nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Roseanne fired but Sarah Jeong hired?

splashuum

I find it incredible that main stream media can pick and choose who and what they define as racist.
Sarah Jeong has just been hired by the New York Times despite her clear hatred against white people. What is even more astounding is that the NYT have doubled down on Jeong after seeing her tweets. They have now publicly declared a vote of confidence in her.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Taytoland

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Its actually hilarious at how transparent they are about it. Its basically "yeah she was racist what of it". Everyone and his dog knows if it was reversed they would have been fired quicker than you can say racist.

Its probably the first time I've seen a news outlet keep someone on with such provable racist comments. What do they teach at these awareness classes we hear about.

All it shows is that the elements of the Left have learned NOTHING from Trump's election in 2016.

But sure they have two handy scapegoats when they lose the election again in 2020.

1. It'll be another Whitelash against Minorities.
2. The Russkies meddling in the campaign again.

The Russian excuse is the best of the lot. Mainstream media pulling the hair out about it every day from what I see.

SnazzyPig

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

You shouldn't mess with me
I'll ruin everything you are
You know, I'll give you television
I'll give you eyes of blue
I'll give you men who want to rule the world

That's China.

Yer Da sells Avon

Brian? wrote: »

I’m actually disgusted by this accusation or hypocrisy and how many people thanked it.

Just looking through the list of people who thanked it and... yup, yup, yup... they're nearly all there. Three more and it'll be the full set.

givyjoe

Brian? wrote: »

I’m actually disgusted by this accusation or hypocrisy and how many people thanked it.

Find me one example of a post where I call someone out for a tweet or a sequence of tweets. If I was constantly jumping all over right wing twitterers I’d be a hypocrite. Find me one example of actually hypocrisy or apologise.

Oh give over. You're disgusted by being called a hypocrite.. but don't seem to have a problem with this loopers long standing pattern of racist tweets.

Tell me, do you think trumps tweets are representative of his racist tendencies?

If it quacks like a duck...

You're presented with overwhelming evidence of racist views and your answer is to stick your head in the sand because.. twitter doesn't really count?

givyjoe

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Just looking through the list of people who thanked it and... yup, yup, yup... they're nearly all there. Three more and it'll be the full set.

The full set of what? Racists is it, as you seemed to be implying earlier in the thread. You're part of a small clique of super ironic posters yourself.

Lone Stone

jeee guys dont you know only white people are racist gawddd

Malayalam

It is true that the alt-right is jumping all over this with glee - a chance to get the boot in to the alt left. That's unpleasant. I also see reflexive hard-left position taking - that's also unpleasant. The unfortunate problem is that centrist or non-aligned observers - regular people, if you will, people who swing to neither extreme, but decide case by case - who read the tweets and may personally decide there is something of a problem are being immediately tarred as right wing or conservatives or Trump fans or such. If people are constantly abused they will eventually stay quiet - they will either become more extreme in their opinions as a result of hurt or they will become completely indifferent. Both are bad. The juvenile level ordinary civil discourse has descended to as a result of rampant identity politics is quite worrying. People should be allowed to make simple self-evident observations without being accused of engrained ideological taint.

dav3

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No, but they did fire Quinn Norton:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinn_Norton#The_New_York_Times

Which makes the title of the thread even more bizarre.

Should it not read 'Norton fired but Sarah Jeong hired'? At least most Irish people can then agree that they have no idea who those people are, or care what they do, for a newspaper they never read.

Adding the name of some irrelevant loudmouth from the 80s to the title just confuses people.

hatrickpatrick

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I accept that it could be damaging if young males or young white people were constantly subjected to, and took literally, the "urgh... men... white ppl" narrative that you see on some parts of the internet, Twitter especially. It's not usually meant to be taken literally though - and it shouldn't take too much effort to see such comments in their true context either. Do a quick search for "men r trash" or "why are white people..." and you could easily come away thinking that 'misandry' and 'anti-white racism' are the biggest issues facing society today. Dig a bit deeper though, and it's just people blowing off steam, spouting hyperbolic crap, using 'white people' as shorthand for 'assholes who happen to be white', or in the case of Sarah Jeong, simply breaking the 'two wrongs don't make a right' rule and trolling the trolls.

None of that is acceptable, though. And it shouldn't be just brushed off as "yeah, but" - no, hate speech is hate speech, end of. Sincere or not.

And as I said in my post, children do take stuff literally. All the time. The constant barrage of "it's ok to say 'men are trash' because reasons, but say a word about women in general and your life will be ruined" is hugely damaging psychologically because the natural conclusion you reach with a young, straightforward logic is "this group is regarded as more important and deserving of happiness than mine is".

There's no way that doesn't f*ck people up, which is why I'm saying that "blowing off steam" and using generalisations as shorthand for specific assholes is not ok, and the people who do it should be subjected to the same level of shame and criticism as people who do it from the other side of the aisle.

Nothing f*cks you up more as a kid than to see double standards in action. The resentment which results can take years to fix.

Here's a collage showing just how endemic this crap is in the mainstream at the moment:

https://i.imgur.com/zNbKDv3.jpg

Some highlights include:

"White men must be stopped - the future of mankind depends on it"

"White guys are killing us: Toxic, cowardly masculinity, our unhealable national illness"

"Why everyone including white people hates white people"

"Do all white people literally suck?"

Now, imagine that not only are you encountering this sh!t on a daily basis as a young person, but you're also being told that those headlines would be unacceptable if said about any demographic other than "white" or "male". Are you seriously going to argue that seeing this stuff over and over again during one's formative years isn't going to screw people up psychologically?

I can only speak from personal experience, but I know that all the "boys are fair game" crap really messed with my head as a child who got into current affairs younger than most and started listening to the news, reading the paper etc. I didn't understand why girls were treated as a "protected class" and boys weren't, and it warped my perceptions of life for years (I'm grand about it all now but it has turned me into a diehard opponent of mainstream double standards for sure), and logically speaking it makes more sense that this will cause problems for people's psychological development than that it won't.

Again, it's not really about the anti-white or anti-male sentiment itself, it's the fact that you're not allowed to retaliate using the same weaponry or you're in big trouble. But the person who did it to you isn't, because unlike them, you're not regarded as worth protecting.

hatrickpatrick

dav3 wrote: »

Which makes the title of the thread even more bizarre.

Should it not read 'Norton fired but Sarah Jeong hired'? At least most Irish people can then agree that they have no idea who those people are, or care what they do, for a newspaper they never read.

Adding the name of some irrelevant loudmouth from the 80s to the title just confuses people.

Yeah that makes sense. Personally I do know Quinn Norton's writing very well as someone who's interested in hacktivism culture, which is obviously relevant here since Jeong is being hired as technology editor, but obviously not everyone is interested in the technology / infoSec world.

Call Me Jimmy

It's good to see at least that we all agree hate speech laws are bull****. Because if you believe in hate speech law she would have broken it.

Keepaneye

Malayalam wrote: »

It is true that the alt-right is jumping all over this with glee - a chance to get the boot in to the alt left. That's unpleasant. I also see reflexive hard-left position taking - that's also unpleasant. The unfortunate problem is that centrist or non-aligned observers - regular people, if you will, people who swing to neither extreme, but decide case by case - who read the tweets and may personally decide there is something of a problem are being immediately tarred as right wing or conservatives or Trump fans or such. If people are constantly abused they will eventually stay quiet - they will either become more extreme in their opinions as a result of hurt or they will become completely indifferent. Both are bad. The juvenile level ordinary civil discourse has descended to as a result of rampant identity politics is quite worrying. People should be allowed to make simple self-evident observations without being accused of engrained ideological taint.

Compared to the feminazi, cuck, social justice warriors?

See I can throw out terms that describe your style of posting as well.

Call Me Jimmy

And we also agree twitter bans for trolling are never acceptable.

Malayalam

Keepaneye wrote: »

Compared to the feminazi, cuck, social justice warriors?

See I can throw out terms that describe your style of posting as well.

Hahah

Well, Keepaneye, that's the first time I've ever in my life been called a feminazi...it's a kind of special moment for me. *wipes tear

DONTMATTER

I've got some advice. Stay off twitter, avoid the celeb world, it makes no difference to your lives. Getting worked up over stuff like this is pretty pathetic.
You're just going out of your way to become offended.

py2006

To put it simply, if she were a white male...

Mutant z

Hating white people is regarded as being cool these days she ticks all the right boxes.

py2006

Reminds me of the brand of feminists we have today who fully believe that women simply CANNOT be sexist towards a man. It doesn't happen. They will even use a term like "reverse sexism" which makes absolutely no sense at all.

Keepaneye

Malayalam wrote: »

Hahah Well, Keepaneye, that's the first time I've ever in my life been called a feminazi...it's a kind of special moment for me. *wipes tear

I was merely pointing out the usual hypocrisy spouted by people like you when they have very little to say despite their long lengthy posting style. You were only too happy to call me "alt-right".

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

I’m actually disgusted by this accusation or hypocrisy and how many people thanked it.

Find me one example of a post where I call someone out for a tweet or a sequence of tweets. If I was constantly jumping all over right wing twitterers I’d be a hypocrite. Find me one example of actually hypocrisy or apologise.

These have been some of your replies:

"I’d like to hear more. That’s all I’m saying. The video is clearly edited to make her look bad. If she is what you say she is, a racist man hater, why the poorly edited video? It strips the statement of any context or nuance"

"They are a poor attempt at humour"

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

You seem to be going to great lengths to excuse her of blatant racism, but if the shoe was on the other foot I think it's extremely unlikely that you would be coming to their defence, stressing the importance of context etc. Have you read all her racist tweets?

Keepaneye

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

These have been some of your replies:

"I’d like to hear more. That’s all I’m saying. The video is clearly edited to make her look bad. If she is what you say she is, a racist man hater, why the poorly edited video? It strips the statement of any context or nuance"

"They are a poor attempt at humour"

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

You seem to be going to great lengths to excuse her of blatant racism, but if the shoe was on the other foot I think it's extremely unlikely that you would be coming to their defence, stressing the importance of context etc. Have you read all her racist tweets?

Just imagine if Jordan Peterson said it, poor auld Brian would have a stroke.

jmayo

20Cent wrote: »

What happened to freedom of speech, it's only a joke etc .....

So please tell us which of the following below you find funny?

I am substituting other groups in place of the ones this so called journalist/commentator used in her original tweet of 28 Nov 2014.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Just imagine it was a right winger who wrote those tweets, substituting 'black' instead of 'white'. I'm sure you would be pondering the nuance of said tweets. The level of hypocrisy here is off the wall.

I would like to know how come some people can find the first ones very offensive, but the last one seems to be satire or somehow acceptable?

Dumbass f**king black people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pi**ing on fire hydrants.

Dumbass f**king asian people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pi**ing on fire hydrants.

Dumbass f**king yellow people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pi**ing on fire hydrants.

Dumbass f**king white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pi**ing on fire hydrants.

Maybe it is me being somewhat old fashioned, oh and an old white guy, but I find all of them uncalled for, equally disparaging and yes offensive.

SnazzyPig

DONTMATTER wrote: »

I've got some advice. Stay off twitter, avoid the celeb world, it makes no difference to your lives. Getting worked up over stuff like this is pretty pathetic.
You're just going out of your way to become offended.

Thanks for your paternalistic, condescending advice.

Why are you here?

DickSwiveller Returns

Turns out she's not a fan of the police either
https://twitter.com/majorlagg1/status/1025482182649892865

DONTMATTER

SnazzyPig wrote: »

Thanks for your paternalistic, condescending advice.

Why are you here?

Honestly? To laugh at the angry men.

Mod-Banned

DONTMATTER

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Turns out she's not a fan of the police either
https://twitter.com/majorlagg1/status/1025482182649892865

That's funny stuff. She's clearly hilarious. They're just jokes, are they not allowed anymore? It's pc gone mad!!

TomSweeney

2 Scoops wrote: »

Pretty long troll, years even. Click the tweet, scroll down and see for yourself.

https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1025437806775226368

What a disgusting vile racist c*nt she is, and the NYT doubling down!
Disgusting, hope the NYT loses subs over this.

suicide_circus

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Honestly? To laugh at the angry men.

you should watch 12 angry men, you'll be in stitches

Will I Am Not

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Turns out she's not a fan of the police either
https://twitter.com/majorlagg1/status/1025482182649892865

It’s just satire, you know, like Tommy Robinson.

Malayalam

Keepaneye wrote: »

I was merely pointing out the usual hypocrisy spouted by people like you when they have very little to say despite their long lengthy posting style. You were only too happy to call me "alt-right".

I didn't actually call anyone on here alt right - it was an observation I made as a result of googling articles that deal with the story. I saw some of the usual bottom feeders like Paul Joseph Watson et al, and I also saw msm refer to "conservatives" objecting to Jeongs tweets.

Sorry I don't do short or mono-syllabic, you will have to skim read or put me on ignore:)