>>102336426>But where is that mindset when it comes to someone like Roseanne?Probably absent, because of the three axes of outrage: environment, object, intent.
Roseanne didn't make, apologize for, and delete disgusting jokes from ten years ago - she made disgusting jokes in the modern day, while employed, was asked to stop, and kept doing it. The environment was very different.
That, and Gunn's tweets were disgusting, but they were also non-specific jokes, while she was outright saying racist shit about real people. There was a specific object that she was clearly attacking or mocking.
And as for intent, there's never been so much as a rumor surrounding Gunn as far as pedophilia, and even now, at the most opportune moment, no-one's come forward to claim he did anything to anyone. By contrast, everyone's pretty clear that Roseanne was actually a racist sow in real life.
>When it comes to Trump and his locker room talk?Again - environment, object, intent. Trump's comments were also disgusting, and like Gunn, also took place ten years ago, but a) he never sincerely apologized for them, just tried to deflect, b) he was bragging about sexually assaulting actual, real women, c) I don't think anyone seriously doubts that Trump is some kind of sexual predator, Jesus Christ.
I appreciate that you're trying to defend a grander principle, one that can't be tied to the specific details of a given case - but I'm afraid that the real world doesn't actually work that way, once you move past trying to score political points.
Bragging about sexual assault, or calling a specific black politician the bastard child of an ape and a Muslim, isn't the same thing as making an unfunny crack about pedophilia. Even setting aside questions of apologies or how much it reflects on the speaker's behaviour: It's just not the same thing.
