New York Times hires unapologetic racist writer

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:

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.

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.

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.

And she’s a misandrist.

…she didn’t post white supremacist tweets. You are being played.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Try reading some of her tweets.

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

and

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, the single sentences and the recently added sentence fragments I’m seeing here are starting to add up!

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. :dubious:

I can accept that. It illustrates why trolls should be ignored, criticized as trolls, but not engaged.

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*:

Then:

Then:

Then in the piece cited in the OP, Sullivan says:

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.