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

animaal

I'm ambivalent about whether or not this Jenog one is fired or not for her very obviously racist tweets. However, I would like more consistency on the parts of media and employers. Either racist tweets are acceptable or they're not.

In a way, I'd like to see everybody free to spout racist rubbish - it would be clearer who to ignore, and why. No more guessing through veils at people's real opinions and motivations. I would have no problem saying to a child "That person is just full of hate, and it's making him/her say silly things. And here's another hateful person with the opposite view, and (s)he's doing the same thing".

On a separate note, I agree with the poster (sorry can't remember who it was) who was uncomfortable with the "piling on" posters with unpopular views. Personally, I'm glad there are honest opinions that differ from my own, and I'd rather listen to them and disagree than pressure them into silence.

TomSweeney

dav3 wrote: »

You do realise that this is an Irish forum right?

Yeah and you do realise this is an all American topic right ?

Skylinehead

TomSweeney wrote: »

But seriously, left wing MSM keep it up, Donald Trump is rubbing his hands together should be a landslide for him in 2020.

I've seen this mentioned a few times. The number of people that will vote based on media bias or whatever is miniscule. Trump got in on the economy, not people disliking the New York Times.

TomSweeney

Nixonbot wrote: »

I've seen this mentioned a few times. The number of people that will vote based on media bias or whatever is miniscule. Trump got in on the economy, not people disliking the New York Times.

Well yeah, but it's one grain of a bloody desert !!

mad muffin

The White American people had done fücked up and fûcked up good. They’ve convinced the American nation that racism is only perpetrated by white people.

Any racist talk against whites is no racism at all, and everyone except whites are victims of racism.

Could you believe the uproar if this was tweeted by a white woman against a minority? She’d be gone quicker than you could say Roseanne Barr.

Taytoland

Waiting for her to be fired, any day now.

RabbleRouser2k

Taytoland wrote: »

Waiting for her to be fired, any day now.

I doubt it-because if she gets fired, then the NYT person who hired her gets fired too.
It reflects badly on them either way. I don't like Ben Shapiro, but I try and listen to opinions on both sides before I form an opinion. And he made an interesting point.
He believes past tweets should not get someone fired. If you make those tweets on company time, sure, fire the person.
But prior to being hired-then no. The reporter who NYT fired for negative comments, she was seen as more right wing. At the moment, if you're anywhere close to the Right, you're gonna get less opportunities.

The Guild Wars example I mentioned a few posts earlier? Those were made when she was working with and advertising herself as an employee of the GW2 company. So obviously they had to do something when she was harassing the customers.

The NYT gave a flimsy excuse, a bad excuse for sure. And Jeong is a horrible person, for sure. But she's essentially put a target on herself-if she majorly screws up, I wouldn't be surprised if she was fired.

hatrickpatrick

Nixonbot wrote: »

I've seen this mentioned a few times. The number of people that will vote based on media bias or whatever is miniscule. Trump got in on the economy, not people disliking the New York Times.

I think you'd be surprised how many people, particularly young Trump voters, were influenced far more than you'd expect by the mainstream "white males are scum" narrative.

When a political faction actively promotes hate speech against your demographic, it will cause many people to react in unpredictable and counter-intuitive ways. A lot of people will put economic issues to one side if the alternative is voting for someone who has an agreeable economic message, but also thinks that tweeting #KillAll[your identity group] is ok, because [your identity group] somehow deserves it.

I don't really understand why this is so downplayed as a motivating factor in how people vote. Being subjected to demographic-based hate speech invokes a very basic, visceral reaction in many humans.

RabbleRouser2k

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think you'd be surprised how many people, particularly young Trump voters, were influenced far more than you'd expect by the mainstream "white males are scum" narrative.

When a political faction actively promotes hate speech against your demographic, it will cause many people to react in unpredictable and counter-intuitive ways. A lot of people will put economic issues to one side if the alternative is voting for someone who has an agreeable economic message, but also thinks that tweeting #KillAll[your identity group] is ok, because [your identity group] somehow deserves it.

I don't really understand why this is so downplayed as a motivating factor in how people vote. Being subjected to demographic-based hate speech invokes a very basic, visceral reaction in many humans.

As was the media's 'don't vote for Trump' narrative-they kept telling people not to vote for one person, that eventually they did an accidental reverse psychology.
And people voted for Trump-including non-white voters.

They failed to understand how Trump was able to manipulate media, including social media. Hillary's campaign failed on every single count of using media to her advantage (even Obama noted this). She couldn't compete against Donnie because he had experience in it. When the media focused so much attention on Donnie's health, and then shut down any question about Hill's health, that left many people with a lot of questions about Hillary (why the deflection, for example), especially when Hillary's pneumonia diagnosis was revealed-folks asked more questions about what else the media wasn't telling them.

They continue to attribute false quotes to Donald, and continue the narrative of the 'he insulted a disabled reporter' when actually he insulted himself.

I despise Alex Jones, but part of me is left worried about what other opinions will be 'shut down'. There's no winning in these situations.

Skylinehead

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think you'd be surprised how many people, particularly young Trump voters, were influenced far more than you'd expect by the mainstream "white males are scum" narrative.

When a political faction actively promotes hate speech against your demographic, it will cause many people to react in unpredictable and counter-intuitive ways. A lot of people will put economic issues to one side if the alternative is voting for someone who has an agreeable economic message, but also thinks that tweeting #KillAll[your identity group] is ok, because [your identity group] somehow deserves it.

I don't really understand why this is so downplayed as a motivating factor in how people vote. Being subjected to demographic-based hate speech invokes a very basic, visceral reaction in many humans.

Oh I do think it's a factor. Just not the main one. Trump won the election in the Rust Belt, a place that's heavy on manufacturing and mining, which have both declined massively over the years. He promised the resurgence of both, so they voted for him. Internet hate wars really don't factor into the real lives of many people, at least in my experience. Your mileage may vary.

PlaneSpeeking

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

As was the media's 'don't vote for Trump' narrative-they kept telling people not to vote for one person, that eventually they did an accidental reverse psychology.
And people voted for Trump-including non-white voters.

They failed to understand how Trump was able to manipulate media, including social media. Hillary's campaign failed on every single count of using media to her advantage (even Obama noted this). She couldn't compete against Donnie because he had experience in it. When the media focused so much attention on Donnie's health, and then shut down any question about Hill's health, that left many people with a lot of questions about Hillary (why the deflection, for example), especially when Hillary's pneumonia diagnosis was revealed-folks asked more questions about what else the media wasn't telling them.

They continue to attribute false quotes to Donald, and continue the narrative of the 'he insulted a disabled reporter' when actually he insulted himself.

I despise Alex Jones, but part of me is left worried about what other opinions will be 'shut down'. There's no winning in these situations.

I was told on FB the other day that I'd "put out some wrong opinions". When I asked the person - who I'd have considered a friend - what made an opinion "wrong" I got "some were anti women" (I distrust Vicky Phelan intensely); "disagreeing that the UK Government are trying to kill poor people" (of course they're not!) and "Jeremy Corybn is God" (no, he's a Trotskyite chancer who would bankrupt the UK in a week - plus I've a Jewish nan, he's an anti-semitic bollix).

Point is - there seems to be a set of "criteria" that the left have allowed for discussion - go beyond their parameters and you are called racist and worse.

givyjoe

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I was told on FB the other day that I'd "put out some wrong opinions". When I asked the person - who I'd have considered a friend - what made an opinion "wrong" I got "some were anti women" (I distrust Vicky Phelan intensely); "disagreeing that the UK Government are trying to kill poor people" (of course they're not!) and "Jeremy Corybn is God" (no, he's a Trotskyite chancer who would bankrupt the UK in a week - plus I've a Jewish nan, he's an anti-semitic bollix).

Point is - there seems to be a set of "criteria" that the left have allowed for discussion - go beyond their parameters and you are called racist and worse.

Just out of interest, why so distrustful of Vicky Phelan?

PlaneSpeeking

givyjoe wrote: »

Just out of interest, why so distrustful of Vicky Phelan?

I can't put my finger on it, I have the most profound sympathy for the victims of this and feel they should be propelled to the top of any waiting list, nay seen privately and immediately. Get the best oncologists on it - now.

But I feel she is making political and personal hay out of this and rather enjoying the limelight and giving FG a bloody nose.

Handing over hundreds of millions of Euro from an already strapped Health budget so people can buy an overpriced second house in Dublin City Centre is NOT appropriate either.

dav3

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I can't put my finger on it, I have the most profound sympathy for the victims of this and feel they should be propelled to the top of any waiting list, nay seen privately and immediately. Get the best oncologists on it - now.

But I feel she is making political and personal hay out of this and rather enjoying the limelight and giving FG a bloody nose.

Handing over hundreds of millions of Euro from an already strapped Health budget so people can buy an overpriced second house in Dublin City Centre is NOT appropriate either.

You "distrust Vicky Phelan intensely"? Well this thread has certainly taken a turn for the worse.

You're a lot more tolerable when you're in your Walter Mitty mode. I'd advise against going down the path you're going.

kunst nugget

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I can't put my finger on it, I have the most profound sympathy for the victims of this and feel they should be propelled to the top of any waiting list, nay seen privately and immediately. Get the best oncologists on it - now.

But I feel she is making political and personal hay out of this and rather enjoying the limelight and giving FG a bloody nose.

Handing over hundreds of millions of Euro from an already strapped Health budget so people can buy an overpriced second house in Dublin City Centre is NOT appropriate either.

Her cancer diagnosis is terminal - being propelled to the top of the waiting list or being seen privately isn't going to change her outcome. She'll likely be dead within 6 months from something that she might have had a fighting chance against if she found out back in 2011 when her test was misread or in 2014 when an audit showed her 2011 test was misread. She won't see her children become adults. I can fully understand her desire to hold the HSE accountable and I thought her receiving compensation that will help her children after she passes was the least she deserved.

To say it's so she can buy an overpriced second home in Dublin is very edgelord I'll grant you that but it's unbelievably juvenile.

PlaneSpeeking

kunst nugget wrote: »

Her cancer diagnosis is terminal - being propelled to the top of the waiting list or being seen privately isn't going to change her outcome. She'll likely be dead within 6 months from something that she might have had a fighting chance against if she found out back in 2011 when her test was misread or in 2014 when an audit showed her 2011 test was misread. She won't see her children become adults. I can fully understand her desire to hold the HSE accountable and I thought her receiving compensation that will help her children after she passes was the least she deserved.

To say it's so she can buy an overpriced second home in Dublin is very edgelord I'll grant you that but it's unbelievably juvenile.

She wasn't the one given the money to buy a second home.

"Edgelord" ??? When did we stop using correct language ???

Nermal

kunst nugget wrote: »

She'll likely be dead within 6 months from something that she might have had a fighting chance against if she found out back in 2011 when her test was misread or in 2014 when an audit showed her 2011 test was misread.

Back up a minute.

The misreading in 2011 is one issue - put that to one side.

Are you suggesting that when the 2011 misread was discovered in 2014, that resulted in a treatment delay?

It's my understanding she was already undergoing treatment at that stage, because a test after 2011 but before 2014 had come back positive.

This is the problem with the reporting of this story - people are being given the impression that the HSE concealed information that could have affected treatment.

jcdf

splashuum wrote: »

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.

I am reasonably content that the New York Times has sincerely condoned her. It is important for the future well-being of us all that articles genuine faith are deliberately expressed by all including institutions like the NYT. Deceit and self-deceit comes all to easily to mankind. NYT made the right decision so we now know more clearly where it stands. It is my hope that Sarah Yeong will influence the NYT internally to speak its thoughts.

A good Youtuber called The Distributist has spoken more clearly on this topic than I could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_O8sUkI-CU

inforfun

Jeong (in its Korean meaning) is a very broad concept in Korea and is a really important part of Korean people and culture. But it’s really hard to define (even in Korean!). It can be considered love, but that’s too simple of a definition. It also includes affection, compassion, sympathy, community, attachment, etc. And of course jeong is between humans, but it can also be felt towards objects.

If ever a name was ironic.

splashuum

She was given the blue tick on Twitter today.
Mind boggling.

givyjoe

splashuum wrote: »

She was given the blue tick on Twitter today.
Mind boggling.

Verified racist.

Brian?

splashuum wrote: »

She was given the blue tick on Twitter today.
Mind boggling.

Doesn’t that mean her identity was verified ?

inforfun

Brian? wrote: »

Doesn’t that mean her identity was verified ?

What types of accounts get verified?
An account may be verified if it is determined to be an account of public interest. Typically this includes accounts maintained by users in music, acting, fashion, government, politics, religion, journalism, media, sports, business, and other key interest areas.

A verified badge does not imply an endorsement by Twitter.

Bit of a mixed bag.

Richard Hillman

You do have to worry about what will happen when White people become a minority in the U.S. Blatant racism against white people has become acceptable within the establishment and is being ramped up. This has been occurring quite strongly over the last 4-5 years (and longer). What will it be like in 10-20-30 years?

We're Talking about in the 2040s when it happens. Hatred is getting ramped up. Black Pride is returning the levels of the days of the Black Panthers. Children are being indoctrinated with the mindset of getting retribution on whitey.

keffiyeh

Richard Hillman wrote: »

You do have to worry about what will happen when White people become a minority in the U.S. Blatant racism against white people has become acceptable within the establishment and is being ramped up. This has been occurring quite strongly over the last 4-5 years (and longer). What will it be like in 10-20-30 years?

We're Talking about in the 2040s when it happens. Hatred is getting ramped up. Black Pride is returning the levels of the days of the Black Panthers. Children are being indoctrinated with the mindset of getting retribution on whitey.

Whites are the invaders on that continent, long overdue that they're vilified, no? Love your fairly accurate prediction by the way.

The blatant extremist views being touted here, with mods just swanning around it and doing nothing, is very telling.

Ulysses Gaze

keffiyeh wrote: »

Whites are the invaders on that continent, long overdue that they're vilified, no? Love your fairly accurate prediction by the way.

The blatant extremist views being touted here, with mods just swanning around it and doing nothing, is very telling.

Yes...the Jacksonian Democrats, wasn't it?

[Deleted User]

keffiyeh wrote:

Whites are the invaders on that continent, long overdue that they're vilified, no? .

No.

Wibbs

keffiyeh wrote: »

Whites are the invaders on that continent, long overdue that they're vilified, no?

No. That you can't see the irony in wittering on about "blatant extremist views being touted here" while typing the above speaks volumes. Mind boggling levels of irony for one.

And is it just the "Whites"? Are Asians, Africans also in the "invaders" mix? They're not "native" either. Ah sure they must get a free pass. Not being pale of face an all.

TomSweeney

keffiyeh wrote: »

Whites are the invaders on that continent, long overdue that they're vilified, no? Love your fairly accurate prediction by the way.

The blatant extremist views being touted here, with mods just swanning around it and doing nothing, is very telling.

So an innocent kid deserves all the hate and abuse just because of the colour of his skin ? - unlucky to be born white in the USA today ?

I see by your username that you support terrorism and anti semitic hatred, so no surprise really.

keffiyeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No.

Why not? Invaders who have thrived due to land theft and slavery shouldn't be vilified? Why? Got more to qualify that than a two letter word? No? Shocking.

Trump is not a disease, he is a symptom of a disease.