by Andi

Regarding the Roseanne Tweet.

I have a lot of thoughts that involve specifics, but most notably the blatant ignorance of the only thing that matters: LOGIC.

Regarding The Tweet Itself

ONE Roseanne’s tweet, as interpreted by the definition of racism, was not racist.

TWO Neither The Muslim Brotherhood or The Planet of The Apes are races.

THREE Roseanne has clarified that the tweet was meant to be a joke.
NOBODY DECIDES INTENT BUT ROSEANNE.

Regarding Consequences

ONE Roseanne admitted that she was under the influence of sleep drug, Ambien.

TWO Roseanne took responsibility for her actions and apologized.

THREE Roseanne was fired.

Regarding The Makers of Ambien’s Response

ONE Ambien makers have stated that “Racism is not a ‘known’ side effect.”

TWO Ambien makers have not confirmed whether ‘racism’ was a specifically defined behavior/side effect in studies.

While racism “is not a known side effect,” this proclamation is irrelevant since “racism” is not indicated by the definition of racism itself (Google it).

The side effects that are acknowledged and documented by the makers of Ambien, as printed on the label would be the following:

Abnormal thinking, behavioral changes and complex behaviors: May include “sleep-driving” and hallucinations. Immediately evaluate any new onset behavioral changes.

and

• getting out of bed while not being fully awake and do an activity that you do not know you are doing. (See “What is the most important information I should know about AMBIEN?)

abnormal thoughts and behavior. Symptoms include more outgoing or aggressive behavior than normal, confusion, agitation, hallucinations, worsening of depression, and suicidal thoughts or actions.

Call me crazy, and for the sake of the ongoing conversation, let’s assume that the tweet was racist, but, wouldn’t making a racist statement fall into one of the above categories of side effects? I mean if we are using LOGIC to analyze…?

hmm…

I’m not going to get into all of the hypocritical ways news, media and entertainment cater to the agenda they clearly support by keeping equally, if not more “offensive” entertainers, reporters and media outlets on the air and paying them to do so.

But I would like to point out this (based on observation):

Behaviors seem to be deemed acceptable/unacceptable based on where you stand, politically. In other words, it doesn’t matter how repulsive you are if you are one side, while you get fired for it on the other. To me, this is unacceptable. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

I support free speech. NO MATTER WHAT IS BEING SAID. And I always will, even if it’s the worst of the worst insulting me personally.

The clear disregard for logic in this case, to me, is mind-blowing.

The clear disregard for any illusion of fairness, in this case, is characteristic of a hypocritical agenda in this country and should be a warning to those who may one day have an original thought in disagreement with that agenda.

Let it be known that you are to abide by the rules set forth by those leading the way towards this agenda.

Let it be known that you are not to question, disagree or use LOGIC in the formation of your own opinion.

I’m not generally into what celebrities do, but I do hope Roseanne fights for her free speech. 

Leave a Reply