Roseanne fired but Sarah Jeong hired?

Brian? · 07-08-2018 04:08PM

professore wrote: »

No one ... yet.

I don't believe for a second they were satire. She clearly hates white people, especially men. Satire is funny. Satire makes fun of everyone equally. This wasn't funny and focussed on white people only, especially men. That's racist. Far more racist than even Trump for example, who qualifies everything he says with "criminal elements within" or some such.

Satire is an attempt to be funny. Even if these tweets are satire, they certainly aren't funny.

2 Scoops · 07-08-2018 04:10PM

Brian? wrote: »

Even if these tweets are satire

Which they aren't, just to reiterate.

Brian? · 07-08-2018 04:12PM

professore wrote: »

Let's sit back and watch the gymnastics here. The difference with the SJWs here and "Serious Men of Boards" (TM) is the SMOB wouldn't unquestioningly support anyone just because of their politics.

That article is like someone puked on their keyboard with front page open. It hurts my eyes

If she doxxed a rape victim, which it looks like she did, that's absolutely awful and beyond defending. I think we can all handily agree on that.

Brian? · 07-08-2018 04:13PM

2 Scoops wrote: »

Which they aren't, just to reiterate.

Ah you're back. Hello. No insults this time or irrelevant posting history?

She says they are. They read like satire. Why are you so sure they aren't?

Brian? · 07-08-2018 04:15PM

professore wrote: »

A bit like what I posted in another thread about being a hetero man but still having my head turned by Blaire White, DAMN those SS uniforms were cool !

I regret googling Blaire White.

splashuum · 07-08-2018 04:16PM

Brian? wrote: »

As I said earlier, what really matters is if they back up the tweets elsewhere. In this case she hasn't.

She has showed racism not only in her tweets but at speeches. She spoke at Harvard law school stating “White men are the reason why the world sucks”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2ql6H7NpiM&app=desktop

Do people really believe she is being “satirical” here?

PlaneSpeeking · 07-08-2018 04:17PM

Brian? wrote: »

Ah you're back. Hello. No insults this time or irrelevant posting history?

She says they are. They read like satire. Why are you so sure they aren't?

To quote Mandy Rice-Davies "well she would say that, wouldn't she ?"

PlaneSpeeking · 07-08-2018 04:18PM

splashuum wrote: »

She has showed racism not only in her tweets but at speeches. She spoke at Harvard law school stating “White men are the reason why the world sucks”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2ql6H7NpiM&app=desktop

Do people really believe she is being “satirical” here?

Why in God's name would she be invited to address Harvard Law ????

Dave0301 · 07-08-2018 04:18PM

Brian? wrote: »

As I said earlier, what really matters is if they back up the tweets elsewhere. In this case she hasn't.

Just to clarify, going by this logic, it is okay to be racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist etc. on Twitter as long as you do not back it up anywhere else?

So you can tweet derogatory things about certain types of people, but if you claim elsewhere that you don't really mean it, you get a free pass?

hatrickpatrick · 07-08-2018 04:18PM

professore wrote: »

Apple devices beloved by lefties designed and built by the most capitalist company on the planet. Oh the irony!!!!

I really hate this argument TBH. Being anti corporatist doesn't mean that a person opposes free enterprise or the existence of private companies, it just means that they oppose those corporations defiling the "one person, one vote" principle of democracy.

The existence of Apple for instance is not at issue. When it is able to lean on a government to overturn the democratic will of the people, that's when it becomes an issue. And when it exploits workers, that is also when it becomes an issue.

Being left wing doesn't mean companies shouldn't exist at all, it means that ethics should be required by law and not left up to the free market. Arguments for rent controls for instance aren't arguing that professional landlords shouldn't exist, just that they shouldn't be allowed to exploit people just because they could exploit people.

Brian? · 07-08-2018 04:19PM

splashuum wrote: »

She has showed racism not only in her tweets but at speeches. She spoke at Harvard law school stating “White men are the reason why the world sucks”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2ql6H7NpiM&app=desktop

Do people really believe she is being “satirical” here?

That's the 3rd time someone has posted a poorly edited sliver of a speech. If she's such a man hating racist why is it edited down so much? Why isn't there more?

Venom · 07-08-2018 04:19PM

Brian? wrote: »

That article is like someone puked on their keyboard with front page open. It hurts my eyes

If she doxxed a rape victim, which it looks like she did, that's absolutely awful and beyond defending. I think we can all handily agree on that.

Jeong and the Vice website also tossed Naomi Wu, a Chinese equal rights activist under the bus by breaking their word on keeping elements of her private life out of the story, which caused her serious problems with the Chinese government.

https://nextshark.com/naomi-wu-vice-controversy/

https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5

Is this still satire Brian?

2 Scoops · 07-08-2018 04:20PM

Brian? wrote: »

Ah you're back. Hello. No insults this time or irrelevant posting history?

She says they are. They read like satire. Why are you so sure they aren't?

It's not my fault you say things like "Ben Shapiro isn't a conservative" when even his own podcast is self entitled "the biggest conservative podcast in America". My spoofer opinion hasn't changed and I think it's well founded.

Why do I not think they're satire? She held the same sentiment and posted the same racist views for years on twitter. She then repeated the exact same views while giving a talk at Harvard. It's not rocket science Brian. Read her timeline and see for yourself.

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

kubjones · 07-08-2018 04:21PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I really hate this argument TBH. Being anti corporatist doesn't mean that a person opposes free enterprise or the existence of private companies, it just means that they oppose those corporations defiling the "one person, one vote" principle of democracy.

The existence of Apple for instance is not at issue. When it is able to lean on a government to overturn the democratic will of the people, that's when it becomes an issue. And when it exploits workers, that is also when it becomes an issue.

Being left wing doesn't mean companies shouldn't exist at all, it means that ethics should be required by law and not left up to the free market. Arguments for rent controls for instance aren't arguing that professional landlords shouldn't exist, just that they shouldn't be allowed to exploit people just because they could exploit people.

Well put.

Brian? · 07-08-2018 04:23PM

Dave0301 wrote: »

Just to clarify, going by this logic, it is okay to be racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist etc. on Twitter as long as you do not back it up anywhere else?

So you can tweet derogatory things about certain types of people, but if you claim elsewhere that you don't really mean it, you get a free pass?

That depends. It depends how the Twitter activity is clarified.

If someone has a load of racist tweets and when challenged says, yeah I absolutely meant them. Case closed. We have a racist.

If someone has a load of racist tweets and when challenged says, they were a reaction to the online abuse I've received. They were a satire of the abuse I get. Case open. Some more reading and watching needed.

It's really that simple for me .

professore · 07-08-2018 04:28PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I really hate this argument TBH. Being anti corporatist doesn't mean that a person opposes free enterprise or the existence of private companies, it just means that they oppose those corporations defiling the "one person, one vote" principle of democracy.

The existence of Apple for instance is not at issue. When it is able to lean on a government to overturn the democratic will of the people, that's when it becomes an issue. And when it exploits workers, that is also when it becomes an issue.

Being left wing doesn't mean companies shouldn't exist at all, it means that ethics should be required by law and not left up to the free market. Arguments for rent controls for instance aren't arguing that professional landlords shouldn't exist, just that they shouldn't be allowed to exploit people just because they could exploit people.

Yes, really mean communists here rather than lefties. I'm actually quite left leaning myself believe it or not with a sprinkling of right ideas about order and taking responsibility for yourself.

Brian? · 07-08-2018 04:29PM

Venom wrote: »

Jeong and the Vice website also tossed Naomi Wu, a Chinese equal rights activist under the bus by breaking their word on keeping elements of her private life out of the story, which caused her serious problems with the Chinese government.

https://nextshark.com/naomi-wu-vice-controversy/

https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5

Is this still satire Brian?

That's terrible.

professore · 07-08-2018 04:29PM

Venom wrote: »

Jeong and the Vice website also tossed Naomi Wu, a Chinese equal rights activist under the bus by breaking their word on keeping elements of her private life out of the story, which caused her serious problems with the Chinese government.

https://nextshark.com/naomi-wu-vice-controversy/

https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5

Is this still satire Brian?

Jesus H Christ. This is one evil woman. But Roseanne is somehow still worse.

Brian? · 07-08-2018 04:30PM

2 Scoops wrote: »

It's not my fault you say things like "Ben Shapiro isn't a conservative" when even his own podcast is self entitled "the biggest conservative podcast in America". My spoofer opinion hasn't changed and I think it's well founded.

Why do I not think they're satire? She held the same sentiment and posted the same racist views for years on twitter. She then repeated the exact same views while giving a talk at Harvard. It's not rocket science Brian. Read her timeline and see for yourself.

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

Back on form.

This is old information. Why bother posting it again.

Venom · 07-08-2018 04:31PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Why in God's name would she be invited to address Harvard Law ????

She ticks the right social justice boxes.

2 Scoops · 07-08-2018 04:35PM

Brian? wrote: »

This is old information. Why bother posting it again.

Might as well be talking to the wall.

"How do you know it's not satire?"

She's been tweeting an anti-white sentiment without provocation for years, here's proof of it. She confirmed her anti-white views in a Harvard talk.

"This is old information, why are you posting it?"

hatrickpatrick · 07-08-2018 04:38PM

Brian? wrote: »

That depends. It depends how the Twitter activity is clarified.

If someone has a load of racist tweets and when challenged says, yeah I absolutely meant them. Case closed. We have a racist.

If someone has a load of racist tweets and when challenged says, they were a reaction to the online abuse I've received. They were a satire of the abuse I get. Case open. Some more reading and watching needed.

It's really that simple for me .

Personally, for me, it's "if someone has a load of racist tweets, case closed. We have a racist".

There is no nuance, context, or other "reasons" that SJWs like to trot out which can justify hate speech. It's an entirely black and white issue (an issue of colour, if you will :pac: ) - a person who tweets race based hate speech is a racist. Case closed. A person who tweets sex based hate speech is a sexist. Case closed.

Brian? · 07-08-2018 04:41PM

2 Scoops wrote: »

Might as well be talking to the wall.

"How do you know it's not satire?"

She's been tweeting an anti-white sentiment without provocation for years, here's proof of it. She confirmed her anti-white views in a Harvard talk.

"This is old information, why are you posting it?"

You simply reposted the material she says is satire. Surely you can at least find a non Twitter source to prove your point.

Brian? · 07-08-2018 04:42PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally, for me, it's "if someone has a load of racist tweets, case closed. We have a racist".

There is no nuance, context, or other "reasons" that SJWs like to trot out which can justify hate speech. It's an entirely black and white issue (an issue of colour, if you will :pac: ) - a person who tweets race based hate speech is a racist. Case closed. A person who tweets sex based hate speech is a sexist. Case closed.

I completely understand why you'd think that way and it is your right to do so. I disagree though.

Malayalam · 07-08-2018 04:43PM

I really hate the way there is a mob mentality on boards if someone disagrees. It becomes such an unpleasant ad hominen free for all, and usually makes me click the unfollow option. If someone - in this instance Brian? but it could be anyone - strongly agrees with a different point of view than the majority of posters, ie that there is some possibility that the tweets were satire in this case, then why pile in on top of him/her once people have clearly expressed their disagreement with him/her. I don't agree with the POV but okay it's allowed to exist. It may even be correct. The same happened in so many threads on important issues in the past - if someone or some few had a minority opinion they are basically hounded or shamed into silence. There is no room for ambivalence, nuance, dissent. I really dislike it. Obvious trolling is a different matter and fair game, but there has to be room for variance. Did you never hear, as you are going along defending an opinion and see someone elses argument, that small voice inside that says hmmm, there may be something in that?

professore · 07-08-2018 04:47PM

It's clear to me she is a sociopath. Just read Part 2 of the below where she put the life of a brave Chinese woman social media personality in STEM in danger and lied about it just to further her career. Disgusting behaviour.

https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5

Dave0301 · 07-08-2018 04:48PM

Brian? wrote: »

That depends. It depends how the Twitter activity is clarified.

If someone has a load of racist tweets and when challenged says, yeah I absolutely meant them. Case closed. We have a racist.

If someone has a load of racist tweets and when challenged says, they were a reaction to the online abuse I've received. They were a satire of the abuse I get. Case open. Some more reading and watching needed.

It's really that simple for me .

And what if a person made no comment about their tweeting style?

I only ask as I haven't seen anything to suggest that she was clearly making an effort at satire throughout her tweeting style, and her suggestion of it being satire now would appear to be damage limitation.

Also, when you look at some of the tweets, they are certainly not directed at people that provoked her first. In some instances, it is just a running commentary aimed at deriding white men and women.

WinnyThePoo · 07-08-2018 04:48PM

Omackeral wrote: »

That user is thread banned I believe FVP. I wanted to respond and rip their crummy argument to pieces but no point. Not that there's much point trying to debate them anyway, they're not an honest poster by any stretch of the imagination. Even people that lean the same way as them politically want zero to do with them.

Hey Omackeral

Omackeral wrote: »

Have to say, fair play to ancapailldorcha, the only one that I'd consider staunchly on that side of the divide to simply just come out and call a spade a spade. Everyone else from Hapax Legomenon to Brian? to Winny The Poo tripping up over themselves to makes excuses for an out and out racist sexist just because they're from an ethnic minority... a racist act in itself ironically.

Fancy backing up what you said here about myself. Or was it nonsense?

professore · 07-08-2018 04:50PM

Malayalam wrote: »

I really hate the way there is a mob mentality on boards if someone disagrees. It becomes such an unpleasant ad hominen free for all, and usually makes me click the unfollow option. If someone - in this instance Brian? but it could be anyone - strongly agrees with a different point of view than the majority of posters, ie that there is some possibility that the tweets were satire in this case, then why pile in on top of him/her once people have clearly expressed their disagreement with him/her. I don't agree with the POV but okay it's allowed to exist. It may even be correct. The same happened in so many threads on important issues in the past - if someone or some few had a minority opinion they are basically hounded or shamed into silence. There is no room for ambivalence, nuance, dissent. I really dislike it. Obvious trolling is a different matter and fair game, but there has to be room for variance. Did you never hear, as you are going along defending an opinion and see someone elses argument, that small voice inside that says hmmm, there may be something in that?

Some do that, some just disagree with him. The former group are a bunch of idiots. He's well able to stand up for himself. As we all are. I don't think anyone can shame you into silence unless you have something to be ashamed of - which he doesn't BTW. I have a large voice listening to see if I might be wrong. In fact that's the whole point - otherwise I wouldn't engage at all and just broadcast my opinion. I like to learn. I learned about the origin of alt-right in this thread for example.

I remember on the 8th amendment I held a minority view - abortion limited by the constitution - and there were several strongly attacking me. Some did try to discuss in fairness.

P_1 · 07-08-2018 04:51PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally, for me, it's "if someone has a load of racist tweets, case closed. We have a racist".

There is no nuance, context, or other "reasons" that SJWs like to trot out which can justify hate speech. It's an entirely black and white issue (an issue of colour, if you will :pac: ) - a person who tweets race based hate speech is a racist. Case closed. A person who tweets sex based hate speech is a sexist. Case closed.

If they did a few years ago and have since become not a sexist or racist then do we judge them on their past bad character?

Roseanne fired but Sarah Jeong hired?

Comments