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

ancapailldorcha

Will I Am Not wrote: »

What’s your opinion Winny? Do you think it’s double standards? Is she a racist? Should she be fired/not hired considering precedence?

I'm about as liberal as they come and, yes. She's quite blatantly a racist. I'd also add that I think she's the worst kind of attention seeker who uses social injustice to feed her own spiteful, self-centred agenda regardless of the damage it does to good causes. Basically, a human tapeworm.

Ken.

Mod- DONTMATTER don't post here again. Reason-Trolling.

professore

Will I Am Not wrote: »

What’s your opinion Winny? Do you think it’s double standards? Is she a racist? Should she be fired/not hired considering precedence?

I asked a question about the media labelling of all sorts of people as alt right. Then I got a bizarre reply about a victimhood narrative. I know so little about the alt right I didn't even know who coined the phrase or what it meant exactly. As it's used its a vehicle to associate the far right with the centre right and centrists as far as I can see.

WinnyThePoo

Will I Am Not wrote: »

What’s your opinion Winny? Do you think it’s double standards? Is she a racist? Should she be fired/not hired considering precedence?

I think shes a grade A idiot. Companies are free to hire and fire who they want.

DickSwiveller Returns

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm about as liberal as they come and, yes. She's quite blatantly a racist. I'd also add that I think she's the worst kind of attention seeker who uses social injustice to feed her own spiteful, self-centred agenda regardless of the damage it does to good causes. Basically, a human tapeworm.

Well said.

givyjoe

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Don't be.

On Trump:

On Richard Spencer:

On Ben Shapiro:

Deeeeeeelicious.

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

I’m excusing nothing.

Have you any proof I’m a hypocrite? If not, I want an apology.

Brian, I apologise for calling you a hypocrite. It was unnecessarily personal.

The point I was trying to make is that certain posters here throw out the accusation of racism/bigotry at will (I myself have been called racist for calling for tighter immigration controls), but then we when we have a clear example of racism from someone who is on the liberal wing people are trying to make excuses. Even anchapailldorcha, hardly a white supremacist, has said it's blatant racism.

WinnyThePoo

professore wrote: »

I asked a question about the media labelling of all sorts of people as alt right. Then I got a bizarre reply about a victimhood narrative. I know so little about the alt right I didn't even know who coined the phrase or what it meant exactly. As it's used its a vehicle to associate the far right with the centre right and centrists as far as I can see.

You made the claim the that the term alt right was created in 2016. Thats false.\\

You then made the claim alt right is used as a catch all term for people on the right. Once again thats a false claim.

'I know so little about the alt right I didn't even know who coined the phrase or what it meant exactly.'

Googles your friend, theres also search engines like Bing out there.

' As it's used its a vehicle to associate the far right with the centre right and centrists as far as I can see.'

There a dullards out there that try and call everyone under the sun labels. Unfortunately in the real world though if your subscribe to far right politics in america, you most likely call yourself Alt-right.

Will I Am Not

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I think shes a grade A idiot. Companies are free to hire and fire who they want.

She is a grade A idiot and also a racist.

2 Scoops

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I think shes a grade A idiot. Companies are free to hire and fire who they want.

Interesting choice of word there Winny.

WinnyThePoo

Will I Am Not wrote: »

She is a grade A idiot and also a racist.

Yes your right. Don't know why anybody would deny that .

Will I Am Not

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Yes your right. Don't know why anybody would deny that .

Some people can’t bring themselves to say it :pac:

Venom

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Some people can’t bring themselves to say it

That's because such a level of rational thought, critical thinking and self-awareness would get them kicked out of the echo chamber. It's hilarious to witness the sheer level of mental gymnastics required to even consider what Jeong wrote as anything other than racist by certain commenters in this thread.

What I just don't get is why pick this of all hills to die on?

Billy86

professore wrote: »

Alt right is a totally made up term to make the American right sound worse. It didn't exist before 2016 and guess what... it still doesn't exist.

Honest question here, where did you read that?

Because the creators of the term 'alt right' were... the alt right themselves, because 'neo Nazi' just doesn't have that same shimmer to it like it did in the past. The exact person to coin the term was prominent neo Nazi Richard Spencer, who you may know as 'Nazi gets punched' guy or 'man shouts about 'lugenpress' and 'Heil Trump' to zeig-heiling supporters' guy, or even as the 'guy banned from the entire Schengen region for general Nazi stuff'. He literally had a website set up under AlternativeRight.com for a few years there.

That's the problem with neo Nazi groups, you see: no matter how much they attempt to rebrand themselves, they are still neo Nazi groups and so the truth comes out sooner rather than later. Now that 'alt right' has gone sour they will rebrand again in an attempt to sneak back in unnoticed... and when they do get noticed (which they will - neo Nazis tend to stick out a bit) there will be another clamour to frame the new branding, whatever it may be, as "totally made up term to make the American right sound worse" (not to say you are necessarily part of the alt right, but I'd reckon wherever you read that may be!).

It's all driven by that inability to have the courage to stand behind their convictions that is one of the single most defining aspects of almost any far right group, right down from leadership to the plebs following. You even see the same on boards with some posters routinely attempt to 'rebrand' themselves by closing their accounts every few months, only to immediately open new ones and spouting the same alt/far-right nonsense.

2 Scoops

That's a great spiel Billy, you've defined the "alt-right" as Neo Nazi's then go onto say boards posters are spouting alt right nonsense. I don't see anyone on boards posting Neo Nazi views and if people did they'd be banned. My opinion is you're trying to equate those with different views, as an example those who have strong issues with Islam ( the vast majority of posters on those threads ) as alt right and without even realizing it you've just gone and proved the point Professore was making.

As it's used its a vehicle to associate the far right with the centre right and centrists as far as I can see.

Knex*

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm about as liberal as they come and, yes. She's quite blatantly a racist. I'd also add that I think she's the worst kind of attention seeker who uses social injustice to feed her own spiteful, self-centred agenda regardless of the damage it does to good causes. Basically, a human tapeworm.

Yeah, even taking the racism stuff aside, which is hard to do when displayed at this level, she comes across as a fairly psychotic and unhealthy person in general.

I'm pretty sure that any psychologist would have field day trawling through her tweets, videos and other social media content.

I'm also quite comfortable stating that she's not a well balanced person, nor is she pleasant to be around. (youdontsay.jpg)

NYT going ahead and not only hiring her, but defending her in the face of criticism, is just incredibly baffling.

ancapailldorcha

Knex. wrote: »

Yeah, even taking the racism stuff aside, which is hard to do when displayed at this level, she comes across as a fairly psychotic and unhealthy person in general.

I'm pretty sure that any psychologist would have field day trawling through her tweets, videos and other social media content.

I'm also quite comfortable stating that she's not a well balanced person, nor is she pleasant to be around. (youdontsay.jpg)

NYT going ahead and not only hiring her, but defending her in the face of criticism, is just incredibly baffling.

I don't know whether it's some sort of play to appeal to millenials who tend to eschew newspapers or to go with shock-based, clickbait identity politics.

Yeah, definitely a whiff of mental instability off her alright. Like a child in a library who screams at the top of her lungs simply for attention. Could be a persona or something but that seems unlikely.

The NYT is meant to be a serious paper so if they intend to go down the Guardian route then that's quite disappointing.

keffiyeh

givyjoe wrote: »

keffiyeh wrote: »

Did NYT fire Roseanne? No. Different companies different standards, seems very obvious.

Oh dear.. are you not aware of the NYT sacking staff for racist tweets previously? But letting this one go?

Oh dear... What do you even care what's happening in the states, radicalized right troll?

Billy86

2 Scoops wrote: »

That's a great spiel Billy, you've gone and defined the "alt-right" as Neo Nazi's then go onto say boards posters are spouting alt right nonsense. I don't see anyone on boards posting Neo Nazi views and if people did they'd be banned. My opinion is you're trying to equate those with different views, as an example those who have strong issues with Islam ( the vast majority of posters on those threads ) as alt right and without even realizing you've just gone and proved the point Professore was making.

Plenty of people have been banned off Boards for white supremacist and neo Nazi posts, some of which were permanent and some of which were temporary - and many of them had repeat offenses before anything was even done. You know this, so does everyone else reading this, and so there is no point in trying and to pretend otherwise.

We even had one of them decide to name his account after the mascot of the alt right, Pepe Frog. And like clockwork, while he hasn't posted here in the last few weeks he has mysteriously someone with identical posting tendencies has taken his place.

You will also note that I explicitly pointed out that I was not saying professore (who is also highly critical of Islam if I recall) is part of the alt-right in my post - yet you appear to have ignored that because it doesn't really work very well with your attempt to incorrectly frame it as "everyone who disagrees with me is alt right". Why is that?

Keepaneye

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Don't be.

On Trump:

On Richard Spencer:

On Ben Shapiro:

Wonder will there be a witty retort to this one that goes above "alt-right". I imagine there won't be.

2 Scoops

Billy86 wrote: »

Plenty of people have been banned off Boards for white supremacist and neo Nazi posts, some of which were permanent and some of which were temporary - and many of them had repeat offenses before anything was even done. You know this, so does everyone else reading this, and so there is no point in trying and to pretend otherwise.

Ok I'll accept that, will your accept there are also people who are unjustifiably smeared by the term.

givyjoe

keffiyeh wrote: »

Oh dear... What do you even care what's happening in the states, radicalized right troll?

Excuse me?! I'm a radicalised right troll?!

I'll take as a no, you're not aware of the blatant double standards I'm referring to. Thanks for confirming.

Billy86

2 Scoops wrote: »

Ok I'll accept that, will your accept there are also people who are unjustifiably smeared by the term.

Sure it definitely does happen, and it's interesting how much of that may or may not be an offshoot of the alt-right's major early successes through the likes of InfoWars and Breitbart, in trying to 'blend in' with the rest of the crowd that had people calling themselves alt right in 2015 and 2016 who actually had very little in common with them at all. We saw this with posters on boards, through many parts of Europe, and of course in the US where they've successfully used that to become interwoven with a good few elements of the Republican party.

All in all though, that was not the point that professore was making which I responded to, which was to claim that the "alt right is a totally made up term to make the American right sound worse" - we can agree that that is categorically incorrect.

professore

Billy86 wrote: »

Honest question here, where did you read that?

I didn't read it. I just assumed it was something the American left wing media had come up with as to be honest I have only heard them use that term over and over. They used to say far right / neo nazi which meant KKK and white supremacist stormfront types. These are a tiny proportion of the US so for there to be suddenly such a huge group I assumed it had to be fake. My mistake, I was wrong. This Richard Spenser seems like an evil bastard - to conflate someone like Ben Shapiro or even Donald trump with him is utterly ridiculous.

I said about 2016 as a previous poster said this is when it was coined.

I still stand by that the US media is making this group out to be much larger than it actually is.

Billy86

As for this Jeong one, I had never heard of her before this thread and would happily not hear of her again after. Best case scenario there is that she's a clickbait troll like Katie Hopkins who doesn't actually believe much of what they say for 'shock' value, and frankly that's something we could all do without. Worse case scenario, she's an extremist nutjob who we'd be better off not letting on top of a very large soap box.

2 Scoops

Billy86 wrote: »

Best case scenario there is that she's a clickbait troll like Katie Hopkins who doesn't actually believe much of what they say for 'shock' value, and frankly that's something we could all do without. Worse case scenario, she's an extremist nutjob who we'd be better off not letting on top of a very large soap box.

I'd bet with a very high degree of certainty it's the latter. This type of indoctrination seems common on college campuses in the states.

professore

Billy86 wrote: »

You will also note that I explicitly pointed out that I was not saying professor

I should hope not as I don't even know what it means!

Billy86 wrote: »

(who is also highly critical of Islam if I recall) is part of the alt-right in my post

I am equally critical of the Catholic Church, feminism, communism, fascism, scientology etc. Anywhere there is exploitation and bigotry ESPECIALLY where the media and governments cover it up, for example the mother and baby homes or organised sexual abuse of children which happened here with the church and in the UK with Muslim grooming gangs, and in both places the government and media condoned it.

Same here with this hateful woman.

professore

Billy86 wrote: »

As for this Jeong one, I had never heard of her before this thread and would happily not hear of her again after. Best case scenario there is that she's a clickbait troll like Katie Hopkins who doesn't actually believe much of what they say for 'shock' value, and frankly that's something we could all do without. Worse case scenario, she's an extremist nutjob who we'd be better off not letting on top of a very large soap box.

I agree, however Katie Hopkins writes for the Mail Online which doesn't pretend to be fair and impartial and a paper of record, unlike the NYT. If she stayed with the huff post or whatever then let her rant all she wants.

RasTa

Who feckin cares, doubt anyone in here has ever read the NYT. Same with Roseanne, never watched or had any interest in her show.

professore

RasTa wrote: »

Who feckin cares, doubt anyone in here has ever read the NYT. Same with Roseanne, never watched or had any interest in her show.

I used to watch her original show. It was big here back in the 80s. And that bitch does look white!