We’re not arguing about the timing of the actions and that they’re good now, but of the hypocrisy of the NYT in their approach. Because it’s pretty apparent that even if what you’re saying is correct, I am highly skeptical that the NYT would have had the same understanding to another newly hired editor who was White and had made similar comments of another ethnicity in the exact same circumstances, that they would of have had with Sarah Jeong, they would of fired them right away, which has already happened before.
He did, you twit. What do you think everything besides his first sentence was talking about?
Peterson and Hitler equated? we saw it here first. I suspect you’ve read nothing that either of them has written (or the most charitable interpretation is that you’ve understood nothing that either has written)
It’s quite difficult to understand something if you spend the whole time looking over your shoulder to see who’s watching.
Ugh.
Sure, and the point is about oppression, power relationships and history. But then there’s a burden on the academics who choose to modify definitions to suit their thesis to ensure that their ideas are not misunderstood or misrepresented. Is everyone on the Left prepared to stipulate that under a colloquial definition of racism - which includes disparaging people as members of a monolithic class, holding them to be collectively inferior or guilty, rather than treating them as individual human beings on their merits - then there can be racism against any racial class, regardless of the power relationship? And that it’s harmfully divisive and always wrong in principle, even if the degree of harm is not always the same? Apparently not, and I find that deeply disturbing.
I don’t really buy that these tweets are just a big response or satirical take on some racist trolls, it’s not just her tweets, this woman clearly has some fixation on blaming white men for everything. But if the NYT wants to keep her employed that’s their problem:
This is an excerpt of some speech she gave at Harvard Law??? Not sure but it’s not a tweet, it’s her own words. I’m sure there’s some point she was trying to make but that statement just makes her look like a dumbass.
They just don’t relate to the problems faced by white men. Like trying to get a good job when all the major employers are dominated by blacks, latinos, and women.
There’s nothing complicated about this. Reading her articles it’s quite evident the woman doesn’t like white people. OK, that’s her prerogative. But the point is would a white writer who didn’t like black people be employed by the NYT? Just replace the word white in her statements by black and then tell me if that would fly with the Times. It’s BS and those defending this should be ashamed of themselves, but of course none so blind as those who will not see.
In the sections I quoted they pretty clearly did do that. They pointedly said that anti-white prejudice certainly exists but it’s not the same as the systematic and effective prejudice against blacks which is what they consider “racism”.
If you are seriously disputing the claim that everything in our society is implicitly organized around how white men see the world, it’s not her that looks like a dumbass.
Oh, not at all. I fully recognize that. I think that’s a stupid definition of racism that in no way matches the way we use the word “racism” in real life. But fine, change “racism” for “prejudice” and the National Review article is still pretty accurate.
Read the post fast the first line and don’t commit the fallacy of trashing it merely because you were too fucking lazy to read.
Here’s a possible explanation: the Times learned from their mistake and didn’t make it again.
Oh come on. Even the fucking National Review article acknowledges that these two things are not the same.
There is a grocery store near me that caters to Orientals, that offers snacks, best egg rolls evah for 75 cents apiece. Nummers! So, I’m there as frequently I am, and everybody is busy back in the kitchen, so I wait patiently. An oriental lady shopping notices me and points out helpfully that there is a bell on the counter.
“Can’t do that, its just too white.”
“I’ll do it for you, if that will help.”
We shared a pleasant chuckle, and parted ways. Each having made a new friend we most likely will never see again. A day was made.
You misunderstand me. I have no quibble with what that academic wrote as you quoted it. My point was that I think many others on the Left are misrepresenting these ideas. If an academic excludes anti-white prejudice from his narrower redefinition of racism in order to present the thesis that anti-white racism does not exist, it pretty easy to see how that gets misunderstood or misrepresented.
Is this a scene from a 1950s screenplay? Too subtle for me.
No, that is just a rhetoric game, and typically that is labeled bias.
The belief in the superiority of one race over another, or discrimination are typically what is meant by racism in the press and in almost all published papers.
It is only the people who either build a straw-man saying that all implicit bias must be remove or those who believe in a post-racial myth that use it ‘racism’ to describe implicit or explicit bias.
“White men are bullshit” is not saying that white men are inferior nor is it codifying laws or using violence against white men purely because of the fact they are white men.
Implicit social cognition or implicit bias will always be with us and we need to take active steps as individuals to improve our own interactions.
Racial prejudice is not a moral high ground, but it is not racism. While it gets hand waved away understanding the difference between prejudice and racism is critical here.
Outside of political motivations there is little or no reason outside of ignorance to relabel prejudice as racism.
As I live on the west coast, the rest of you Americans are orientals to me /sarcasm
I think he meant that the store has a lot of Oriental rugs for sale. He couldn’t possibly be using that term to describe Asian people, because that’s racist.
Really, I think this is pretty weak. I’ve been perfectly clear throughout (to the point of tedium) that I don’t think Jeong is oppressing anyone, and that the harm of her satirical rhetoric is not remotely comparable to true racism or misogyny. Yet the moment I fail to include the explicit disclaimer, the same old straw man is trotted out.
If we’re so far down the rabbit hole that we can’t agree that fuck-white-people rhetoric is divisive and counterproductive, that fuck-any-class-of-people is wrong in principle regardless of the degree of harm or the power relationship, then I don’t think the cognitive or semantic failure is on my part.