*hoping this doesn't go left....*

>Sherriff Clarke and Clarence Thomas are simply in the sunken
>place. that's a whole other post.

so Haddish gets the "do you" and it should be acceptable. cool

stop calling "folks" coons. straight

how do you not see what you are doing here (in reference to clarke and thomas) not as the same thing but just from the opposite direction?

you're going hard for "just be who you are". fine

we gotta get past that? sure.

but at the exact same time you're stopping *just short* of calling these folks sell-outs (yes, you didn't use those words, but lets not act like at the core, you might as well be)

you go hard for women. cool

lest this be considered a gender thing, is condoleeza rice in the "sunken place" too?

how come the other folk (who i'm not advocating for, but just using as examples) don't get fed with same spoon?

to act like ofays don't have a softer spot for one of us who is considered "safe" (be it because they are funny, or willing to vote for some b%$^&*, or whatever) is a bit disingenuous, no?

so, if they see Haddish just being her and they make her famous because that fits their sense of allowable, and the impact on the rest of us is reinforcement of "be more like *this*".

why are we acting like we shouldn't see some level of "danger" (in quotes, for lack of a better term) in that

note: I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm legit trying to see what (how) you think. earlier in this thing you questioned someone's logic, and i'm left wondering if consistency isn't worth considering too