Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-04-2018, 05:58 AM
Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,319

New York Times hires unapologetic racist writer


Excellent column by Andrew Sullivan. When Racism Is Fit To Print


Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Sullivan
Is the newest member of the New York Times editorial board, Sarah Jeong, a racist?

From one perspective — that commonly held by people outside the confines of the political left — she obviously is. A series of tweets from 2013 to 2015 reveal a vicious hatred of an entire group of people based only on their skin color. If that sounds harsh, let’s review a few, shall we? “White men are bullshit,” is one. A succinct vent, at least. But notice she’s not in any way attacking specific white men for some particular failing, just all white men for, well, existing.

….

A little more disturbing is what you might call “eliminationist” rhetoric — language that wishes an entire race could be wiped off the face of the earth: “#cancelwhitepeople.” Or: “White people have stopped breeding. you’ll all go extinct soon. that was my plan all along.” One simple rule I have about describing groups of human beings is that I try not to use a term that equates them with animals. Jeong apparently has no problem doing so. Speaking of animals, here’s another gem: “Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.

….

But the alternative view — that of today’s political left — is that Jeong definitionally cannot be racist, because she’s both a woman and a racial minority. Racism against whites, in this neo-Marxist view, just “isn’t a thing” — just as misandry literally cannot exist at all. And this is because, in this paradigm, racism has nothing to do with a person’s willingness to pre-judge people by the color of their skin, or to make broad, ugly generalizations about whole groups of people, based on hoary stereotypes. Rather, racism is entirely institutional and systemic, a function of power, and therefore it can only be expressed by the powerful — i.e., primarily white, straight men. For a nonwhite female, like Sarah Jeong, it is simply impossible.
This is absolutely appalling. If a white person wrote identical tweets but replaced "white" with any other racial group like #cancelblackpeople, they would not be able to get a job at a major respected publication. They'd be relegated to fringe hate groups like Stormfront. Apparently bigotry is okay these days, as long as it's directed against white people.
  #2  
Old 08-04-2018, 06:11 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
Excellent column by Andrew Sullivan. When Racism Is Fit To Print

This is absolutely appalling. If a white person wrote identical tweets but replaced "white" with any other racial group like #cancelblackpeople, they would not be able to get a job at a major respected publication. They'd be relegated to fringe hate groups like Stormfront. Apparently bigotry is okay these days, as long as it's directed against white people.
...fuck that bullshit.

Sarah Jeong is fucking fantastic. She's a fucking legend. Ignore the bullshit from Sullivan.

From the Verge:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/2/17...es-sarah-jeong

Quote:
You can read Sarah’s own statement about her tweets here. But as the editors of The Verge, we want to be clear: this abusive backlash is dishonest and outrageous. The trolls engaged in this campaign are using the same tactics that exploded during Gamergate, and they have been employed in recent years by even broader audiences amid a rise in hostility toward journalists. From cries about “ethics in journalism” to “fake news,” journalists have been increasingly targeted by people acting in bad faith who do not care about the work they do, the challenges they face, or the actual context of their statements.

...

Until she begins at the Times, Sarah is still one of us — a senior writer at The Verge. During her time working with us, she has produced remarkable journalism, including difficult reporting on victims of harassment and abuse. We are incredibly proud of Sarah’s work for The Verge, and we consider ourselves lucky to have gotten to know her as an excellent colleague, a formidable thinker, and a fine human being.

We have no doubt Sarah will continue to contribute thoughtful and rigorous reporting and analysis at the Times. She is an essential voice on technology and the internet, and we will all benefit from her continued work.
Sarah has done some of the best reporting I've seen in the last five years. The New York Times is lucky to have her. Fuck off with this bullshit.
  #3  
Old 08-04-2018, 06:30 AM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,453
I am not familiar with her work but I would need to read some of her own statements in context before I could form an opinion.

Of course, I haven't read the Times regularly in thirty years, so my opinion of who they hire is irrelevant.
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #4  
Old 08-04-2018, 06:57 AM
Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
Sarah has done some of the best reporting I've seen in the last five years. The New York Times is lucky to have her. Fuck off with this bullshit.
If an otherwise excellent journalist posted White Supremacist tweets, he'd be fired that very same day, regardless of the merits of his other work. I don't see why we should have a different standard just because the hatred is directed against Whites.

Last edited by Blalron; 08-04-2018 at 06:57 AM.
  #5  
Old 08-04-2018, 06:58 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
And she's a misandrist.
  #6  
Old 08-04-2018, 07:11 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
If an otherwise excellent journalist posted White Supremacist tweets, he'd be fired that very same day, regardless of the merits of his other work. I don't see why we should have a different standard just because the hatred is directed against Whites.
...she didn't post white supremacist tweets. You are being played.
  #7  
Old 08-04-2018, 07:50 AM
wintertime is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 972
Context matters. You can say something racist without being a racist. A parody of someone else's views, sarcasm and hyperbole are possible explanations; she might also have simply analyzed racist word bubbles, and they are now used in isolation to paint a perverted picture of the truth.

Of course, she might have also meant it.

I need to take a closer look but I will not condemn someone because someone else is making claims. We have enough of that already. More than enough.

I'd say the same if this was about a journalist accused of being a white supremacist.

Last edited by wintertime; 08-04-2018 at 07:54 AM.
  #8  
Old 08-04-2018, 07:59 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,741
I suspect that this is a ploy by conservatards to discredit the NY Times and perhaps to justify their own very real racism. Typical conservatard victimhood.
  #9  
Old 08-04-2018, 08:01 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
...

This is absolutely appalling. If a white person wrote identical tweets but replaced "white" with any other racial group like #cancelblackpeople, they would not be able to get a job at a major respected publication. They'd be relegated to fringe hate groups like Stormfront. Apparently bigotry is okay these days, as long as it's directed against white people.
Do you have any of her writing that isn't one sentence snips? It's early, and if I'm to be properly outraged I need context. I'm ready to be outraged, just point me in the right direction.
  #10  
Old 08-04-2018, 08:04 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
If an otherwise excellent journalist posted White Supremacist tweets, he'd be fired that very same day, regardless of the merits of his other work. I don't see why we should have a different standard just because the hatred is directed against Whites.
Sarah Jeong's tweets were not racist nor is she the mirror equivalent of a white supremacist. Andrew Sullivan is lying to you and you're buying his bullshit.
  #11  
Old 08-04-2018, 08:16 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...she didn't post white supremacist tweets. You are being played.
Some people enjoy being played, and they enjoy being outraged as well.

Sullivan is trolling, and he knows that the MAGAbots are going to go after the New York Times and the rest of the media. The right wing is increasingly brazen in its attacks on the free press, and right wing "journalists" are turning against their left wing colleagues in the media because they believe that they won't eventually suffer the consequences. What they're too stupid to understand is that authoritarianism doesn't necessarily have an ideology.
  #12  
Old 08-04-2018, 08:40 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I suspect...
Try reading some of her tweets.

Top of the Google search is http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/03/ny...op-men-tweets/ which has some nasty utterances. For instance

Quote:
"anyways my point is we should kill all men..."
and

Quote:
"...'kill all bad men' still kills all instances of men"
  #13  
Old 08-04-2018, 08:53 AM
Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Sarah Jeong's tweets were not racist
For those of us not familiar with her work, can you explain why these comments don't constitute racism? Because honestly it looks fucking damming to me.
  #14  
Old 08-04-2018, 08:58 AM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Some people enjoy being played, and they enjoy being outraged as well.

Sullivan is trolling, and he knows that the MAGAbots are going to go after the New York Times and the rest of the media. The right wing is increasingly brazen in its attacks on the free press, and right wing "journalists" are turning against their left wing colleagues in the media because they believe that they won't eventually suffer the consequences. What they're too stupid to understand is that authoritarianism doesn't necessarily have an ideology.
Yes, it is trolling. So don't take the bait. They are counting on the predictable reactions, exactly as trolled. Racism is racism, sexism is sexism, it is not a condition limited to white men. She either said these things or she didn't, and if she did say them they have to be in a context where this is clearly not her belief. Otherwise hold her to the same standard as anyone else making racist and/or sexist statements.
  #15  
Old 08-04-2018, 09:01 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,230
From this OP, I assumed you were some right wing party liner. But you don't seem to be.

So why the fuck would you take this article from a known conservative darling at face value? I'm not saying you have to take it as false, but you should at least go check and see the counterarguments.

All I just did was type her name into Google, and the top result is someone explaining the actual issue. This was an alt-right attack piece. She was sarcastically responding back to others.

Maybe you disagree. But your OP clearly indicates you are completely unaware of the actual topic. You just read this one guy's piece, and fell for outrage trolling.

Remember, the right accuses us of the things that they actually do.
  #16  
Old 08-04-2018, 09:02 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,965
After like two minutes of looking into this, it’s perfectly clear to me that she was throwing back racist insults that those who started throwing racist insults at her. That is a very different context than what has been implied so far, that she just kicks back at the end of a long day and writes shit about white genocide.

However - I’m not sure that this context totally exonerates her. We all say things in anger, but I just can’t imagine myself being baited into responding with racist insults. But that could be a product of me being a white dude. If a Kluxer corners a black person and starts yelling at them, calling them the n-word and whatnot, is it unreasonable for the black person to respond with racist insults as well? That’s a complex question.

But it’s clear that once again, a shit ton of Russian trolls are pushing this story. Literally. Just look at the twitter feeds and they are chockablock with new accounts with MAGA names and “walkaway836637” and so on. There’s clearly a lot of people being suckered by Putin here, even with the legitimate question underlying the controversy.
  #17  
Old 08-04-2018, 09:02 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,045
Well, the single sentences and the recently added sentence fragments I'm seeing here are starting to add up!
  #18  
Old 08-04-2018, 09:21 AM
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 31,645
Never having heard of Jeong, I just read a Vox article aimed at debunking the idea that she's a bigot who shouldn't be working at the Times.

Amid much handwaving and sidetracks into other incidents, it boils down to:

1) This is a campaign engineered by the Alt Right.

2) "Jeong’s tweets were, at best, mean to some white people, and were written in a context reasonably understood to be a sarcastic response to people who were perpetually harassing her on the basis of her gender and race.", i.e. They Did It Too.

3) We may all have "ill-advised detritus" floating around the Internet, so nobody cast the first stone.

Nothing to see here, move along.
  #19  
Old 08-04-2018, 09:22 AM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah Jeong
While it was intended as satire, I deeply regret that I mimicked the language of my harassers. These comments were not aimed at a general audience, because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns. I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context, and would not do it again.
I can accept that. It illustrates why trolls should be ignored, criticized as trolls, but not engaged.
  #20  
Old 08-04-2018, 09:24 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,804
Oh, here's a good one:

Back in 2014, Sullivan was still defending his role in having made the case for blacks having lower IQ than whites. Responding to criticism, he defended himself by saying he believed "anything can be examined and debated," so "I responded to the race and IQ controversy exactly as I would any other: put it all on the table and let the facts and arguments take us where they may."

Sarah Jeong tweeted back*:
Quote:
G O T T A H E A R B O T H S i d e s

-Andrew Sullivan
Then:
Quote:
Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins
Then:
Quote:
let's hear both sides
Then in the piece cited in the OP, Sullivan says:
Quote:
Or you could describe an entire race as subhuman: “Are white people genetically disposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”
He's accusing Jeong of racism on the basis of her parody of his race/IQ defense.

1) An absolutely impressive self-own by Sully; and

2) it calls into question whether he's bothered to check the context of any of the other tweets he cites, to see if anything equally absolving is going on in context.


*Actually, there's double spacing between the words in this tweet, but of course vBulletin dispensed with the extra spaces when I tried to include them.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 08-04-2018 at 09:27 AM.
  #21  
Old 08-04-2018, 09:47 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,851
That Vox article has one fabulous expression that I have to remember to yoink in the future : "performative outrage". Which is very much the MO of 4chan/the alt-right when they try, usually with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, to judo political correctness or accusations of racism and so on.
Thankfully, because these chucklefucks don't actually have the values they ostensibly profess to embrace and don't understand them in the least, it typically ends in self-pwnage to the point of unwitting parody.
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.
  #22  
Old 08-04-2018, 10:11 AM
minlokwat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Maryland, My Maryland!
Posts: 1,627
I’m not outraged but there does appear to be a double standard in play.

Jeong claims her tweets (and there is an exhaustive supply) were in the name of satire and she was firing right back at the trolls who have targeted her with their racist bile. But she never meant a word of any of it.

Viewing the tweets through that lens, I’m actually inclined to believe her.

That being said, I could see how someone can take umbrage to her statements -not due to the nature of being a delicate snowflake- but because of the apparent hypocrisy of the situation.

Trevor Noah can take heat from a joke from years ago despite his claim that it doesn’t reflect how he feels and that the joke was done in the name of comedy. Similarly Roseanne Barr loses her sitcom gig though she claimed -amongst other excuses- that her thought process was clouded due to a recent dose of Ambien.

I’m not calling for Jeong’s head and had never heard of her prior to the current uproar-du-jour. As to whether the Times wishes to keep her in their employ is their call and I care nary a whit.

All the same, this strikes me as a double standard in that when someone from our side does it, it can be easily brushed aside but when someone on the other side does the same, they are vile mother fuckers.
  #23  
Old 08-04-2018, 10:26 AM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Of course there's a fucking double standard at play. It this particular case, the two standards are:

The one owned by shitstains like Sully, aggro asshole trolls, and terrified fragile white people, particularly men...

...and the one owned by slightly-built women of color who experience astoundingly vile racist and misogynist bigotry on the daily.


This whole teapot-tempest is yet another attempt to silence a woman, to marginalize a POC, to desperately stab a finger in the dike holding back social equity before white men are no longer able to call every fucking shot in this country. Along the way, it's a fun way to continue to disparage and dismantle the press, the Left, and democracy. It's part and parcel of the rise of (White) authoritarianism in the US, and it's deeply saddening.
.

Last edited by andros; 08-04-2018 at 10:27 AM.
  #24  
Old 08-04-2018, 10:31 AM
Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,319
This doesn't seem to be an isolated case of her merely blowing off steam in frustration... that could be forgiven, if not condoned. These hateful tweets happened over a period of two years.

Last edited by Blalron; 08-04-2018 at 10:31 AM.
  #25  
Old 08-04-2018, 10:35 AM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,360
It seems to me that attacking the messengers as alt-right is a weak defense, unless the facts (albeit not the supporting narrative) are actually false. Better to just address the situation on its merits.

Her own words from the Vox article:
Quote:
While it was intended as satire, I deeply regret that I mimicked the language of my harassers. These comments were not aimed at a general audience, because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns. I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context, and would not do it again.
Twitter's a medium where comments are in a superposition of direct interaction and public statement. And in any written medium it can be difficult to recognize sarcasm or satire. Given the racist and misogynist baiting that she has certainly been exposed to, I can see how this happened. If she had refused to apologize I think it would be troubling. But she has apologized and acknowledged that it's really a poor idea to respond to baiting with generalizations that would constitute racial hate speech if directed toward any other race. I think that settles it for me. I think the idea that non-whites cannot be racist is wrong, but the harm is obviously asymmetric. It's not hypocritical that tolerance and standards are asymmetric.

The only hypocrisy I do see here is in the fact that context matters. That isn't a principle that I have seen consistently applied.

Last edited by Riemann; 08-04-2018 at 10:39 AM.
  #26  
Old 08-04-2018, 10:35 AM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I suspect that this is a ploy by conservatards to discredit the NY Times and perhaps to justify their own very real racism. Typical conservatard victimhood.
I haven't checked it out, but these days, your thoughts on this are well worth keeping in mind.
  #27  
Old 08-04-2018, 10:36 AM
Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
This doesn't seem to be an isolated case of her merely blowing off steam in frustration... that could be forgiven, if not condoned. These hateful tweets happened over a period of two years.
They're not hateful; they're satirical. Sullivan has carefully cherrypicked them to make it look like she's just randomly spouting off racism. In reality, she was replying sarcastically to people (including Sullivan) who were unironically making racist arguments, such as the age-old canard about black people being less intelligent.

You'd think a long-time member of this board would know sarcasm when he sees it, but that's conservatives for you.
  #28  
Old 08-04-2018, 10:38 AM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I can accept that. It illustrates why trolls should be ignored, criticized as trolls, but not engaged.
And there it is. She was being insulted and trolled and it pissed her off.

End of story.
  #29  
Old 08-04-2018, 10:43 AM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
This doesn't seem to be an isolated case of her merely blowing off steam in frustration... that could be forgiven, if not condoned. These hateful tweets happened over a period of two years.
"Angry" != "hateful."

She's sometimes angry. She has every right to be. She's not hateful. To portray her as such--to say that her words are unforgivable, forsooth!--is to dismiss and marginalize her, and that's far more contributory to harm than any of her tweets.
  #30  
Old 08-04-2018, 10:49 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 26,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
However - I’m not sure that this context totally exonerates her. We all say things in anger, but I just can’t imagine myself being baited into responding with racist insults. But that could be a product of me being a white dude. If a Kluxer corners a black person and starts yelling at them, calling them the n-word and whatnot, is it unreasonable for the black person to respond with racist insults as well?
And it sounds to me like Jeong herself might agree, based on some of her own words in the article BigT and Jackmannii linked to and Riemann quoted.
  #31  
Old 08-04-2018, 10:58 AM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,360
No doubt OP didn't realize at the time, but it's worth noting that the title of this thread is factually incorrect, since she has sincerely apologized.

Last edited by Riemann; 08-04-2018 at 10:58 AM.
  #32  
Old 08-04-2018, 11:10 AM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
No doubt OP didn't realize at the time, but it's worth noting that the title of this thread is factually incorrect, since she has sincerely apologized.
Butbutbut...not for being a RACIST!!!!!11!


...which she also patently is not. So that's two out of four claims in the thread title alone. At least she is a writer, and has been hired by the NYT. So, yanno, .500 is plenty enough to get into Cooperstown.
.

Last edited by andros; 08-04-2018 at 11:11 AM.
  #33  
Old 08-04-2018, 11:11 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,546
How much of this controversy is manufactured outrage and how much of it is typical rightie irony-impairment, that is, the inability of people to differentiate stupid stuff being said for effect to ridicule people who say stupid stuff for real and stupid stuff being said for real?
  #34  
Old 08-04-2018, 11:30 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
This doesn't seem to be an isolated case of her merely blowing off steam in frustration... that could be forgiven, if not condoned. These hateful tweets happened over a period of two years.
Look, I've passed on an example of a tweet of hers that, taken in isolation, looks racist as all get out.

And more to the point, it's one of the tweets where Sully did exactly that: he took it in isolation, and used it as an example of her anti-white hatred.

But once you see the context, it's quite the opposite. It's calling him out on an ethic of 'examine and debate anything' that gave him rein to 'debate' the controversy of how blacks supposedly are dumber than whites, and take an active role in promoting racism passed off as science by giving it a far more visible platform than it deserved.

And she exposed that fallacy by effectively asking if he'd be up to debating the notion that whites, being genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, are only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.

Anti-white hatred? No: a demonstration of how Andrew Sullivan is full of shit.

That was in 2014. And here in 2018, Andrew Sullivan proves that he is still full of shit by claiming that quote is evidence of racism and anti-white hate.

So IMHO, if you're still saying, look, there were whole bunches of these racist tweets, my answer is: name three. Then go back and find out what the conversation was that they were a part of. Once you're satisfied that those three are the real McCoy that shows what a racist she is, we'll look at 'em and see whether you did your due diligence or what. Because until recently, every tweet was 140 characters or less. They were rarely complete all by themselves, so they are incredibly easy to take out of context.

But Sully was full of shit then, and he's full of shit now. He's sloppy and can't be trusted. Do your own checking, and tell us how it goes. But if you're just going to take Sully at his word, it isn't worth anything, and arguments based on that aren't worth anything either.
  #35  
Old 08-04-2018, 11:42 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,804
Sully v. Jeong, summarized in one three-panel cartoon
  #36  
Old 08-04-2018, 11:52 AM
Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
They're not hateful; they're satirical. Sullivan has carefully cherrypicked them to make it look like she's just randomly spouting off racism. In reality, she was replying sarcastically to people (including Sullivan) who were unironically making racist arguments, such as the age-old canard about black people being less intelligent.
Here's where I differ from a lot of progressives (I am a Democrat, by the way). The mere recitation of statistics that show differences between groups is not, in and out itself, bigotry.

It would not be misandry to point out that Men are, on average, more violent than Women. It would be misandry to say "Fuck all men, they are only useful as sperm donors. I don't give a shit about their suffering, I love to bathe in male tears."
  #37  
Old 08-04-2018, 12:08 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Dude. Context matters.
  #38  
Old 08-04-2018, 12:11 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,696
Racism and sexism are wrong. And hypocrisy is wrong. I have no problem with anyone who attacks any of these things.

But I would ask Andrew Sullivan the same thing I ask other people who take a position similar to his: Have you consistently opposed racism and sexism? Have you consistently opposed hypocrisy?

Because Sarah Jeong may be a racist and a sexist (Sullivan presents some good evidence of this) and her supporters may be hypocrites if they tolerate her actions while condemning the similar actions of others. But if Sullivan only attacks non-white people for their racism while looking the other way when white people are racist, then he's also racist. If Sullivan only attacks women when they're sexist while looking the other way when men are sexist, then he's also a sexist. And if Sullivan only attacks his ideological opponents for their racism and sexism and hypocrisy while looking the other way when his ideological allies are racist or sexist or hypocritical, then he's also a hypocrite.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 08-04-2018 at 12:12 PM.
  #39  
Old 08-04-2018, 12:14 PM
Jeff Lichtman's Avatar
Jeff Lichtman is offline
Head Cheese
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: El Cerrito, CA
Posts: 4,320
The worst I can say about Sarah Jeong is that she let herself be played. She wrote some things that, taken out of context, could be used against her. This is always a risk when you parody your opposition, that those who are against you will quote your statements as if they represented your true beliefs rather than being an absurd version of your opponents' beliefs.

In today's world, all public figures are treated as if they were politicians. Everything you have ever said or written can be used against you, even if it means quoting things out of context, or worse, using selective editing to make it seem like you said something you really didn't. A dishonest person could easily do the same to Andrew Sullivan. For instance, he used to give out "awards" to people whose positions he found obnoxious or ridiculous, including an award to Hugh Hewitt for his calling Barack Obama treasonous, and to John Derbyshire for hateful things he said about gays, women, and minorities. It would be easy to take these awards out of context to make it seem like Sullivan actually approved of the people he was criticizing.

I do find it ridiculous that Andrew Sullivan is criticizing anyone for supposed racism after his support of that masterpiece of pseudoscientific racism, The Bell Curve.
__________________
'Tis a pity that I have no gravy to put upon Uncle Hymie.
  #40  
Old 08-04-2018, 12:18 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
So that's two out of four claims in the thread title alone. At least she is a writer, and has been hired by the NYT. So, yanno, .500 is plenty enough to get into Cooperstown.
We've been assured by reliable credible loud sources that the New York Times is "fake". Therefore we need to drop the thread title's accuracy down to .400.
  #41  
Old 08-04-2018, 12:20 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,843
Quote:
..."Fuck all men, they are only useful as sperm donors. I don't give a shit about their suffering, I love to bathe in male tears."...
Wait a tick. Does this mean they leave us alone except for random snoos-snoos? We don't have to try and figure out how we screwed up? Spend our time fishing and drinking beer?

Not saying this is a good idea, or anything, just that we should listen with an open mind.

Last edited by elucidator; 08-04-2018 at 12:22 PM.
  #42  
Old 08-04-2018, 12:23 PM
you with the face is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 12,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
Here's where I differ from a lot of progressives (I am a Democrat, by the way). The mere recitation of statistics that show differences between groups is not, in and out itself, bigotry.
She’s was pointing out the absurdity in suggesting that we are somehow obligated to entertain “all sides” of an issue. No we aren’t obligated to do that, and this idea seems to only be suggested when it comes to minorities. Hence, her rejoinder about white people.

Ironically, Sullivan is the one who says her rejoinder is racist against whites, even though in structure it mirror the idea he put forth about blacks. So the question is why does her comment make her a bigot while his does not?
  #43  
Old 08-04-2018, 12:25 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,843
This is probably the most attention Andrew S. has gotten in ten years. He should send her some roses. Ammo. Whatever.
  #44  
Old 08-04-2018, 12:34 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Because Sarah Jeong may be a racist and a sexist (Sullivan presents some good evidence of this)...
Point of order: Sullivan presents some (weak, imo) evidence (without context, and in order to score some sort of points, imo) that she has said racist and/or misandrist things.

While I realize that likely means, in Sully's mind and to his audience, that she perforce is "a racist" and "a sexist," I would argue that one ought never ascribe to malice what may be better ascribed to ignorance, youth, anger, frustration, or any other idiocy.

IOW, "saying racist things" does not necessarily mean one is "a racist" in absence of context.
.
  #45  
Old 08-04-2018, 01:16 PM
Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,319
Here's a Twitter thread full of screen caps. Jesus Christ, it's worse than I thought. She's posted literally hundreds of bigoted tweets. A few more gems:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah Jeong
Time to lose more followers. Breaking Bad is a regressive gimmick, a parade of overwrought white male misery
Quote:
Every time I feel like defending white feminists they write things that make me laugh so hard I forget what it was I wanted to say
Quote:
@noahmccormack Staffing will cost 1.2 million a year, and studies indicate cameras have no effect on crime. tl;dr white ppl are fucking dumb
Quote:
white people are gross
Quote:
apparently a readership of derps

sorry I meant defensive white men
Quote:
the world would get by just fine with zero white ppl
Quote:
white people feelings are like greenhouse gases, if white people have too many feels ice caps will melt and polar bears will die
Quote:
Let’s fund a study on whether killing all the white people would make black people safer
Quote:
oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men
Starting to see pattern here? I'm not sure how "context" could make any of these tweets okay but I'm open to being persuaded.
  #46  
Old 08-04-2018, 01:24 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
Starting to see pattern here?
I sure am, snowflake.
  #47  
Old 08-04-2018, 01:27 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,870
Quote:
the world would get by just fine with zero white ppl
Well, yeah.... Ppl in general could vanish and the planet would continue merrily spinning.
  #48  
Old 08-04-2018, 01:27 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
Here's a Twitter thread full of screen caps. Jesus Christ, it's worse than I thought. She's posted literally hundreds of bigoted tweets. A few more gems:

Starting to see pattern here? I'm not sure how "context" could make any of these tweets okay but I'm open to being persuaded.
Of course you can't see how context would change the nature of these tweets, as you have removed them from the context so that you are not able to see how the context would change the nature of these tweets.
  #49  
Old 08-04-2018, 01:28 PM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
Here's a Twitter thread full of screen caps. Jesus Christ, it's worse than I thought. She's posted literally hundreds of bigoted tweets. A few more gems:



Starting to see pattern here? I'm not sure how "context" could make any of these tweets okay but I'm open to being persuaded.
I'm having a hard time getting offended by this. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow.
  #50  
Old 08-04-2018, 01:39 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
Starting to see pattern here? I'm not sure how "context" could make any of these tweets okay but I'm open to being persuaded.
Again, I don’t know the context of all those tweets, but a few of them I became familiar with today.

But I have a serious question: let’s say a white supremacist is yelling at a black man, all sorts of vile stuff. If the black man responds with something vile himself, do you believe the black man should be presumed to be a racist in that context?

I think that may be the heart of the matter here. And I strongly suspect that the image you see was created by white nationalists or Russian trolls, given what I’ve seen this morning.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017