special respect for “serving their country in high positions of trust.” i.e. being a powerful member of the state apparatus, if you had left out that slight you would have had a better argument that doesn’t treat whole groups of people as retards.

    1. For you to jump on some bullshit side issue the way you have here while completely dismissing the elephant to me demonstrates suspect motives or judgment but I think its judgment. I think you blindness to racism is insidious.

      1. it’s hardly a side issue. To act like it is some kind of sacrifice to work in the government, as if they are “serving the country” and not making themselves millionaires is laughable.

      2. I think it’s a major impediment to discussion.

        1) Castigating whole groups of people will only make people defensive. This totally removes this as an opportunity to improve communication or understanding. Instead it creates tribes, and why not? You’re whole existence is already being mocked if you dropped out of high school. Hell, it’s easy to read the comment as saying you’re less than if you didn’t go to Stanford.

        2) Leading from this, we know how have people who will defend Roseanne’s comments, because to not to do so feels as if their own existence is being insulted. They probably aren’t particularly racist, but if she’s shit for dropping out of high school, then suddenly they need to defend her to not feel like they’re being called shit too. It’s counter productive.

        And it’s all the worse because this type of slur is exceptionally common. This is one of the major emotions to come out of the 2016 election, and unfortunately many are doubling down by saying something akin to “Well, you SHOULD feel bad for being backwoods retards.”

        Sometimes this is said explicitly like people like Tony, but often is more implicit in society at large. And this is dividing on characteristics that aren’t actually that important.

        1. It’s the same tribalism that elected Trump (and honestly probably all presidents from Jackson on), playing out over and over, with the urban “intellectual” class unable to conceive of why their opponents don’t accept what their wise betters have determined is best for them.

          1. The ‘tribe’ that wants its border secured? It’s laws enforced? It’s jobs back. The country to trade on a level playing field? That tribe?
            some people are just tone deaf

        2. No group was castigated. Yes, there are many high-school-dropouts that learn facts and critical thinking from informal sources. There are also many college graduates that fail at logical thinking. The point here is that Barr chose to throw rocks from her glass house…..aiming at her target’s relative intelligence…or lack thereof. Such a rock thrower should have some evidence of her own big or at least competent brain. Formal degrees and careers requiring significant interpretation of facts and reasoning skills are examples of such evidence….others might be what one reads or the facts or reasoning that one uses in argumentation. Barr seems to fail across the board. This doesn’t imply that all high school dropouts are somehow retarded. Why would you assume that?

    2. Hmmm. Well, I’ll actually jump in and defend Barr.

      Bottom line: does anyone really think she is a racist ? I don’t. The comment was incredibly crude, offensive and yep, used race as a way of making fun of someone. It was also a joke. I’ve seen plenty of other comics riff on race in ways that cut deeply…and are pretty funny. For instance: white people can’t dance and all talk like Flanders from the Simpsons, or any Chris Rock bit. Plus, how many times was W caricatured as a chimpanzee ?

      Maybe everyone should learn to take a goddamn joke.

      1. I love Dave Chappelle and he makes race jokes all….the…time.

        He’s black, so no lefty would ever point out that race jokes are race jokes no matter who is making them.

        Plus, Dave already told the lefty entertainment industry to fuck off years ago.

        1. Yep, I think one best things comedians have done (unintentionally) is to pop the racism balloon by telling race jokes. It so much better when we can all just freaking relax, make fun of, and laugh at ourselves a bit. The new puritanism by lefties is out to subvert that progress.

          1. Race jokes are great when they are funny unfortunately for Barr she was never funny. I’ve seen a few clips of her pre TV standup stuff and it was bad i don’t know how she ever got the TV gig

            1. It’s fine to say Barr looks like a pig. But to say Jarrett looks like an anthropomorphized intelligent ape is wrong?
              I think the author conflates an injects a lot here. No mention made of intelligence, just looks. We all make visual comparisons all the time, without larger meaning…

          2. But……very, very few make racial jokes any more, it’s just not politically correct any more. “There were these 2 Pollocks….”, whoa, hold it right there, buddy.

            How can Roseanne Barr be so dumb though? Did she take 35 of those Ambien and a quart of Jack Daniels, or hwut?

          3. It is as if Lenny Bruce never existed. My god, he had a club routine about this sixty years ago.

            1. He wan’t liberal enough. Not suitable for quotation.
              He had a streak of individualism way to wide to be acceptable today.

      2. Iheartskeet: It was not a joke. Her current claim is that it was the Ambien.

        1. Wait? Ambien is racist?

        2. DavidTaylor…it was absolutely a joke. She may now claim it was an Ambien-induced joke, or a mistake, or dumb or whatever, but that tweet’s intention was clearly a joke.

      3. Anyone remember Bush-Chippy-Hitler? the New York Times went out of their minds in outrage… just kidding. They love a good ape joke as anybody… as long as it’s against “the enemy”
        The Orange Orangutan…? Crickets. crickets, crickets…
        The petulant children that are the Left in this country can go to their little sandbox and start pounding.
        I am sick to my back teeth with their noise. Nothing they say matters. Nothing. I’m done.
        In case some people having been paying attention… THIS is how you get more Trump.

    3. Reason staff tend to consider people like Rice and Jarrett (“who have served their country in high positions of trust”) better than military members who simply served their country.

      1. Lol. What branch of service was Roseanne in again?

        1. Whoosh.

        2. Moo Cow…I’m not sure, but I think Roseanne was a Sargent-Major in the Bitch Patrol…

        3. Escort Branch. Dime Bag Service.

          1. About…Face…..In the rear…..Arch!!!!

      2. Only if they’re leftists though. Trump was serving America in America in a high position of trust, at least the last time I checked.

      3. Because according to the Left, people who serve in the military are just people who failed in school.

        The Left’s Presidential candidates can never conceal their contempt for the peasants:
        “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

      4. I must have a different definition of ‘serving my country’
        It tends to involve the betterment of the coutry, not serving it’s adversaries or itself.

    4. I don’t always agree with you BUCS, but you just ran over Chapman with a bulldozer. Well said. Chapman spends the entire article navel gazing about everyone’s racism while engaging in the worst sort of class snobbery and bigotry. It never occurs to him that maybe people voted for Trump as a rejection of the very type of class snobbery he embraces.

      1. Fuck you, too, John. BUCS didn’t run Chapman over with a bulldozer, he slapped him in the face with a wet noodle. What Chapman said is simply nauseatingly disgusting irredeemable craven toadying suck-up bullshit.

        1. That is true as well. You will never find me arguing with bad things said about Chapman.

          1. Chapman does not deserve t be defended. He is horrible.

        2. Maybe Mr Chapman is hoping for a staring role in the new, “NOT ROSEANNE SHOW”….

      2. Yes, I hate this type of pretense.

        I know we fight a fair amount John, but I appreciate that you (And actually many commentators on this site) are really pretty good at going from discussion to discussion without holding much baggage from previous arguments. I think it’s a striking positive characteristic I’ve noticed here.

        Even you and Tony will yuck it up if you’re shit talking about police or something. It’s a good quality here.

    5. Jesus Christ, the only proper response to that quote is FUCK. YOU. How the hell you managed to make a measured, milquetoast response akin to “That wasn’t a very nice thing to say” is beyond me, I can’t imagine the amount of morphine I’d need to be that low-key. I’ve always been bothered by the commentariat that trash the writers, as if even listening to something you don’t agree with triggers your precious wittle snowflake feels, but this is waaaay over the line. FUCK YOU, Chapman.

      1. As I say below, Chapman is just an asshole. He really is.

        1. Mr. Chapman, you make an awfully lot of off-the-mark assumptions here. Most of them are not even within shouting distance of the truth as I’ve witnessed it in our society.

          One truly disgusting assumption you make is:
          “In the 2016 election, race was a central factor. Whites in every age group preferred Trump to Hillary Clinton. Several studies indicate that racism was his ally.”

          What studies.? You don’t specify any or even quote from them. Such a statement without qualifiers cannot be believed.

          Then you write this:
          “That prejudice has persisted despite being disowned by our laws and rejected by most whites. Last year, a National Opinion Research Center poll found that 26 percent of Republicans think blacks are less intelligent than whites?as do 18 percent of Democrats. To be an African-American is to be endlessly subjected to assumptions of inferiority.”

          First, prejudice persists in your own writing when you made this statement. Even the most well-done study shows 20 to 30% of respondents have fringe attitudes and stances on either end of the spectrum of opinion.

          I’ll just rely on the content of 98% of the remarks here to bolster my opinion about your very intellectually challenged essay.

          1. In his defense, he did point out that the racists came from the democrat party – – – – – – –

            “Racially resentful whites without a college degree were most likely to flee the Democratic Party during Obama’s presidency.”

        1. I like it that Jerry told me to fuck off for even complimenting you. You have to respect that kind of rancor.

    6. That’s as far as I got before I realized who I was reading and bailed. It was never going to get any better.

  2. Honestly, this whole article reads as condescending and hysterical.

    1. Agreed.

    2. …and I think factually inaccurate in its promotion of systemic racism. I think systemic racism is way overblown. My interactions with blacks in North Alabama is no different than with whites. I feel no special tension based on race. The races commingle here without much to do. If anything, there is still class/demographic/income issues but I don’t really see a distinction between poor blacks and poor whites.

      1. Yeah, I moved to S.C. back in 2008, and honestly, the only time I’ve heard anything the slightest bit racist was from an elderly black lady who was prejudiced against her own race. But I didn’t read anything into it, she’s developing dementia, poor woman.

        Other than that, I see people of all races getting along just fine, mixed race couples going around in public without trouble. I think there might have been more racial tension back in Michigan.

        Heck, *I’m* interracially married, and the only people I’ve gotten any trouble from about it are liberals. Who seem to think that, if mentioning you have a black friend proves you’re racist, marrying somebody of a different race is ten times the proof.

        1. Are you serious? They think you married someone outside your race to prove that you’re not racist?

          Lefty mental illness is sad.

          1. Well, you know, slave owners used to rape their slaves, so…

        2. I was born in SC (40 years old), moved away and then back and I echo your sentiments. I traveled all over the country and lived in several places. I can say that I’ve seen and heard more about racism in large cities, particularly in the northeast. I don’t think it’s for political reasons, it’s just that in larger cities different races live in separate areas and the areas are large enough that people don’t venture outside their neighborhoods much. In smaller areas there may be some white neighborhoods and black neighborhoods, but we all work together, go to the same stores, and live together.

          I was blessed to live in a neighborhood that was almost 50/50 black/white and 100% working class. We never thought about color and we became friends with people because we liked them not because of what they were.

        3. “”I’m* interracially married,””

          The greatest of all cultural appropriations. That’s one reason a liberal today might give you crap about it.

      2. I feel no special tension based on race.

        you think that might be because you’re white? You’re not the one who has to explain to their kids why it doesn’t mean a thing when this/that famous person called them apes cuz hey they apologized so it’s all cool now – until the next time. You’re not the one who has to give ‘the talk’ to their kids.

        1. No one is sweeping this under the rug. For the most part, everyone is saying what she said was wrong and offensive. Your assumptions that white children don’t know or talk about racism with their families is just that – an assumption. An assumption which is divisive. An assumption which helps you get off to the idea that the only kind of racism, is white on black racism, and white people should constantly feel bad about the circumstances they were born into.

          And why is talking to a black child about racist imagery any worse than telling a white child they should recognize they were born privileged? You don’t think it doesn’t make both children feel weird and wrong?

          1. For the most part, everyone is saying what she said was wrong and offensive.

            Yes I know. And in a couple of weeks, the next famous person will utter some BS and apologize. And a few weeks after that. Rinse and repeat forever. And in the meantime, everyday folks who the kids will encounter at school/store/etc will also be enabled/emboldened to utter/repeat the same BS – without the need for apologizing because they aren’t famous. While those of us who are appalled by what she said will be, mostly, silent – to that kid.

            So what the kid is going to hear is lots of derogatories – and a lot of silence. And again – rinse and repeat. It all adds up and it doesn’t add up equally.

            Your assumptions that white children don’t know or talk about racism with their families is just that – an assumption.

            Well that’s just BS and you know it. I’m white. Any ‘talk’ is either a pure abstraction (ie irrelevant to a kid) or an individual incident that is NOT part of an accumulating daily pattern. It’s a big difference.

            1. JFree,
              It’s easily apparent that you don’t have any black friends or interact with black people much at all. You don’t see blacks as people, you see them as things that need special care and accommodations, like certain breeds of dog.
              I love it when baizou invoke “the talk” because you’re conception of it is straight sitcom/CNN talking point cliche.
              Black PEOPLE aren’t as fucking fragile as you’d like to believe, and don’t need neopuritan

              1. …don’t need neopuritan white night to save them

                1. *knight

                  Damn it!

                  1. Obviously, a Dostoevsky story isn’t crusading around, no matter how good it is

              2. Thank you for informing me about ‘the blacks’. Your detailed awareness and obvious situational knowledge is helpful.

            2. It’s clear you have no idea what ‘the talk’ is about. It’s about the fact that any interaction with any random cop could very well end in violence from the cop. It’s about the fact that any time you walk into a store the security guard is likely to follow you around.

              I know this because all of my black friends (who are, without exception relatively wealthy middle-class professionals) have it happen to them all the time. Now. And get stopped on the street in white neighborhoods. It’s got nothing to do with ‘pure abstraction’, but rather with what, to American blacks, is everyday experience about how they are treated wherever they go. In 2018.

            3. Oh, come on, like normal people take celebrities as any kind of guide to how they should talk.

              1. like normal people take celebrities as any kind of guide to how they should talk.

                You are blind. Trump has emboldened a shit-ton of trash-talk, bullying, harassment, intimidation – from ‘normal people’ (from first graders to adults) – aimed at everyone who looks different. Including – now – Roseanne – who will induce yet more of this shit.

                And unlike Roseanne – much of the daily use of this among ‘normal people’ is to provoke a direct emotional response – anger, fear, etc – so that the object (person) of the intimidation reacts. It is very real and it is astonishingly ugly to see it happening here in America – now. Portland attack where an adult is bullying two teenage girls (one Muslim, one black) – and then stabs/kills two of the three adults who intervene to stop the bullying/intimidation. That is obviously not ‘normal’. But the less fatal incidents are strikingly common now.

                1. Yes, I know after what happened to Roseanne I feel much more emboldened to say offensive shit. But I think the main point you’re missing is that Leftists, seeing what happened to Roseanne, are going to feel much more hesitant about shouting down and shutting up any kind of speech they find offensive. It’s a win/win situation!

            4. Toughen up, snowflake.

              1. @ JFree

        2. Nope, never had to explain to my 4 year old grandson why someone is ~literally~ screaming at him that he’s racist when we walked down the street. Because white people are born racist, amirite?

          1. lol

          2. Only white people. I read that anyone other than White People cannot possibly be racist.
            What’s particularly funny is how many people are buying into that notion.

        3. Is racism really just a manifestation of class divisions? I think so because the only way it can be rationalized or even partly explained is to pretend that Blacks are somehow lower in the class structure than whites.

          I adamantly believe racism is a class problem. Not a race problem.

      3. there is still class/demographic/income issues”

        I would agree I live a 98% white community and there are a lot of white trash people around here that I have to watch my back when near them

    3. Honestly, this whole article reads as condescending and hysterical.

      That’s Chapman’s thing, don’t try to take it from him.

  3. Rosie was fired by her employer as opposed to being sanctioned by government. I think that the free market supported by the court’s respect of private property rights, contracts and freedom of association will provide the fertile ground for the advancement of mankind. That being said, we are headed in the opposite direction with the support of many who consider themselves to be advocates of liberty.

    1. I don’t see where the free market was operative here. You have a willing seller (Roseanne), and a willing buyer (the public). What’s preventing the transaction is the gatekeeper (the network), who are apparently prepared to lose millions of dollars to vent a little spite.

      Given the power of middlemen relative to the power of buyers and sellers, I’m becoming increasingly skeptical that free markets can actually exist.

      1. ABC is hardly just a gatekeeper. They paid millions for the show, obtain and manage advertisers, etc. Is your car company just a gatekeeper between you and the seat belt manufacturer? And whoever said that free markets don’t have a place for middlemen?

        1. They do have a place for middlemen, but in normal free market economics, the job of the middleman is to connect seller and buyer, not to keep them apart.

          Barr can try streaming the show, assuming she has the rights. but want to bet Youtube won’t permit it?

  4. maybe it’s a permanent affliction

    No it’s not. We’ve known about Roseanne for decades and the cancellation of her show was a huge blow to racism in the US. The next racist to speak up will get clobbered and this effect will last for a generation. (Yes Trumpkins that’s a good thing.) Roseanne was also a Zionist and they too have been demoralized though their debacle is yet to come. Going forward the real threats to peace and freedom will be the gun control nuts and the socialists. But that’s where we libertarians come in. I’m not worried. We got this.

  5. Disappointing article. I expect better of Reason than this.

    1. Why? This has become the norm rather than the exception. Lots of articles making emotional arguments from a left wing perspective rather than logical ones from a libertarian perspective. I come for the comments section and a few good writers these days.

      1. No kidding! Let’s look at a couple points from Chapman’s article which he sees as fact.

        “Obama’s election to the presidency appeared to mark a historic achievement, entrusting the most powerful job on the planet to a black man. But it also turned out to be a powerful goad to white fear and anger.”
        ***Really? It had nothing to do with his politics? Do you think the white flood of racist anger you claim would have happened if Herman Cain or Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams had been elected? Where were the massive lynchings and riots in the street that was predicted when he got elected? The attempts on his life which were predicted and never came to pass?***

        “Over and over, Trump has voiced and encouraged distrust of blacks, from demanding the death penalty for the teenagers wrongly convicted in a 1989 Central Park rape to questioning whether Obama was born in the United States and whether he was qualified for admission to his Ivy League alma maters.”
        ***In none of these instances, did he ever mention it was because they were black. He’s talked tough about many people, including whites. And the birther shit was started by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.Trump’s a bomb thrower who says silly shit just to get a rise out of people.

        Im not saying Trump is the next incarnation of MLK, but as long as people make these stupid and lazy criticisms about the man we will never people to focus on his policies, which is a much bigger issue.

        1. “And the birther shit was started by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.”

          It was actually created by Obama himself in the ’90s, though he chose instead to blame his publisher, as if the publisher wrongly guessed that Obama was born in Kenya, and not told this by Obama himself.

          1. The Social Security Administration is just incompetent and gave Obama someone else’s recycled social security number even though that’s not supposed to happen. It’s purely coincidence that he later become President, I suppose.

            That said, it was Obama who claimed to be born in Kenya and it was picked up by the Clinton campaign. After it was more widely picked up, they backed off it since their job was done.

        2. “He’s talked tough about many people, including whites.”

          But the joy of identity politics is that any conflict between individuals of different races can be used to fan the flames of interracial fear, hatred, and resentment.

    2. Why would you expect better? You might get some milquetoast crap from somebody about how what she said was truly awful (without actually looking at what she said) but she should be able to speak her mind.

  6. I just find it ridiculous that because of what some white people I’m not even related to did in the past, all white people today are held to a higher standard when it comes to bigotry. There have been dozens of anti-Semitic attacks in NYC over the last few months by black people, but we’re not allowed to talk about it.

    When you look at hate crime stats, black people are actually twice as likely to be an offender. Any racial pride and any racial identity is inherently racist and bigoted and unamerican and we need to end it now, in all people. We’re constantly reminded that white people will be a minority in a few decades, but black and brown people still get to say things like “I can’t wait until all the white people are gone” and HuffPo will be all like “slay queen slay”. Are white people not able to fear the same things minorities fear? Any white person, even well-meaning progressives, who tries to address these things intelligently and rationally is called a Nazi, and anything a person says is just an example of “white fragility”, which is impossible to disprove because everything you say is just another example of white fragility.

  7. ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACISTS AND DESERVE WHAT THEY GET.
    -Steve Chapman

    1. Hyperbole much?

      1. Reading comprehension fail much?

        1. Ok idiot, explain how you can possibly read this:

          “That prejudice has persisted despite being disowned by our laws and rejected by most whites.”

          to mean that Chapman thinks all whites are racist.

          1. Well, if it were true that it was rejected by most whites, yet prejudice has persisted enough to still claim systemic racism, one might ask how you could believe both of those things at the same time.

          2. Because he read the rest of the article.

  8. “The essence of these comments is that no matter how much intelligence, education, money, or renown an African-American has, he or she can never be the equal of a white person.”
    Really?
    Do you have a single clue as to how idiotic this statement is?

    1. “The essence of these comments is that no matter how much intelligence, education, money, or renown an African-American has, he or she can never be the equal of a white person.”
      Lefties feel this way because THEY are racist. They think that non-whites need help and the government to protect them from everyday activities. Its some weird racist maternal thing.

    2. You know what I’ve learned? And to be fair, it occurs on both sides of the political spectrum, but I see it more strongly in liberals. People really get off to assuming people hate them and want to destroy them. And that there are way more bad, racists, bigots out there (obviously a clear sign of this is voting for Trump) than there are good.

      Folks, there are some bad people out there. Real racists. Real bigots. But they’re in the minority by like a lot.
      If you live life with the constant assumption that everyone is trying to destroy you because you are a minority, you will live a very angry, defensive life. Or, you can break down that barrier and see there are (don’t explode) a lot of Trump supporters who are nice, loving, open minded people. They just got tired of being told they were a piece of middle america shit. So they really wanted to screw it to liberals. They screwed them hard, and the satisfaction is still ongoing.

      Don’t let the media, celebrities, and politicians (people who are not exposed to ordinary American life on a daily basis) make you believe society is as divided as it is. Tell them to come work in corporate America and see how normal folks of different races get along. It generally goes something like this,”How was your weekend?”, or “How is your mom doing.” Real basic shit.

      1. Folks, there are some bad people out there. Real racists. Real bigots. But they’re in the minority by like a lot

        No. They’re not.

        They control the schools, the media–they’re the base of one of the big two political parties. They actively undermine the principle of equality before the law for everyone.

        One of them wrote this piece.

        The worst thing is that they’ve managed to convince everyone that it’s the people who oppose them who are the racists–including a whole lot of the people who oppose them.

        The right is not, has never been, and can never be racist. An ideology that begins with individual rights and responsibilities, whose far flung fringes are total personal freedom, total personal responsibility, and total personal sovereignty does not include the necessary drive towards collectivism that is required for racism to exist.

        1. Oh please. The right has never been about individual rights. The only rights they care about are the ones they want you to have. Same goes for the left.

          1. The right IS most definitely about individual rights.

            Political parties may or may not be. But ‘not being’ means that one has adopted leftist ideas.

            Like Reason has.

            1. Really? Because all my life the right has been about telling me what I can’t do.

              The people in my lifetime that has been interested in individual rights have largely been apolitical.

              1. No, they haven’t.

                Social conservatives have.

                Social conservatism is no more ‘right-wing’ than social justice or social liberalism. The fact that progressives abandoned their religious arm doesn’t change the fact that it is leftist in nature–it hurts the right by riding it like a lamprey.

                1. lol

          2. I think part of Azathoth’s assumption that might have been missed by you is that the Republican party is only ‘on the right’ when comparing them to the far left which is one way of saying that Republicans are a little more centrist than Democrats, but Democrats are so far to the left it’s moved the actual center itself to the left. Thus, Republicans are pulling more and more leftward as the centrist Democrats bail on the party.

            1. Bingo.

              The GOP is slightly left of center.

              1. How are you defining right-wing or the right?

              2. I took your post as more ideology based, not party based.

              3. “The GOP is slightly left of center”

                This is strange to read, but I guess its just where the left/right Overton window is these days.

                There hasn’t been a viable Communist or Socialist party in the US since the 30’s, when Americans largely cheered the “good fight” by the Spanish Republicans against the Nazi-aligned Francoists.

                Bernie Sanders, an old-school mainstream New Deal Democrat, only plays a socialist villain on TV. Eugene Debs, now he was a REAL socialist. But his day was a hundred years ago.

                When was the last time you saw Noam Chomsky (a libertarian socialist!) or Norman Finkelstein (a communist!) interviewed on mainstream networks? Glenn Greenwald (civil-libertarian left) now putters around in Rio de Janeiro writing about the evils of poultry and puppy farms.

                The modern Democratic party hasn’t had much connection to its historic labor or antiwar bases (both being what the “Left” used to mean in the US) since the mid-90’s, choosing since then to follow big-dollar donors pied-piper-like to corporate neoliberalism and crony capitalism, only stopping to genuflect and make poll-tested noises to the requisite identitarian orthodoxies and culture war touchstones demanded by base voters.
                That the Republican party, now deep in the craw of the Goldwaterites that Americans once rejected as being too right-wing, would be described as “center-left” is a pretty remarkable statement of how far too the right this country has gone.

            2. Someone needs to define a strict definition of what left-wing vs right-wing is…and then everyone here needs to agree to abide by the definition. Cuz I’m not sure that we’re comparing apples to apples here.

              The right/left divide was originally a concept from the French Revolution where the left were revolutionaries and the right were monarchists. Now, apparently Azathoth/LC1789/BYODB and other libertarian conservatives try a bit of verbal judo to equate the “right” with all concepts of liberty, freedom and apple pie, while the left equals all forms of authoritarianism, statism, racism, and herpes.

              The problem is that everyone else doesn’t see it this way, and the libertarian conservatives look like idiots because they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.

              1. These are the axes that provide the most precise picture

                Collectivism(left) / Individualism(right)

                Authoritarianism(up) / Voluntarism(down)

                Totalitarianism(in) / Minarchism*(out)

                This provides a cube in which most stances can be described. The terms are dichotomistic in nature.

                We use ‘minarchism’ as the opposite of totalitarianism rather than ‘anarchism’ because anarchism can occur via several courses.

                For example, the extreme left/up/in state will have a ‘state’ that appears to have ‘withered away’ because control is so complete that people can no longer think in a way that is in opposition to the ‘state’ because they are nothing but part of society. It would look like a hive.

                Conversely, the extreme right/down/out state will consist of individuals with no need for any kind of collective action at all, and thus, no need for any kind of ‘state’.

                The reason the whole thing collapses into that simplistic left/right line is that at the edges the extremes are all variations on two themes– individualist societies and collectivist societies. The other two axes merely change their tone as they move toward those extremes.

                con’t

                1. con’t

                  But it’s not an attempt to put all the ‘good’ on one side and the ‘bad’ on another.

                  I wrote a longer piece using only ‘good’ aspects of all six axes.

                  But there IS a reason that someone would think that. It’s because everyone, no matter how collectivist they claim to be, is innately individualistic.

                  But a left/down/out state wouldn’t be bad. A left/up/out state could work, sort of(most current governments fall here). Left/down/in isn’t hell.

                  The problem we run into is that statism and racism ARE collectivist in nature. You really can’t do anything about that.

                  It falls back on that problem of humans inherent individualism. We tend to react poorly to forced collectivisation–however good the reasons might be for it. Humans instinctively lump all the ‘bad’ together.

                  And all the things that get lumped as bad tend to be things that discount people as individuals.

                  How did the right–the monarchists– become the champions of individualism? They didn’t. They got there by default. The left took on the mantle of being champion of the ‘good’ aspects of collectivism– social justice, a strong state that protects the workers, social amenities. They never realized that they’d left liberty behind.

                2. What about people who think this culture war BS is an inane and idiotic waste of time and wish polticians and gov’t would stop trying to legislate morality, especially when there’s obviously no consensus?
                  Where do they fit into your hypergeometric axis?

              2. Left is communism and socialism. Center is libertarianism (least government control). Right is monarchy and oligarchy.

                The farther away from The extreme right and extreme left, the more freedoms you have. Anarchy is not included because it has zero government to be on a politcalspectrum.

                1. Left is communism and socialism. Center is libertarianism (least government control). Right is monarchy and oligarchy.

                  Not quite.

                  Left IS communism and socialism because both require collectivism to work.

                  Monarchism and oligarchy are on the authoritarian axis–they can be either right or left. Neither requires collectivism or individualism to exist.

                  Here’s where I get in trouble

                  Libertarianism is a right/down/out ideology. In fact, it may be the center right/down/out ideology, equidistant from the center and the extreme right, down and out.

                  There is nothing collectivist, authoritarian or totalitarian about libertarianism. On the four axis political test it has it’s own axis–opposing ‘authoritarianism’. People think of it as ‘centrist’ because it springs from the center of the right/left axis that is the other axis on that test.

                  But it’s not.

                  Libertarianism is a combination of individualism, voluntarism, and monarchism among other things–but not collectivism, authoritarianism, or totalitarianism.

                  One can be a leftist with libertarian leanings, but one cannot be a libertarian with leftist leanings

        2. The right is not, has never been, and can never be racist.

          Please stop, you’re giving me giggle fits. Most laughable thing I’ve read in a long time.

          1. It IS funny to most.

            Because they’ve been taught in school that one of the most basic forms of collectivism–racial collectivism is a product of the extreme point of a rationale that rejects collectivism from the get go

      2. So they really wanted to screw it to liberals”

        not just screw with the liberals but to send a message to all the RINO representatives who claim to be conservative but capitulate to everything the left wants as if there were no right or left just a bunch of people using politics as theater to get elected

      3. You cannot be correct about “. . . that there are way more bad, racists, bigots out there (obviously a clear sign of this is voting for Trump) than there are good.”

        I agree with most everything you’ve written, but I cannot agree with you that this is a clear sign of voting for Trump.

        I was so disgusted with the choices we had in the last election that I didn’t even vote. First time in my life to not vote.

        But since then, I’ve come to better understand Trump (I always understood Hillary and her big government agenda, not to mention her “foundations” for influencing domestic policy by use of foreign money.) and he seems to be a genuine non-politician in the sense he is considered to be an outsider by the previously installed elected criminals in Congress. And he’s never been overtly active in politics to the extent he is currently. He’s learning on the job, but he shows he has the instincts of economic sanity for governing with a reasonable attitude.

        He certainly has some quirks but then better to have quirks than to be attracting “bad, racists, bigots out there. And bad, racists, bigots are not any more Trump voters than voters of any other candidate. Bigots come in all colors and styles. I see the vast majority of Trump voters as being those mainly middle-class people who feel they have no voice and have been left out of the mainstream of the nation.

    3. OJ Simpson would disagree with Chapman.

      1. Nice stab at this commenting.

  9. “Obama himself got this treatment so often that the website The Awl published “A Guide to Racist Obama Monkey Photoshops.” ”

    Did they also publish “A Guide to George Bush Alfred E. Neuman Photoshops”?

    Look, it was an insult. Insults aren’t complementary. But Barr has never limited herself to insulting blacks.

    This whole thing is ridiculous. Farrakhan says more despicable things on a daily basis, and has he been made an unperson by the media yet? Barr could have leveled a similar insult against a Republican and it would have passed without a ripple.

    So, this isn’t really about racism. Racism is just the excuse being used to purge a media figure who isn’t left wing.

    Roseanne is an offensive idiot, but the most stupid thing about this is that she had to know the network was looking for an excuse to cancel it’s only popular show that didn’t treat conservatives as monsters, and she went and gave them an excuse. It’s enough to make me credit her drug impaired judgment excuse.

    1. So, this isn’t really about racism. Racism is just the excuse being used to purge a media figure who isn’t left wing.

      and the right-wing victimhood complex marches on.

  10. I’m frankly tired of the racism in reading any mention of non-human primates as akin to black people. Hello? In what way is a black person more akin to say, an orangutan or a gibbon, than an Asian or Caucasian?

    If I compare Chapman (who seems to be about as libertarian as Trump or Hillary, by the way) to a marsupial or a mollusk, would that also be racist? What if I compare him to a tree frog or even a lichen?

    I used to think it was geography that is no longer taught to anyone. But it seems biology/zoology are also increasingly esoteric subjects.

    1. Aren’t all humans part monkey?

    2. I was initially going to post calling Roseanne Barr a stupid pig

      Then realized that that comparison is as stupid and lazy and hate-filled as Roseanne’s comment because it is gratuitously pulling in a dehumanizing derogatory commonly associated with the overweight/obese when that has absolutely nothing to do with the offensiveness of Roseanne’s comment.

      Mentioning it now merely to counter your assumption that all dehumanizing derogatories are the same. They aren’t. And you know it.

      1. Would you be so kind as to put into print the hierarchy of derogatories? I’m just asking for a friend so he has a reference chart.

        1. If you are already familiar with the dehumanizing derogatory before the utterance in question, then it is lazy stupid and offensive to use/repeat the derogatory. And stop fucking acting ‘surprised’ when the utterance is correctly viewed as offensive. That merely proves that YOU – not the person who uttered it – are the lazy stupid offensive asshole.

          If you aren’t familiar with the dehumanizing derogatory before the utterance, then it is original and creative. And will only be offensive to the individual target (presumably the goal) – not to innocent bystanders and third parties.

          AFAIK – lichen, tree frogs, marsupials, molluscs, dandelions, dung beetles, and even pond scum are all available species (among tens of thousands more) for a creative dehumanizing derogatory.

          1. I still haven’t heard why an observation about appearance is racism.

            I get that others have used the comparison as a way to dehumanize others before, but that means it is always the case that such an observation is a racial epithet?

            Why?

      2. They’re not the same, but jesus, do we have to go tit for tat? White men have been openly crucified for the past few years and no one gives a shit. Not only an entire race, but an entire sex has been openly and happily attacked. Why? Because someone deemed they should have less emotional value since they were born with less melanin, a cock, and therefore are immediately more privileged. White men should be able to take it. White men deserve it. Right?

        Black people have had a lot of adversity to overcome, so throwing them back ‘into the jungle’ is not helpful. It belittles them. I get it.

        But when are we going to be null? The black culture has done itself no service over the past few decades. They’ve gotten stuck in their own minority cycle of ‘we’re not treated the same.’ And while I’ll agree, they weren’t, and white people have their prejudices, not all without merit…..they’re just going to have to get the fuck over it and start doing themselves some favors. I volunteer with black and latino children and one of the biggest prejudices they have to overcome is their family. They may say they want their kids to succeed, but a lot of kids don’t succeed because they’re family starts teasing them – oh, you think your better than us? So they stay in the cycle.

      3. I was initially going to post calling Roseanne Barr a stupid pig”

        interesting wasn’t it the left that characterized Sarah Palin by claiming you can’t put lipstick on a pig, or was that one her references?

        1. I looked it up it was Obama himself who made the reference

          1. Then it’s ok then, since according to the hierarchy of protected classes Obama is allowed to say what he wants about a white woman, as he is a black man.

            Ah, the politics of dividing the electorate into tiny little boxes. Such a shame. I had high hopes for Obama the first time around, he turned out to just be a George W. Bush reskin. The Democrats and the left refuse to acknowledge it, since all they’ve ever wanted is an authoritarian they can love. He says all the right things as he ships you off to Gitmo or assassinates you with a drone.

            I thank Obama for one thing: proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that Democrats are truly no better than Republicans on any issue, no matter what they say to the contrary.

    3. In what way is a black person more akin to say, an orangutan or a gibbon, than an Asian or Caucasian?

      Barack: Monkey
      Trump: Orangutan
      Michelle: Wookie
      Jarrett: Advanced post-human simian

      The obvious racial and derogatory connotations are obvious.

      I seriously think that, of the above epithets, Michelle and Trumps are the most common.

      1. Wookies are a highly intelligent, socially advanced species. Calling a Democrat one is a compliment.

  11. Many whites have long thought of our race problem as a national disease that will eventually be cured. But maybe it’s a permanent affliction that we can only hope to manage.

    Just ask Keith Ellison, or is he too busy calling for the death of the jews? This is reason, right? We don’t try to get in the way of the narrative. And the only reason anyone wouldn’t vote straight blue ticket is because they are racist. I guess the panic has finally set in here over the latest generic ballot polling.

    1. The fact is that guys like Farrakhan and Ellison are almost beyond racism and into the realm of ethnic cleansers (or at least Farrakhan is, Ellison is probably just a god damn idiot).

      That’s a totally different ballgame, and it’s one that Democrats openly court. While I would prefer to stay out of the Middle East, even to ‘protect’ Israel, taking the side of their enemies that want to literally cleanse the Earth of them is actually worse than a pro-Israel government in my view.

      The fact that the DNC almost put Ellison at the head of the organization, until all of these skeletons fell out of his closet, is telling since it’s beyond belief that the DNC didn’t already know about it. Their inability to kick guys like Farrakhan tells me that they either agree with him, or are willing to overlook his genocidal insanity for reasons I can’t understand.


      I guess the panic has finally set in here over the latest generic ballot polling.

      Yeah, I’m honestly curious what type of shit storm is going to hit if Trump actually gets reelected. I already suspect that the so-called ‘Deep State’ already tried to torpedo him, so even while I was wrong when I said it about Obama I’m genuinely afraid that someone’s going to try and take him out. The hate level is already at 11, I don’t think it can go much higher. The loathing for Trump makes the conservative hate for Obama look almost adorable.

      1. I am honestly surprised more incidents like the guy trying to murder the GOP congressman at the ball field last summer haven’t happened. The hard left has always been nuts. What is different now is that the center left has become just as nuts.

        1. Years of trying to ban guns has taken a toll on Democrat Arsenal’s.

  12. Our government is funding war and death around the globe, but sure, mean tweets are the most depressing reality of our time.

  13. This is getting ridiculous. Roseanne Barr herself said she thought Jarret was a Saudi and when I saw the picture the media plastered of Jarrett everywhere she looked like an old hispanic woman to me. It’s no secret Roseanne is a jew and big time supporter of Israel. It’s also no secret that Jarrett was born in Iran and is Obama’s version of Rasputin who likely influenced the decisions on Iran. Being a female comic Roseanne went after Jarrett’s looks and reputation, big surprise. The fact that Reason and every virtue signaling and pearl clutching neoprotestant shouts racism every time some jackass says something stupid is pathetic.

    1. lol

    2. I always thought Jarrett was Persian.

      I did laugh at Barr’s joke because it’s kind of true.

      http://www.americandigest.org/wp/lets…..e-dog-too/

  14. Say what you will about this particular situation and whether or not actions on either side were warranted. My comments following this are neither meant to condone Roseanne’s nor ABC’s behavior in this specific issue.

    But… my takeaway from this is that the private sector (market) is capable of dealing with free speech issues. We don’t need the heavy hand of government defining and prosecuting “hate speech” because the market is a better judge/jury. It might not always be fair, but considering market perception of your speech is a decision that one has to make if he/she wants to participate in the market. Roseanne should have at least expected this outcome was possible, and considered risk/reward before tweeting what she did. She is a public figure whose livelihood depends on maintaining a public persona that her fans expect of her.

    Libertarians should be applauding the effectiveness of the market on this issue, and using this as an example against those who would have government define and punish those who engage in “hate speech”. Maybe someday we can build on this and reestablish freedom of association in this country as well.

    1. So….ABC handles employee who offends customers good, NFL handles employee who offends customers bad.

      1. No, it’s all bad. Corporations who feel compelled to bow to their snowflake customers leads to a bad situation for all kinds of speech. The fact that people are so emotional that they can’t stand to watch something or someone slightly offensive is pretty ridiculous to me.

        Colin Kaepernick had to weigh the risks to his reputation before kneeling just as Roseanne should have weighed the risks before tweeting.

        But the point, since you apparently missed it, is that in both cases the market found a solution. There was no need for government to get involved at all.

        1. Well said.

        2. One of three things is going on here

          1. Rosanne offended her audience and ABC got rid of her because they don’t want to pay for a show that no one watches.

          2. Rosanne didn’t offend her audience and ABC got rid of her out of PC sensibility or stupidity but some other network will happily pick up her show and the money ABC left on the table

          3. Roseanne didn’t offend her audience and ABC got rid of her out of PC sensibility or stupidity and no other network will pick up her show because they share the same sensibilities money and audience be damned.

          I have no idea which is the case. Time will tell. If it is the first two, no question that is what should happen in a properly functioning market and why the actions of a single party in a free market have no real implications for freedom. If it is number 3, however, that is the result of the market but it is not a very good one or one consistent with why we have free markets. Number 3 is what amounts to an oligarchy telling the public that their money is not good if they want it to go to something the oligarchy finds objectionable. I am not sure there is a good or any solution to that. But it isn’t a good thing for freedom.

          1. I think you’ve omitted a 4th option where ABC is layers-deep stupid. As others have pointed out, if you go back and look, Kaepernick didn’t know why he was kneeling until 1-2s after someone asked him why. Roseanne, OTOH, has striven to be outright offensive since the show originally aired. This really should’ve been a known sum, even part of her contract, going in. ABC picking up the show only to drop it shows that not only are they incompetent as a network, but that Roseanne Barr, doing exactly what Roseanne has always done, was too unpredictable for them.

          2. The ‘buyer’ is not the public audience. The buyer is advertisers.

            Her show was cancelled because advertisers were going to cancel in droves. There is no upside for an advertiser to be associated with her now.

            But let’s get real. There are far more insidious ‘threats’ to freedom and markets posed by the ad-supported model. eg – there is no serious investigative journalism (on TV at least) of say pharmaceuticals or politics because ad spending is too significant to those stations. So they won’t say anything that would jeopardize that revenue stream.

            1. No, the buyer is the audience. They are giving their attention and time which the network then sells to its advertisers. If advertisers won’t pay for messages that the elite minority don’t approve, that is a problem.

              It may not be the only problem but it is a problem. We have a situation where the tastes of a small group hold enormous sway over what opinions and expressions are given a significant platform. That is bad for art, bad for free speech and ultimately bad for the society at large.

              1. Well… In broadcast TV, the sponsors are the buyers. If you have the highest rated show in the country and nobody will buy ad time, it’s a money-loser. Other mediums have different models.

                1. Yes and why would those advertisers not want to buy time on a show that has a big audience? The audience demand for the show is what creates or is supposed to create the demand for the ads.

          3. 2 or 3 – Not sure who owns the show.

            ABC management obviously hated the show. The fact that it was their first #1 in the ratings in 24 years was galling to them. The speed and decisiveness with which they disappeared the show indicates how much they hate a show that was very slightly conservative and addressed why Trump is popular. They pulled it out root-and-stem. The #1 show last week isn’t even available on-demand now.

        3. See—no.

          Corporations who feel compelled to bow to their snowflake customers leads to a bad situation for all kinds of speech.

          This is wrong. It should be–

          Corporations who feel compelled to bow to their customers will succeed mightily.

          This–

          Corporations who feel compelled to bow to their snowflake customers leads to a bad situation for all kinds of speech.

          Should actually read–

          Corporations who feel compelled to bow to people who are mostly NOT their customers leads to a bad situation for all.

          See/ ‘Cos that’s the thing. The people supporting Kaepernick are largely not football fans at all. Catering to them is pulling a Dixie Chicks stunt. And we see this all the time today. Print Marvel is dying because they’ve been taken over by people who write garbage for people who don’t actually buy–or even like– comics. Games are feeling the bite because they’re ignoring the people who buy games in favor of the people who complain about them.

          That’s not the market.

          1. I totally agree. “Hey go form your own…” is pretty thin gruel in a world where SJWs are basically zombies who take over and destroy every institution they infect.


          2. Games are feeling the bite because they’re ignoring the people who buy games in favor of the people who complain about them.

            Case in point? The newish Battletech game has a third gender option yet the people who generally play Battletech are not the sort of people who are going to give a shit about that. It’s doubly WTF since it was a kickstarter project launched explicity for those fans, and this appears to have inserted at the last minute by one of their SJW developers.

            The developers reasoning for why? They want to be ‘inclusive’, yet I note there isn’t an option for me to make my character explicitly gay, disabled, or in fact blonde. Interesting stuff, and while I enjoy the game I was also permanently banned from their forums on the first day for wondering how a third gender option was a thing yet there was no blonde hair option.

  15. ‘Many whites have long thought of our race problem as a national disease that will eventually be cured. But maybe it’s a permanent affliction that we can only hope to manage.’

    I don’t think ‘whites’ believe that racial prejudice is over, anymore than we believe gluttony or avarice are over, but similar to those vices, racial prejudice is now de-institutionalized and not an all consuming moral crisis like it was fifty years ago. It’s taken it’s place among the many minor vices of our society, and conservatives and whites are just tired of the idea that the US is an apartheid state and we just missed the red flags.

    1. don’t think ‘whites’ believe that racial prejudice is over, anymore than we believe gluttony or avarice are over, but similar to those vices, racial prejudice is now de-institutionalized and not an all consuming moral crisis like it was fifty years ago.

      Intelligent people of any race do not believe racial prejudice will ever be totally ended. But Chapman isn’t one of those people.

      1. I believe there are many intelligent people who believe racism will end at the same time as whitey.

      2. Racial prejudice will never end as long as minorities on the left push the lie that they are incapable of being racist and then do exactly the same things that they are supposedly fighting against. Black Democrats in Congress have defended and championed their relationship with Louis Farrakhan who over the weekend called for the elimination of all white men. Gee that is not racist at all.

    2. “racial prejudice is now de-institutionalized ”

      re-institutionalized as anti-white racial prejudice

  16. A well established man (i.e. portly) used to be the height of respectability. A fat appearance was a good proxy for how successful someone was. A thin man was obviously a laborer or ne’er-do-well.

    That’s changed… Thin is in, and being thin confers a fair amount of advantages.

    I agree there will always be prejudice. I disagree that it will always be based on race. My suspicion is that as soon as politicians have milked that prejudice for all it is worth, they’ll jump on a new prejudice to leverage their way into power.

    Anybody up for some good hating on the 1%?

    1. My suspicion is that as soon as politicians have milked that prejudice for all it is worth, they’ll jump on a new prejudice to leverage their way into power.

      “Those politicians — none of them has worked a legitimate job, and they constantly lie.”

      1. Prejudices can also be true

        / unfortunate truth

        1. Prejudiced people are all bad

  17. from demanding the death penalty for the teenagers wrongly convicted in a 1989 Central Park rape

    Remember how, well pretty much every black leader, has at one point or another lauded Bill Cosby all throughout the 80s? Remember how Bill Cosby in 1988 leapt to Tawana Bawley’s defense?

    History makes fools of some of us. Other fools are timeless.

    1. Yes, Trump is timelessly a fool, since he continued to call them guilty through 2016.

  18. she likened Valerie Jarrett, another black Obama aide, to an ape.

    Ahem. To an *intelligent* ape.

    1. Apes don’t read philosophy.

  19. It has been more than half a century since Congress passed the landmark Civil Rights Act, which Americans of that era assumed would set the nation on the road to confronting and eliminating the blight of discrimination and prejudice.

    Because who doesn’t change their heart at the point of a gun?

  20. My anxiety with Obama was with his politics and not his race, there are plenty of people of differing races I would vote for but they are smart enough to not get into the mud ring to be called Uncle Toms by their own racist race

    1. My anxiety with Obama was with his politics and not his race

      Ah, but he is (half) Black, so we can never truly know that.

      At least, that’s what I’ve been told.

  21. As somebody who loads up Reason every once in awhile to get a slightly different view point about the news, I am really surprised that Reason is jumping on this as an example of antiblack racism. It seems obvious that Roseanne was trying to be offensive and prejudiced against a few groups of people, but didn’t actually know this woman was black. The tweet is consciously prejudiced and offensive to muslims, Iranians, and woman who are not traditionally attractive. The Roseanne debacle offers many libertarian based learning points regarding partisanship, bigotry, the free market of ideas, and unthinking conspiracy mongering, but systemic racism against blacks is the least rational.

    1. woman who are not traditionally attractive.

      A-HA! “I am …”‘s next prejudice!

    2. “”but systemic racism against blacks is the least rational.””

      But it fits the race baiting agenda

      1. If Jarrett didn’t happen to be black, I’m guessing the media could have picked up on the islamophobia, conspiracy craziness, idiocy, and general female body shaming of the tweet and caused a decent backlash against Roseanne. The anti-black racism seems incidental.

        1. Maybe, but they didn’t pick those.

          Not incidental at all, it’s a common weapon in the partisan political arena. It’s been racism, racism, racism since Trump was elected. Racist immigration policy, racist statues, racist tweets, racist president, racist political party, ect. It’s being used as a measure to see who’s on what team. If you’re republican, you’re racist. If you’re racist, you’re republican.

        2. It wasn’t incidental, it was simply the best tack for them to take. It was the most outrageous portion, and thus they ran with that.

          I do agree that if not for that bit, it would have probably been the Muslim thing.

          I’m quickly approaching the point where I say ‘burn Twitter to the ground’. Nothing good comes out of it, and they’re basically nationalized at this point since arguably no one can be banned from their platform because at some unknown point in the future that person might visit Donald Trumps feed. That is now the law, and it’s utter horseshit.

    3. systemic racism against blacks

      If you think Roseanne Barr(‘s “racism”) represents the system in sum total, I question your familiarity with the system. It’s like judging the whole medical profession based on the work of Kermit Gosnell. Except that Gosnell actually murdered more black people.

      1. That’s my point. I don’t think Roseanne’s represents systemic racism at all. She is deliberately offensive and comparing somebody’s looks to the characters from Planet of the Apes is deliberately offensive but only incidentally racist. Why try hanging an entire diatribe against systemic racism on one of Roseanne’s tweets?

        1. I agree, because you are applying reason . But that’s not how the left sees it. They are very vocal about it being racism. It’s how they want the issue framed.

    4. It seems obvious that Roseanne was trying to be offensive and prejudiced against a few groups of people, but didn’t actually know this woman was black.

      Man, right-wing talking points are fucking INSANE.

      1. Thinking a woman with fair skin was white. Just fucking insane. You know Hail, you really are terrified by the thought of a black person passing as white aren’t you?

      2. You remind me of the sheriff in Showboat. If you have never seen that movie, you should watch it. You have a lot in common with the sheriff character and would likely enjoy it.

      3. Roseanne’s initial defense to being called racist over the tweet was “Muslims r NOT a race.” She seemed to have no clue what what type of shit she had stepped in. What is ridiculous is that even if Jarrett wasn’t black, the tweet was still bigoted, vile, and stupid and was meant to stir up a backlash. She was trolling. People had every right to be offended and ABC had every right to cancel the show.

        The fact that the media and commentary is desperate to pin this on anti-black racism just shows that the media has an agenda regarding stirring up outrage about anti-black racism. The white vs black narrative comes at the expense of having any legitimate discussion about bigotry and systemic racism in the US. And I find it ridiculous that Chapman and Reason are buying into it.

  22. “Yet the only trait that appears to matter to Barr, a high school dropout, is that they are African-American, which to her means they are more like beasts than humans.”

    How many times does it need to be said that just because someone says something obnoxious or even racist, that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be upset if the government did something that discriminated against people on the basis of race? If Roseanne says obnoxious shit sometimes and is also disgusted by acts of discrimination, that makes her . . . like much of the rest of the country.

    Sane people can tell the difference between an obnoxious tweet and an act of discrimination. Libertarians are supposed to be the ones pointing out those differences to others.

    If you can’t tell the difference between an obnoxious tweet and actual discrimination, then you’re not a libertarian. You’re a snowflake. After all, snowflakes think that anything that hurts their feelings also violates their rights. If you think the purpose of government is to control what people think, you’re a totalitarian. If you think the purpose of media entrepreneurs is to control what people think, then you’re a snowflake well on the say to becoming a social justice warrior.

    Please stop advocating social justice warrior mentalities under the guise of libertarianism. I want to persuade people, not control what they think. If you can’t see the difference there, you should stop calling yourself a libertarian, too.

    1. Agree, with one caveat:

      “If you can’ tell the difference between an obnoxious tweet and actual discrimination, then you [are a few fries short of a happy meal].”

    2. If you can’t tell the difference between an obnoxious tweet and actual discrimination, then you’re not a libertarian.

      I’d go further. It really is getting Randian but you aren’t a human. You’re literally pantomiming outrage on behalf of someone else. Your input on the situation and lots of others is as nuanced and dimensional as a ‘Like’ button.

      Now, not being human doesn’t mean you should be wiped from the face of the Earth de facto, but should you present yourself as a significant obstacle or a threat, you’ve rather overtly displayed your inability to rationalize as a fully-formed human.

      1. You’re literally pantomiming outrage on behalf of someone else.

        Reading below, I should amend this. “You’re foregoing any nuance or rationality that may’ve gone into the tweet and pantomiming…”

        You not only avoid thinking, you don’t want others to think either.

  23. Trump’s success would have been impossible without Obama, who was especially threatening to bigots not because he and his wife resembled the racist stereotype but because they refuted it so thoroughly.

    The Obamas acted “white” – Ivy League and always with dignity, class, and family values.

    And now that we have a white trash POTUS who has no class, dignity, or values his supporters fawn over him despite his lack thereof.

    1. This tracks pretty well with my opinion of you, in that you put style before substance.

  24. Surely, we all know people who both use pejoratives for gays and would be upset if the government were to discriminate against gay people.

    Didn’t Shrike used to refer to Christians around here as “Christ-fag”?

    Who here thinks Shrike is prejudiced against LGBTQI+ because of that?

    I don’t.

    1. Or maybe I should ask, “Who here thinks that Shrike would approve of the government discriminating against gays because of that?”

    2. Didn’t Shrike used to refer to Christians around here as “Christ-fag”?

      Any grown man who touts his “love” for JC is gay.

      1. But you never meant that gays should be discriminated against by the government, did you?

        That’s the point.

        People are more complicated than the SJWs would have us believe.

        Plenty of people who use slurs would be angry if the government discriminated against the people those slurs are meant to describe.

        Our speech isn’t the issue.

        You using the word “fag” wasn’t the issue. Using the word “fag” certainly didn’t mean that you wanted the government to discriminated against LGBTQI+.

        1. True. See, you can be fair.

      2. Any grown man who touts his “love” for JC is gay.

        What kind of bigot suggests that there cannot be platonic love between two men?Oh, that’s right, hypocritical leftist pos’s like you.

        1. I will tell you the kind of bigot who does that, a self loathing closet case like shreek.

          1. He almost certainly loves man-ass and hates himself for it.

            Come home Shreeky.

    3. But Ken, can you really say that someone as stupid as Shrike is morally responsible for hating anyone?

  25. Trump’s success would have been impossible without Obama, who was especially threatening to bigots not because he and his wife resembled the racist stereotype but because they refuted it so thoroughly.

    Trump won the election because a whole bunch of white people in swing states who had voted for Obama twice switched and voted for him. So, by Chapman’s logic, all of these bigots were so threatened by Obama that they voted for him twice.

    Is it too much to expect reason to at least state the facts as they are instead of how they imagine them to be? The issue of why so many people who voted for Obama decided to vote for Trump is an interesting one. Sadly, it is one that Chapman lacks both the integrity and the intelligence to address. So instead, Chapman just makes up a fairy tale about how America was just too racist to vote for an old white woman for President.

    Finally, if Chapman is so concerned about bigotry, perhaps he should heel thyself first and stop engaging in the appalling class snobbery and credentialism he engages in this article and considers that maybe people who disagree with him have valid reasons and are not just “lost souls” who can be safely ignored and dehumanized?

    I used to think Chapman just wasn’t very bright. And he is certainly that. But he is also just a lousy person. This article drips with hatred and condescension that Chapman tries but fails to cover up with his faux concerns over bigotry.

    1. “Trump’s success would have been impossible without Obama, who was especially threatening to bigots not because he and his wife resembled the racist stereotype but because they refuted it so thoroughly.”

      Yeah, Trump won, in no small part, because they were sick of snowflakes who can’t tell the difference between saying something obnoxious and discriminating against somebody.

      The white, blue collar, middle class of the Midwest was and is sick of being called racist for being white, stupid for being blue collar, selfish for being middle class, homophobic for being Christian, etc., etc.

      I think Chapman, like a lot of people in his profession, lives in a big bubble, fantasy world that only exists in our collective fantasy known as “the media”. The big shift in social norms that happened during the Obama administration? Didn’t happen in the real world. The Overton window isn’t anywhere near where people like Chapman think it is.

      1. The white, blue collar, middle class of the Midwest was and is sick of being called racist for being white, stupid for being blue collar, selfish for being middle class, homophobic for being Christian, etc., etc.

        And they thought voting for Obama and making a black man President would finally put all of that shit to rest. And it didn’t. It only made it worse. Now granted Obama himself never played the race card and said people who opposed his policies did so out of racism. But his supporters and people like Chapman did it for 8 straight years and Obama never said a word to contradict them.

        If Chapman is so worried about racism, he should consider the incredible lost opportunity of the Obama Presidency. The truth is that it wasn’t the American public who wasn’t ready for a black President, it was the media and liberals like Chapman who were not ready. If the media had treated Obama like any other President and been willing to satirize him and attack him and consider those who opposed him to ever be acting in good faith, rather than spending 8 years terrified of criticizing the first black President and assuming anyone who did must be racist, we could have made some real progress in race relations in this country. Instead, electing Obama, emboldening idiots like Chapman to cloak their class snobbery in charges of racism, it just caused people to tune such charges out and that is a shame.

        1. I agree with almost all of what you have said except for one statement. Obama never played the race card? Are you serious? Obama was the master of playing the race card. Obama was the most divisive President in the past 75 years. Anyone who opposed his policies hated minorities and hated him because of his skin color. Sorry but to say Obama never played the race card is a joke.

          1. He played the hell out of the race card. But his genius was being able to play it without doing so in so many words. He mostly left it to his cabinet and supporters to play the race card while he pretended to be above it all. Don’t think I am letting Obama off the hook here. I am not.

            1. Obama, like the Clintons, was king of the proxy slap. He liked to keep his hands clean, but that didn’t mean that he wasn’t happy about letting other people do the dirty work that he wanted done.

              Can’t say I blame him, either, since this is basically how modern politics works. Say nothing controversial, but let mouthpieces say what you want said. At least, that’s what you do if you want to be successful.

              That is the mentality that brought us Trump. A guy who doesn’t bother with proxies and bullshit: he does it all himself. I appreciate that, even while I dislike Trump. I want a politician to say what they mean, even if it results in misunderstandings or if it changes daily because they don’t have a real opinion of their own.

              Trump isn’t ideal by that measure, either, but it’s a step in the right direction. There’s a little Reagan there, but it’s mostly hidden by bullshit and insanity.

              1. Trump isn’t insane. Saying that is foolish. And yes there is some Reagan there and that is mostly because both Reagan and Trump did not loathe and were not embarrassed by ordinary Americans. The media and most politicians are and that is one of the main reasons they hated both of them.

    2. Both you and BUCS not only hit it out of the park, the two of you went yard in Stantonesque and Troutian fashion.

      1. Ken, your post was pretty good, too.

    3. “Is it too much to expect reason to at least state the facts as they are instead of how they imagine them to be?”

      Yes, when you’re dealing with the SJWs at Reason. Narrative over facts.

  26. a reminder of the most illuminating and depressing reality of our time: that complete sanity and stability is not a prerequisite to being a successful entertainer.

    1. Sanity and stability are actually pretty big negatives for entertainers.

  27. Trying to eliminate prejudice is a fools errand. We never have 100% of the information needed to truly judge someone we encounter, so we make judgements based on the limited information we have. Any individual can easily overcome prejudice by how they act.

    1. Amen to that. For example, I don’t know enough about Clarence Thomas to make a complete informed judgment about him, but from what little I do know about him I think it’s safe to say that referring to him as an Uncle Tom or even a house nigger is still cool, right?

      1. It is so far as the left is concerned.

  28. landmark Civil Rights Act

    Libertarians for government enforced association and coercion of labor, I suppose…

    1. Nothing says Libertarian like writing the right to free association and the commerce clause out of the Constitution.

  29. Trump has voiced and encouraged distrust of blacks, from demanding the death penalty for the teenagers wrongly convicted in a 1989 Central Park rape to questioning whether Obama was born in the United States and whether he was qualified for admission to his Ivy League alma maters. T

    How is that voicing distrust of black people? And what does “voicing distrust of black people” even mean?

    In addition to being a horrible human being, Chapman is also unbelievably shallow. He seems to think that putting together a few buzz words and pleasant sounding phrases passes for thought and argument. That sentence says nothing. Trump wanted people he thought were responsible for the brutal rape of a jogger put to death? So did pretty much all of New York at the time. Trump didn’t know they were innocent. No one but them and the cops did. Notice how dishonest Chapman is here. He says the teenagers were wrongly convicted and never mentions that Trump said that before he or the public knew that they were innocent. The implication is that Trump knowingly wanted innocent people executed. And that is just slander.

    1. While I certainly think Obama is a natural-born citizen, you don’t to be racist to notice his…exotic…background (at worst it makes you a xenophobe, maybe).

      Who could have guessed that the first black president would have no American slaves in his ancestry, at least not from his “black side”?

      1. Imagine if a white person whose father was a foreign national who never naturalized and moved back to wherever shortly after the person’s birth. And then that person spent a good chunk of their childhood living overseas. Now, if such a white person ran for President and refused to produce his birth certificate showing he was born in the US, do you think no one would notice or make a big deal about it? Of course, they would. The fact that no one other than the far right made an issue of Obama’s birth certificate just show how race obsessed the mainstream is, because they sure as hell would have made an issue of it had Obama not been black.

        1. You’re forgetting this hypothetical person having released an autobiography where the author is noted as having been born in Kenya. Could be entirely like the native ancestry of Lizzie Warren and just something assumed but without confirmation it’s the only evidence available.

        2. I can’t believe you’ve descended to defending the birthers

          1. I will defend anyone if they have a point. Again, tell me how a white candidate would have gotten away with what Obama did? I am not saying the birthers were right. I am saying that no way in hell would a white candidate for President with Obama’s background gotten away with not producing a birth certificate.

            1. BS.

              He was a natural-born citizen – regardless of where he was born – by the original 1790 law that defines ‘natural born citizens’ – The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States. as well as the later 1934, 1940, and 1952 laws that more immediately apply.

              His mother was a citizen with roots in the US dating back to the colonial era. No one has ever questioned that. Not even the birthers who prefer to simply ignore her existence. His father was resident (and legally so) in Hawaii when they met. No one questions that. It doesn’t matter where he was born. He was BORN American. Just like George Romney, Barry Goldwater, Lowell Weicker, John Kerry, John McCain, and Ted Cruz. And for that matter Donald Trump and every President since Washington.

              The 14th amendment did not restrict citizenship. It EXPANDED citizenship (jus soli as well as jus sanguinis) to those born in the US of non-citizen parents. Which would require Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal to prove birth within the US.

              That whole birther BS was nothing but stupid bigots signalling and dogwhistling to other stupid bigots.

              1. You are not citing the changes to citizenship laws for a reason.

                It matters whether parents are both Americans or not? It matters where The child is born. It matters how long the parents have lived inside and outside The USA.

                It mattered a lot if Obamacare was born outside the USA to a mother who had not lived in The USA during the required time frame and lied to Hawaiian officials that zbarack was born in Hawaii.

                All this was resolved when the Hawaiian hospital and doctor’s name were revealed. Obama thought making sure he wa qualified to be president was funny, the constiTutIon is funny To many lefties.

    2. Trump wanted people he thought were responsible for the brutal rape of a jogger put to death? So did pretty much all of New York at the time. Trump didn’t know they were innocent. No one but them and the cops did.

      Trump continued to maintain their guilt through 2016.

      1. So what? So did a lot of people. They were convicted. And show me where he ever maintained their guilt through 2016. Without a link and given you low intelligence and propensity to believe anything that fits your narrative, there is no reason to believe that is true. It might be, but your word alone doesn’t cut it. Show some proof or shut the fuck up.

  30. Over and over, Trump has voiced and encouraged distrust of blacks, from demanding the death penalty for the teenagers wrongly convicted in a 1989 Central Park rape to questioning whether Obama was born in the United States and whether he was qualified for admission to his Ivy League alma maters.

    Don’t like your shitty health insurance? It’s not because you think the Affordable Health Care Act sucks. No. It’s because you hate black people.

  31. Predjudice?

    Does anyone think Valerie Jarret was pre-judged?

    I think after 8 years of Obama, she has been in the spotlight enough that plain old judging is possible.

    She’s a lefty hack. Her advice sucked. She deserves mockery and derision

    1. Valerie Jarret is a communist traitor who did incalculable damage to America. We should be focused on that, and why she is not being prosecuted for what she did. Her looks are irrelevant.

    2. She’s a lefty hack. Her advice sucked. She deserves mockery and derision

      Yes, but in typical lefty fashion, she tries to deflect any kind of criticism or expressions of disapproval of her by screaming “you’re a racist” or “you’re a misogynist” or whatever. It’s not fair that the left insults people based on race, gender, and sexual orientation all the time and then hides behind such excuses, but life isn’t fair and political insults need to be effective.

      Calling Jarrett a “privileged, wealthy white oppressor” would likely have put the ensuing leftist outrage to better use at highlighting the contradictions between Jarrett’s politics and who she actually is.

  32. These type of statements are a response to those from the left. When anyone who disagrees with the opinion of a progressive, they are instantly called a racist. Anyone who objected to a policy proposed by Obama was not doing it because of their political opinions or values but because he was black and they were a racist. How many times have those on the left said EVERY PERSON who voted for Trump is a racist? How many times have the accused the President of White supremacy? this week? The reason we have a racial problem in this country is because the left wants to have a racial problem. In addition, we have professional race baiters, like Al Sharpton, who have become rich encouraging a greater racial divide. Niger Ennis said last night on Fox that using the charge of racism is a very powerful weapon and those on the left know this and that is why the use it so frequently even when it does not apply. The mere charge of racism is enough to stop any further conversation and that is what they are actually trying to do. The left does not want to end racism because to do so would deny them one of their most powerful and frequently used tools.

    1. The other thing is that the charge of racism is the weapon of choice for people like Chapman to assert their moral superiority over other white people. When someone like Chapman talks about racism, he is not talking to or really even about black people. Black people are just bystanders. What is going on is a fight among white people where people like Chapman claim their moral superiority over what they feel are the lower classes by calling them racist.

      Chapman calls Trump and his supporters racist not because they are or Chapman even cares if they are. He calls them racist because doing so signals Chapman’s status in what he sees as the superior class of white people and asserts his moral superiority over those he sees as the inferior class of white people.

  33. You went full Shikha, Steve. Never go full Shikha.

  34. Wow! This is a shocking low for Reason neither illuminating nor depressing. The idea that some people of one race hold animus for people of another or all other races isn’t a shock or somehow illuminating. Stupidity is very hard to eliminate. Its no more confined to white people than any other character flaw. It shouldn’t be depressing either if one considers the tremendous progress that has been made in eliminating systemic racism in the West. That isn’t an argument for laxity. Racism should always be opposed. And we can oppose such remarks without believing every stupid remark made under stress provides proof of a racist person whether that is Barr, Reverend Wright, or Louis Farrakhan. You have to consider the entirety of their speech and actions allowing that people may change their views over time. The obviously hysterical outlook of the author also emerges in his choice of quotations. While there are almost certainly some racist Trump supporters, feeding the idea that the election was won because of pervasive racism is frankly stupid and contrary to the available evidence. Moreover, President Obama’s actions increased racial division rather than healed it. That was probably my biggest disappointment having voted for him. The author also falls into a typical utopian trap by measuring success against a notion of perfection which may never be achievable and then depressingly concluding we’re lost. It’s ill considered nonsense really.

    1. Chapman’s argument such as it is, boils down to because Barr said something racist and supports Trump, Trump and all of his supporters are racist and Trump won because they are racist and couldn’t handle a black President.

      It is as you say a new low for stupidity at reason.

  35. Yet the only trait that appears to matter to Barr, a high school dropout, is that they are African-American, which to her means they are more like beasts than humans.

    The cause of the insult was Rice’s and Jarrett’s politics. Insults happen to need some personal characteristic to latch on to. For example, in your case, one might call you a “privilege cis-hetero shitlord” or a “bald white geezer”. Only an “overeducated, privileged, liberal moron” like you would consider that a sign of racism.

    I mean, Jarrett looks so white that calling her an “ape” is obviously not even a reference to her appearance but to her chosen identity.

    1. You’re a fucking idiot if you believe that….

      1. Hey look, it’s a believer.

      2. What’s there to believe? It’s pretty obvious that Valerie Jarrett can pass for white. So, calling her an “ape” logically cannot have been a reference to her actual appearance but to her chosen racial identity.

  36. I think a joke like Roseanne’s is like farting at the dinner table – (a) crude behavior, worth criticizing, but (b) not worth freaking out about.

    Which is why I think some people are denying the racial implications of the joke – because the assumption is that admitting something’s racist means you’re invoking Full Outrage Mode, not dealing with an embarrassing incident such as one has come to expect with this particular celebrity.

    It’s an offensive act, but if we’re still talking about it, maybe we’re getting a bit of an overreaction.

    1. Jerryskids made a great point on the morning links. If what she said is so offensive, why are those who claim that so unfazed by repeating it? If she had said something like “Those Motherf**cker N****** need to be hung from trees where they came from”, no way in hell would people be repeating it word for word in family newspapers. The fact that they do repeat Barr’s tweet tells you that it was stupid and crude but not really that offensive and the people claiming it is know it.

      1. Yep. So much fuss over a shitty joke.

  37. Righty radio is abuzz with the incredibly mean, crude, nasty things that prominent lefty media types have shouted out lately slurring Ivanka, Michelle Malkin, and other right-wing hotties without any apologies or apparently, even the slightest need for any type of apology. In fact, all this blatant hate speech is not even a controversy, because the dominant mainstream media is the sole judge and jury of any extremely severe moral situation,

    In their book, only racism matters any more, and only the progressive/liberal establishment’ most recent definition of what might be racism is worthy of consideration.

    Only racism. Not bashing smart women because they are smart, or Asian, or conservative, or Christian, or Jewish.

    Funny thing about Susan Rice on Limbaugh show yesterday. It seems her son Cameron Rice at Stanford has been infected by Rush rhetoric and is a prominent Republican on campus. Meanwhile, down the line mom is facing having to explain why she requested so very many FISA unmaskings during the 2016 campaign, all of Republicans.

  38. Why does Reason still publish this idiot’s drivel?

    1. Because Reason now caters almost exclusively to audience of three or four left-wing billionaires.

      And it doesn’t hurt that Gillespie and Welchie Boy and most of the rest of the gang agree with this idiot.

      1. Notice how whenever They claim it is all about diversity of opinion and no magazine’s staff should agree on everything. Oddly, however, the disagreement is always between libertarian principles and leftist principles. No one ever deviates except to the right.

        Even within the scope of libertarian ideas, they never allow dissent on issues that go contrary to the leftist position. For example, Reason has never to my knowledge published a pro life article. Yet, lots of libertarians are pro life and one’s position on when life begins really doesn’t implicate Libertarianism. You can be a libertarian and think that life begins at conception and abortion is a violation of the NAP. Somehow, no one with that position ever gets published in reason while writers like ENB who support abortion on demand at any time during the pregnancy are.

        The libertarian objection to gay marriage was never published. Gee, maybe expanding government marriage to include a new group of people and doing so in a way that completely lacked any principles or adherence to the constitution or rule of law was a bad idea? You don’t have to agree with that position to at least admit it is not contrary to libertarian thought.

        The list goes on and on. But, reason had the nerve to bitch and moan about the Atlantic firing Kevin Williamson because apparently it is everyone but reason’s duty to publish diverse views.

  39. Apes do read Aristotle. They just don’t understand it.

  40. I understand the racism angle of this but I don’t think the conspiracy theory angle is fair. The Obama Administration, which Jarett was a part, did support the Muslim Brotherhood and helped them take over Egypt and had a cow when the military coup through them out of power. So, I don’t see how associating her with the Muslim Brotherhood is unfair or a conspiracy theory.

    1. Don’t forget the pallets of cash sent to Iran, a major funder Islamic terrorism.

  41. I think we are all overlooking something very important: White people get compared to monkey’s too.

    It’s an attack on perceived intelligence and has nothing to do with skin pigment.

    1. Technically, the picture you posted is comparing Bush’s silly face to a monkey’s silly face, not the entirety of the person. It’s baffling how many of you are defending her. I dislike identity politics as much as most you, but the shit she posted was clearly racist and fucking stupid….maybe she should have stayed in high school. Dumb bitch…

      1. Just because it is offensive doesn’t mean that it is so offensive she should lose her career or that the left demanding she does lose her career isn’t appallingly hypocritical given the offensive things said by those on the left that are ignored and excused.

        1. People get fired every day for much less. If it was my company/network/business, I’d fire her immediately. I wouldn’t even have to think about it. Racist stupidity has a cost. Fuck the whole left-right battle, people need to be accountable for the stupid shit the say regardles of political opinion. America has become a country full of assholes (left, right whatever)….it won’t end well.

          1. We just want the rules to be applied equally. And you are incorrect. What I posted was a direct comparison of GWB to a chimp.

          2. People get fired every day for much less. If it was my company/network/business, I’d fire her immediately.

            So you would immediately fire one of your most valuable and money making employees for something she said away from work on a platform that had nothing to do with you or your company?

            Whoever hired you as a manager made a big mistake.

            1. What if your “most valuable and money making employees” were african american who decidied to work somewhere else than with a clearly racist asshole and the boss that supports them? Hypotheticals work in many ways…..

              1. What if that. Then maybe you do fire them. But what if not. You made a declaratory statement that you would immediately fire them no matter what the circumstances. So, saying “under some circumstances it would be right” doesn’t defend your position.

              2. What if the racist is more valuable than the guy black or white who is offended. Would I be wrong to tell the offended guy to like it or lump it?

                1. I was only using your criteria in a slightly different hypothetical case. I never said there were circumstances I wouldn’t fire them. You’re arguing with yourself….

          3. But the thing is, this is somewhat similar to the Kevin Williamson firing, in that they fired her for being what they already knew she was when they hired her.

            I’d never have hired her, I find that sort of comedy tasteless. But they had to know what they were hiring, so this is just chicken shit.

      2. “Dumb bitch…”

        Apparently comparing her to a dog is ok.

        Who knew you had no actual principles.

        1. Yes, that is okay.

      3. What a stupid point. How do you know whether the comment was made in reference to her face vs. her whole body? And how does that effect the comparison’s apparent racism? You’re stupid.

        I’m defending her because I don’t jump to racism accusations at every chance. That’s a big accusation, it led to her firing. It should take more than something that could be said about George Bush to get someone labeled a racist.

      4. It’s baffling how many of you are defending her.

        Well, gosh, after just about every conservative politician and intellectual has been called a “Nazi”, “fascist”, “white supremacist”, “oppressor”, and various other terms by the media and celebrities, often with reference to their race, genitalia, and brains, what exactly do you expect?

  42. What rules? How about just try not to be a racist asshole.

    1. So if a world class surgeon is a racist asshole who says the vilest racist things imaginable on Twitter, should they not be allowed to work as a surgeon? Is it the patients’ duty to risk having a surgeon of lesser skill or no surgeon at all to ensure no one is a racist asshole?

      You said above that you would fire someone who did that in a minute. Okay. Even if they are the one person who can complete a job that your business depends upon? Even then?

      And if everyone who says something like this, even in their private capacity, should be immediately fired, is it your position then that anyone who says racist things should not be allowed to work at all? Ever? Do they have to apologize or does a racist tweet mean they can never work anywhere at any time? And if they don’t apologize, you think that it is right and just and consistent with a free society that no one hire them? This is what you would do, so I assume you would want others to do the same.

      1. Man, you really got to stop with the hypotheticals. What if you were a black patient going to a white racist surgeon, or vice versa? I don’t think I would go to “world class surgeon” that was a racist if I was a member of the race he was racist against. If I was in charge, and could fire the “world class surgeon” after he said racist shit on twitter, I would. Fuck him, if he’s so good he can find his own patients. It seems the point to your ridiculous hypotheticals is that it’s okay to be a racist as long as you make money. Fucking stupid.

        1. So you think that someone who holds views you don’t like should never be able to hold a job. You think it is fabulous because you assume that will never result in you being fired for holding unpopular views. Good luck with living in a society where saying a single thing that is unpopular with the mob ruins your life.

          1. I never said that. There’s also a big difference between an unpopular view and spewing racist nonsense to millions of people. We live in a world that holds people accountable for the stupid shit they do and say. It’s been that way forever and will likely never change. I think probably 99% of businesses would have done the same as ABC (or whatever network she was on). What she said is not criminal, but it reflects poorly on the company she is paid by. They really had no choice. This is not a hill to die on in the stupid vs. stupid culture-war.

    2. Just try not to be a racist asshole.

      Just try coming in here.

      Just try taking a swing at me.

      Just try.

      It’s a threat, not a request. Look at all those blue-collar schlubs getting shafted by the system who voted for Obama because they believed in hope and change. And when they still felt they were the forgotten little man, they voted for Trump. Racist assholes every last one of them. Doesn’t matter that they voted for Obama, you deviate from the party line in the least regard, you’re a racist. And sexist, homophobic, Islamaphobic, a climate denier who loves to see children shot in cold blood, an evil right-wing extremist Nazi we should feel compelled to exterminate. You know how we know? Because you’ll deny it and everybody knows Nazis will deny being Nazis, therefore anybody who denies being a Nazi must be a Nazi. It’s simple logic, really, but fortunately Nazis are immune to logic so they’re readily identifiable. Nazis are anybody who disagrees with us on anything.

      1. I’m surprised you found your way to the internet with that level of ignorance. Congrats.

  43. I can’t believe this is the biggest news story right now. But then again, I’m happy the press no longer has use for Hogg and his merry band of Woke Kidz, so, there’s a silver lining to everything I guess.

  44. I like how MSNBC rolled out Al Sharpton – a man who literally led anti-Jewish pogroms in NY neighborhoods – to condemn a Jewish lady for a joke made about a whitish lady who’s ancestry is still awaiting test results.

  45. Which of these three statements is racist? Carefully consider each before moving on to the next.

    1. All black people look like monkeys.
    2. This particular black person looks like a monkey.
    3. George Bush looks like a monkey.

    If you said 1 and 2, congrats! You’re braindead.

    Really not liking Reason’s tone as of late.

    1. Care to explain yourself, genius?

    2. Reason doesn’t have a tone. The writers have tones. Some tones likable, some not. That’s the way I like it.

  46. Using “Nigger” in context isn’t derogatory. But “The N-word” is just more PC anti white racist rhetoric, for if the word itself is so bad WTF (That’s Why The Fuck) do we tolerate it’s use as an insult used by blacks? And I suppose the black female “comic” who repeatedly called the President “An Orangutang”, and the sexist insult given to the Press Secretary are not racist/sexist? I don’t think you can be a Libertarian and a PC SJW Reason..

  47. Given the overall history of race relations, I’d say it represents progress. I’m a history buff, and reading popular, respectable journals of bygone days, it’s amazing (to the modern reader) the casual way ethnic slurs are dropped into the articles.

  48. Crickets for vile attacks on Ivanka?

  49. “Yet the only trait that appears to matter to Barr, a high school dropout, is that they are African-American, which to her means they are more like beasts than humans.”

    No, the only thing that matters to *you* is that they’re African-American, so that you take metaphors applied to *them* as a comment on African-Americans generally.

    By the way, I love the “a high school drop out” aside. Just so much contempt for the peasants.

  50. Let people say what they want.

    Pay for what you find entertaining.

  51. Apes aren’t racist. It’s just an insult.

  52. “Last year, a National Opinion Research Center poll found that 26 percent of Republicans think blacks are less intelligent than whites?as do 18 percent of Democrats.”

    Now share what research has found on IQ distributions by race.

  53. “Racially resentful whites without a college degree were most likely to flee the Democratic Party during Obama’s presidency.”

    Which party do racially resentful blacks vote for?

    Oh, that’s right, I forgot “It’s only racism when Whitey does it”. And that’s *totally* not a racist dogma.

    1. “Racial resentment, anti-Muslim attitudes, and white identity were all much stronger predictors of support for Trump in the 2016 primaries than they were for prior Republican nominees,”

      Really? Racial resentment against whites was a strong predictor of support of Trump? That seems unlikely to me.

      Riddle me this – was racial resentment against whites a strong predictor of voting for Obama in 2008 and 2012? What’s that? You didn’t take that data? That’s such a shame; I guess we’ll never know.

  54. I love seeing Chapman go full on SJW anti white hatred.

    Don’t hide it. Be proud!

    This is what Reason is now.

  55. But despite his caution on the issue, Obama’s presence in the White House roused deep anxieties among many white voters. Those anxieties have manifested themselves in overt white nationalism, anti-immigrant furies, the rise of Trump, and the popularity of Roseanne.

    Reason can always be relied upon to bring it on back to immigration, and then tie it in with white nationalism.

    Tiresome, predictable, sophomoric bullshit.

  56. I’ll give this some credibility as soon as the black community admits to being racist as all hell.

  57. More and more Reason.com articles sound like something I would see on Huffpost or Salon

  58. “Yet the only trait that appears to matter to Barr, a high school dropout, is that they are African-American, which to her means they are more like beasts than humans.”

    Wow! really? what does a high school dropout have to do with it? and how do you know she thinks they are only beasts? You do realize you can say something racist and not be a racist or is that too deep for you? What a crappy article. Reason.com should be ashamed

  59. Another one sided argument criticizing racism as originated exclusively by white people. Meanwhile, Obama is a filthy bigot, as is his accomplice, Jarrett, both thinking their own racist color judgments justify the legal transfer of the opportunities and incomes cooperatively earned by all white people to their constituency of politicized thieves and bigots.

    Louis Farrakhan is calling for the extermination of white people, but Reason ignores that to express their self righteous outrage about Roseanne Barr who made a joke about someone possessing the irrelevant skin color an overgrowth of racists in education, politics and the media has exalted into collectively untouchable moral superiority.

    If Reason wants to resolve racism, start with the double standards proselytized by the racist hypocrites in your mirror, who easily recognize all politically _incorrect_ stereotypes deceitfully used to demonize some and lionize others, but are sure that politically _correct_ stereotypes, ALSO deceitfully used to demonize some and lionize others, as “the truth.”

  60. All races are racist. Some based on race, some on ethnicity, like your Asian races. Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are all very racist, believing the others are somewhat beneath their people. Personally I don’t believe laws will ever solve racism. I believe racism is deeply rooted in the human psyche. In early days of the human race, to meet people unlike yourself while alone would probably mean death or capture and slavery. Except in large groups differing people were avoided. Racism at it’s most basic is fear.

  61. Do you really need reminding? Iranian isn’t a race.

  62. I also seem to remember Ivy League graduate Condoleeza Rice being compared to Aunt Jemima by some prog publications, as well as several prominent conservative black men being referred to as house ni**ers – specifically by Bill Maher, who was never condemned by the network carrying his program, let alone fired. Of special interest here is the fact that there have been more than a few racist comments by blacks with regard to whites and Jews (can you say Keith Ellison, Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright or Al Sharpton?)

    If you want to talk about racism, why not cut out the crap and clear bias. By the standards reflected in this article, EVERYONE is a racist. That may well be a condition of human nature, and clearly not one that will be expunged by government controls on speech.

  63. The Civil Rights Act does not address any emotional feeling of the People, only pertinent actions in commerce & government that the People do. Rosanne Barr could open up some restaurant – where obviously she could work to sustain her largess – and someone that resembled a “monkey” in her eyes could show up, and she could ask him, “hey Monkey, what would you like?”, but at the end of the day, if the “monkey” wanted a T-Bone steak, her restaurant would need to deliver a T-Bone steak cooked to the level of perfection that every other customer would receive.

  64. So I see a lot of people exposing their racism by focusing only on half of the statement made by the ex-person previously know as Rosanne.
    Where are all the comments focused on the Muslim Brotherhood?
    I hereby call out all people who equate apes with racism as intolerant bigots against animals.

    Just for the record, all the racists (racist = someone who first looks at the color of your skin) I know who are less than eighty years old are black.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.