Roseanne fired but Sarah Jeong hired?

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

She was shitposting on Twitter. I've seen enough of that kind of stuff not to take it seriously, whoever is spouting it, and I don't see why it should prevent someone from getting a job with a newspaper.

Ah she was only having the craic was she?! Ah that's ok so. Bollox, Ray.

You'd 100% take it seriously if it was anyone saying something similar about a minority or a person of colour. You'd be proclaiming racism from the high heavens. You've jumped the shark on this one but you're too stubborn to just admit you're wrong. If any editor or journo went on an anti black crusade you'd be top of the list calling for their head. You'd be right too, it's just you're a hypocrite when the shoe is on the other foot.

Katie Hopkins is just sh*tposting on Twitter I suppose? That Humphrey’s fella was just sh*tposting about Ibrahim Halawa?

pickarooney wrote: »

What does 'bang of gammon' mean? Is it a reference to the police?

I thought it was a reference to outraged white people. I could be entirely wrong though.

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Katie Hopkins is just sh*tposting on Twitter I suppose?

So is Tommy Robinson. Although he's not even bringing up skin colour... you tell me who the racist is.

super_furry

Love the new alt-right tactic of concern trolling. Trawling back through near decade old tweets to weaponise them because they’re now saying something about Trump.

super_furry wrote: »

Love the new alt-right tactic of concern trolling. Trawling back through near decade old tweets to weaponise them because they’re now saying something about Trump.

Do you think what Sarah says is acceptable? Do you think it's racist.

Simple yes/no answer will do without ticking off buzzwords. No need for right or left or Trump.

Pkiernan

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

It's this type of thing that will lead Trump back into the White House in 2020

AWESOME!!!

TheValeyard

super_furry wrote: »

Love the new alt-right tactic of concern trolling. Trawling back through near decade old tweets to weaponise them because they’re now saying something about Trump.

A lot of people are playing that game. James Gunn was sacked from Guardians of the Galaxy for a tweet joke he made years ago

uncle_sam_ie

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

She was shitposting on Twitter. I've seen enough of that kind of stuff not to take it seriously, whoever is spouting it, and I don't see why it should prevent someone from getting a job with a newspaper.

It's the New York Times themselves who set this standard.
Quinn Norton, was fired from the NYT over tweets she made.

And, this is a Quote from The New York Times on Roseanne,

"The network's decision to cancel 'Roseanne' over a racist comment will cost it.
But when people decide to let racism slide, it costs the rest of us."

super_furry wrote: »

Love the new alt-right tactic of concern trolling. Trawling back through near decade old tweets to weaponise them because they’re now saying something about Trump.

Wonder where they got that idea from...

super_furry wrote: »

Love the new alt-right tactic of concern trolling. Trawling back through near decade old tweets to weaponise them because they’re now saying something about Trump.

''Concern trolling'', is it now? New phrase on me. How about character reference? Or by your deeds you will be known?

super_furry

Omackeral wrote: »

Do you think what Sarah says is acceptable? Do you think it's racist.

Simple yes/no answer will do without ticking off buzzwords. No need for right or left or Trump.

I don’t know her, don’t know of her or her work and I don’t really care about what she may have said a decade ago or however long it was.

Was actually thinking more of James Gunn when posting, who was targeted by the same people with the same tactics.

TomSweeney

pleas advice wrote: »

i = 868197

https://www.boards. ie/vbulletin/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=

i++

20 GOTO 10

ewww ... GOTO .. such messy programming ...

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

It's the New York Times themselves who set this standard.
Quinn Norton, was fired from the NYT over tweets she made.

And, this is a Quote from The New York Times on Roseanne,

"The network's decision to cancel 'Roseanne' over a racist comment will cost it.
But when people decide to let racism slide, it cost the rest of us."

This is it.

Outlets like the NYT are making such fools of themselves.
Sure the people who are drinking that flavour of Kool-aide are fully behind them and the folks that are drinking the other flavour are fully outraged.

But us in the middle just wonder what society is turning into.

Omackeral wrote: »

Do you think what Sarah Jeong says is acceptable? Do you think it's racist.

On the surface those tweets are racist and moronic. I’d like some context though. She appears to be using the nomenclature of white nationalists/alt right to make a point about racism. I’d like to know more.

If she’s a journalist, I’m guessing she is since the NY times have hired her, shouldn’t she have plenty of online content that clarifies the issue?

Attacking anyone based on tweets seems a little reactionary. The medium doesn’t really lend itself to nuance. I genuinely dislike tweets. I only use Twitter to read links to full articles.

I suppose I’m saying, I’d like to know what she says and not what she tweets. They can be the same, they can be different.

Simple yes/no answer is enough without ticking off buzzwords.

If only life was so simple. I tried to avoid buzzwords though.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1025437806775226368.html

Brian? wrote: »

On the surface those tweets are racist and moronic. I’d like some context though. She appears to be using the nomenclature of white nationalists/alt right to make a point about racism. I’d like to know more.

If she’s a journalist, I’m guessing she is since the NY times have hired her, shouldn’t she have plenty of online content that clarifies the issue?

Attacking anyone based on tweets seems a little reactionary. The medium doesn’t really lend itself to nuance. I genuinely dislike tweets. I only use Twitter to read links to full articles.

I suppose I’m saying, I’d like to know what she says and not what she tweets. They can be the same, they can be different.

If only life was so simple. I tried to avoid buzzwords though.

But looking at the tweets for context and nuance is totally subjective.

Can the same be rules of context and nuance applied to the Quinn Norton tweets or anything anyone else says that is percieved as racist ?

Or should they only be applied one way ?

uncle_sam_ie

Brian? wrote: »

On the surface those tweets are racist and moronic. I’d like some context though. She appears to be using the nomenclature of white nationalists/alt right to make a point about racism. I’d like to know more.

If she’s a journalist, I’m guessing she is since the NY times have hired her, shouldn’t she have plenty of online content that clarifies the issue?

Attacking anyone based on tweets seems a little reactionary. The medium doesn’t really lend itself to nuance. I genuinely dislike tweets. I only use Twitter to read links to full articles.

I suppose I’m saying, I’d like to know what she says and not what she tweets. They can be the same, they can be different.

If only life was so simple. I tried to avoid buzzwords though.

Brian? wrote: »

On the surface those tweets are racist and moronic. I’d like some context though. She appears to be using the nomenclature of white nationalists/alt right to make a point about racism. I’d like to know more.

If she’s a journalist, I’m guessing she is since the NY times have hired her, shouldn’t she have plenty of online content that clarifies the issue?

Attacking anyone based on tweets seems a little reactionary. The medium doesn’t really lend itself to nuance. I genuinely dislike tweets. I only use Twitter to read links to full articles.

I suppose I’m saying, I’d like to know what she says and not what she tweets. They can be the same, they can be different.

If only life was so simple. I tried to avoid buzzwords though.

Let Sarah provide you the context herself...

suicide_circus

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But looking at the tweets for context and nuance is totally subjective.

Can the same be rules of context and nuance applied to the Quinn Norton tweets or anything anyone else says that is percieved as racist ?

Or should they only be applied one way ?

give it up Father. this is like trying to argue theology. this is a matter of faith for these people, if they make any concessions their whole doctrine could crumble.

super_furry wrote: »

Love the new alt-right tactic of concern trolling. Trawling back through near decade old tweets to weaponise them because they’re now saying something about Trump.

Are the tweets from under 4 years ok though?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But looking at the tweets for context and nuance is totally subjective.

Yep. It is. But then after posting this, I google the author of the tweets. She clarified that the tweets were meant as satire. She was satirising the attacks she’d faced online. I don’t agree that she was right to do it, but it does cast a new light on he the tweets. They are a poor attempt at humour and overall they undermined her point. They weren’t racist thought if they were satire.

Can the same be rules of context and nuance applied to the Quinn Norton tweets or anything anyone else says that is percieved as racist ?

Or should they only be applied one way ?

Same rules apply to all tweets, for me. Others probably don’t agree and will attack all in sundry on them.

Tweets feed the outrage machine. I don’t think I’ve ever been outraged by one though.

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1025437806775226368.html

That’s just more tweets. What’s the point?

Malayalam wrote: »

Let Sarah provide you the context herself...

Christ, she’s got the stereotypical man hater hairstyle and all.

Brian? wrote: »

Yep. It is. But then after posting this, I google the author of the tweets. She clarified that the tweets were meant as satire. She was satirising the attacks she’d faced online. I don’t agree that she was right to do it, but it does cast a new light on he the tweets. They are a poor attempt at humour and overall they undermined her point. They weren’t racist thought if they were satire.

Same rules apply to all tweets, for me. Others probably don’t agree and will attack all in sundry on them.

Tweets feed the outrage machine. I don’t think I’ve ever been outraged by one though.

I think that's what's variously called ''spin'' or ''back-pedalling''.

Malayalam wrote: »

Let Sarah provide you the context herself...

Ah here. A 19 second, poorly edited excerpt of a talk?

Malayalam wrote: »

I think that's what's variously called ''spin'' or ''back-pedalling''.

What is? Her clarification. It could be spin. But it could be the truth.

super_furry wrote: »

I don’t know her, don’t know of her or her work and I don’t really care about what she may have said a decade ago or however long it was.

Well you're in the bloody thread so either you've read what she's said or you just jumped to the end of the discussion to ignorantly add your two cents regardless.

So if you've read the thread. Are her viewpoints, at the crux of this thread, racist yes or or no? Simple.

Or

Have you jumped to the end and just defended "your side".

Brian? wrote: »

Ah here. A 19 second, poorly edited excerpt of a talk?

Wherein she stated that because of white men everything sucks. Grand, so. I just thought it gave some context to 6 years of repeated anti-white tweeting.