New York Times hires unapologetic racist writer

[BigT]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Because missing the context of one tweet aside, it’s a really good take, one that nearly perfectly mirrors my own.

They’re all trying to either excuse it or explain why it isn’t problematic. And the NRO article takes aim squarely at that opinion - an opinion that is indisputably very common in left-wing circles.

Why I teach a course called ‘White Racism’
Dear White People, Please Stop Pretending Reverse Racism Is Real
Casual Reminder: There's No Such Thing As Reverse Racism | Complex

And so on and so forth. Within leftist and progressive circles, the belief that you cannot be racist towards white people is quite wide-spread.

No, it’s not a good take. It’s rhetoric. It subtly shifts its point throughout. It uses the snowball technique I’ve mentioned before where a small thing (there are some small number of people who argue that Sarah Jeong’s posts are not actually racist) and leads to the conclusion that “[we are] really so far gone that we can’t condemn taking ‘joy’ in being ‘cruel’ to another person on the basis of their race[.]”

No one has made this argument. No one has argued that it’s okay to take joy in being cruel to someone based on their race alone. But that is what the article concludes is where we are–and, by “we” it means liberals. It does not back this up. It lets that little truth snowball into a large position by the end of the article.

I do not challenge the existence of people on the left who believe that racism against white people is impossible. I do challenge the idea that there is some widespread problem of people thinking cruelty against white people is okay. That’s alt-right rhetoric that does not match reality.

And that, as the conclusion, is the point of the article.

[BigT]

Oh, and don’t think I didn’t notice the subtle shift from proving that some libersl said these things about Sarah Jeong to proof of the existence of people who argue racism against white people isn’t a thing.

Nor that I don’t notice that they have a point–one that Riemann had made, and why I thought I agreed with him until he quoted that turd of an article as if it had value.

[rat_avatar]

@Ludovic

No, I didn’t. I was providing evidence that the socially-imposed race of my harassers was important to them, not to me. I’ve been trying lately to always add the caveat that race doesn’t exist - which it doesn’t - even though it always makes posts a lot longer. If someone who says “fuck white people” can be written off as really meaning “a lot of people viewed as white behave pretty bad right?” then I don’t see how shortening an observation when the vast majority of people will understand you is not also acceptable. But if you’d like I can start exclusively using the terms “people categorized by society as ‘white’ even though race doesn’t actually exist” and “people categorized by society as ‘black’ even though race doesn’t actually exist” if you’d like. It wouldn’t be a big issue for me because I rarely feel the need to mention perceived race.

Race exists, it is just a social construct and not biological. The claim that it doesn’t exist is a white privilege. (note everyone has privileges, but this one is reserved for white people)

Note Money is also a social construct which dramatically impacts peoples lives.

Everyone Keeps Talking About Implicit Racial Bias But What Is It?

But ya…still curious that you always get beet up in black neighborhoods because race is important to them…that cognitive dissonance must be painful.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Novelty_Bobble

Utterly pitiful. In so many other threads you are happy to respond point by point.

…lol.

Here…you’ve got nothing and I can only assume that it is because you can’t summon the courage to challenge your thinking.

ME: I would never watch an Adam Sandler film.

NOT AN ADAM SANDLER FANBOY: No, I’m not massively familiar with him but what I have heard has led me to like a lot of the movies he has made, just as I’m sure you do, and I disagree with a lot that he made. I’m not a fanboy though, I’m not 14. I am a huge fan of the late Charlie Chaplin and still manage to not laugh at all his jokes. He is bang-on regarding the “lovable nitwit” though, not that it seems to interest you much.

You seem to dismiss everything Sandler has starred in (or, by implication, will star) without a second thought. What a close-minded knee-jerk reaction. What has he specifically done that has made you dismiss everything he has or will ever be in?

Direct scenes please, not your interpretation. (One thing I did see was Punch Drunk Love. That one was pretty good)

ME: What the fuck?

I have no knowledge about them and I don’t pronounce on subjects that I don’t know enough about.

So who are they? and in what way are they in the same bracket as Hitler and Peterson? It is entirely possible that, through my ignorance, I have misunderstood your paragraph completely and if so I will apologise for my flippant response.

Of course you very much did put the value of all their pronouncements on an equal footing though didn’t you?. I might ask you why you put Hitler in there. You made that conscious decision. I’m assuming those other two people/groups/things are not genocidal racist maniacs hell bent on world domination are they? Or am I wrong and was Peterson actually the odd one out?

You chose to include Hitler for your own rhetorical purposes (something of a “scorched-earth” approach but hey-ho). Don’t get snippy when it makes your points look ridiculous.

You don’t know what incel’s are?

You don’t know what the phrase “ethics in games journalism” means?

You don’t know why I use “goobergater” instead of “g#$#gater”?

But you are insisting I provide direct quotes from Jordan Peterson? As if I’ve besmirched his honour?

Fuck off.

Do your own fucking research for fucks sakes. I could have chosen any example of things that I wouldn’t ever read or watch. They are in the same “bracket” because the bracket happened to be “things that I wouldn’t read or watch.” I just happened to have chosen Peterson. There are a hundred of other things I could have chosen. Its hilarious that you think I’m actually invested in this and its hilarious to watch your over-reaction.

Directed at me of course, you sir, are an intellectual minnow and a coward.

Of course it was directed at you.

And you are still going lol.

[rat_avatar]

While George Washington was an imperfect human, I do wish that patriots had chosen his beliefs and not those of the eugenicists to follow.

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. – George Washington, Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island

Had history allowed us to follow his word we wouldn’t be in the situation we are in today.

Yet those on the right will claim that this is communism. Unfortunately Samuel Johnson seems to have better captured human nature “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

[octopus]

@rat_avatar

Did you ever consider that they were just a group of assholes who happened to be black before you assigned this behavior to an entire group of people?

I was once attacked by a group of drunken Canadians with hockey sticks because they didn’t like I was on a bicycle. I never once blamed white people or Canadians as a whole.

This is an example of prejudice, where you just sold an entire group of people as being evil and violent because of a difference in melanin. If you don’t see why this is a problem I suggest you do some looking inward and maybe some reading.

You aren’t actually reading what you quote are you?

[Quint]

@Banquet_Bear

…lol.

ME: I would never watch an Adam Sandler film.

NOT AN ADAM SANDLER FANBOY: No, I’m not massively familiar with him but what I have heard has led me to like a lot of the movies he has made, just as I’m sure you do, and I disagree with a lot that he made. I’m not a fanboy though, I’m not 14. I am a huge fan of the late Charlie Chaplin and still manage to not laugh at all his jokes. He is bang-on regarding the “lovable nitwit” though, not that it seems to interest you much.

You seem to dismiss everything Sandler has starred in (or, by implication, will star) without a second thought. What a close-minded knee-jerk reaction. What has he specifically done that has made you dismiss everything he has or will ever be in?

Direct scenes please, not your interpretation. (One thing I did see was Punch Drunk Love. That one was pretty good)

ME: What the fuck?

You don’t know what incel’s are?

You don’t know what the phrase “ethics in games journalism” means?

You don’t know why I use “goobergater” instead of “g#$#gater”?

But you are insisting I provide direct quotes from Jordan Peterson? As if I’ve besmirched his honour?

Fuck off.

Do your own fucking research for fucks sakes. I could have chosen any example of things that I wouldn’t ever read or watch. They are in the same “bracket” because the bracket happened to be “things that I wouldn’t read or watch.” I just happened to have chosen Peterson. There are a hundred of other things I could have chosen. Its hilarious that you think I’m actually invested in this and its hilarious to watch your over-reaction.

Of course it was directed at you.

And you are still going lol.

Someone here is obsessed with Jordon Petersen, I’m just not sure it is who you think it is.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Quint

Someone here is obsessed with Jordon Petersen, I’m just not sure it is who you think it is.

…lol.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Banquet_Bear

ME: I would never watch an Adam Sandler film.

NOT AN ADAM SANDLER FANBOY: No, I’m not massively familiar with him but what I have heard has led me to like a lot of the movies he has made, just as I’m sure you do, and I disagree with a lot that he made. I’m not a fanboy though, I’m not 14. I am a huge fan of the late Charlie Chaplin and still manage to not laugh at all his jokes. He is bang-on regarding the “lovable nitwit” though, not that it seems to interest you much.

You seem to dismiss everything Sandler has starred in (or, by implication, will star) without a second thought. What a close-minded knee-jerk reaction. What has he specifically done that has made you dismiss everything he has or will ever be in?

Direct scenes please, not your interpretation. (One thing I did see was Punch Drunk Love. That one was pretty good)

ME: What the fuck?

Whatever point you think you are making, you aren’t.

You don’t know what incel’s are?

You don’t know what the phrase “ethics in games journalism” means?

You don’t know why I use “goobergater” instead of “g#$#gater”?

But you are insisting I provide direct quotes from Jordan Peterson? As if I’ve besmirched his honour?

Fuck off.

Do your own fucking research for fucks sakes. I could have chosen any example of things that I wouldn’t ever read or watch. They are in the same “bracket” because the bracket happened to be “things that I wouldn’t read or watch.” I just happened to have chosen Peterson. There are a hundred of other things I could have chosen. Its hilarious that you think I’m actually invested in this and its hilarious to watch your over-reaction.

Indeed there were a hundred things you could have chosen and you chose Jordan Peterson and Hitler as two of them. I pointed out how that was ridiculous it was and you’ve doubled down.
You clearly think I’m some fan of his. I’m not. He has problematic views but he also makes some important and lucid points that are relevant and accurate.
I just think you are an idiot for dismissing everything a person says out of hand and are scared of examining the things that they say because of the horror of having to agree with some of it.

[Riemann]

@BigT

No, it’s not a good take. It’s rhetoric. It subtly shifts its point throughout. It uses the snowball technique I’ve mentioned before where a small thing (there are some small number of people who argue that Sarah Jeong’s posts are not actually racist) and leads to the conclusion that “[we are] really so far gone that we can’t condemn taking ‘joy’ in being ‘cruel’ to another person on the basis of their race[.]”

No one has made this argument. No one has argued that it’s okay to take joy in being cruel to someone based on their race alone. But that is what the article concludes is where we are–and, by “we” it means liberals. It does not back this up. It lets that little truth snowball into a large position by the end of the article.

I do not challenge the existence of people on the left who believe that racism against white people is impossible. I do challenge the idea that there is some widespread problem of people thinking cruelty against white people is okay. That’s alt-right rhetoric that does not match reality.

And that, as the conclusion, is the point of the article.

[ my bold ]

This is what he’s referencing:

@Sarah Jeong

Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.

I think you’re wrong about the structure of the article when you claim that he’s somehow building to this as the [manufactured] crux of his thesis. He started with Jeong, made his core arguments of principle in the middle, and just circled back to reference the words of a Jeong tweet as a coda.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@octopus

You aren’t actually reading what you quote are you?

@octopus

Debate the link on the merits of the content and argument and don’t commit the fallacy of trashing it merely because it’s from a source you do not like.

You’re boring.

[MrDibble]

@Riemann

This is what he’s referencing

I don’t see how that’s a reference to “race alone”…

[Riemann]

@MrDibble

I don’t see how that’s a reference to “race alone”…

And the word “alone” is not in the French article either, that’s just BigT.

I don’t want to get dragged into dissecting every nuance in Jeong’s tweets. I don’t think anything much depends on that - it’s satirical rhetoric, some well done and some nasty and grating. To the extent it matters, I personally think “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men” is one where she gets the satire on the mark, it doesn’t read to me as a sweeping fuck-all-white-people like some of the others.

My comment to BigT was to opine that I think his read on the structure of the French article was incorrect, not to argue the merits of this particular tweet one way or the other.

[Riemann]

Iona Italia.

Hating Whites Online: Sarah Jeong’s Tweets and Anti-White Racism - Areo

An extract:

Some are also arguing that Jeong and others don’t actually hate white people. By making statements like the one quoted at the beginning of this essay, they are simply signaling their membership of the social justice left. I can believe this, especially given that so many of those spouting anti-white rhetoric are themselves white. It’s become part of the in-group code. Some defend statements like “Cancel White People” as all just a joke, a bit of harmless fun. These arguments are very similar to those made by the alt/far right, who often claim that their SS costumes are just cosplay; their gas the Jews jokes and oven memes are just for amusement. They’re simply trolling; they’re not sincere.

I am unconvinced in both cases. A statement that someone sincerely racist would have been just as likely to make in exactly the same tone, manner and context is probably not a joke (jokes rely on comic hyperbole, irony, and incongruity). If you simply make repeated statements like “white people are scum,” you can reasonably expect people to take you at your word, just as you can if you assert that “Jews control the media.” Trying to wriggle out of responsibility afterwards by claiming you were actually joking is disingenuous and unpersuasive. This kind of trolling also muddies the issues, debases political discourse, and makes the left appear untrustworthy.

I often hear that people who object to this kind of rhetoric are just “triggered white people” who have had their “feelings hurt.” This is the left-wing mirror image of the right’s tendency to say outrageous things simply to “trigger the libs.” It’s facile attention seeking and it’s a bogus rebuke anyway. People’s feelings are often hurt if you tell them you hate all their kind. That’s normal. Making racist statements in order simply to hurt people’s feelings is not something to be proud of: it’s the act of a bully. This argument is also a gross oversimplification. Many of those spouting anti-white rhetoric are white people themselves and many of those annoyed, frustrated, or offended by it are people of color. Anyone with integrity opposes racism—no matter whom that racism is directed against.

For the record, I am mixed race. I don’t fit into a neat white versus non-white dichotomy. I won’t join in with performative racism of any kind. I won’t endorse trolling. I won’t provide cover for bullies or spout racist slogans about any group. I will continue to speak out, loud and clear, in favor of a universal liberal humanist approach, in which a person’s worth is not determined by their skin color. I know I’m not alone in this.

[Chisquirrel]

@Ludovic

What the fuck, man, are you trolling me? Only white dudes can have that happen to them? Do you consider me daft? Everyone can be the target of racism.

You put that argument forth against a level playing field. I’m just trying to clarify what you meant.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Novelty_Bobble

Whatever point you think you are making, you aren’t.

…the point is for someone who claims they aren’t a Peterson fanboy you are helluva invested in demanding I answer your questions about him. You do realize now how ridiculous your demands were?

Indeed there were a hundred things you could have chosen and you chose Jordan Peterson and Hitler as two of them. I pointed out how that was ridiculous it was and you’ve doubled down.

Doubled down on what?

I mean seriously: what have I doubled down on?

I wouldn’t watch Peterson. I wouldn’t read Hitler. I won’t listen to gamergoobers. I won’t watch Adam Sandler movies. (Although Punch Drunk Love was actually good.) I won’t drink pina coladas by the the dunes of the cape. I won’t stay at the Hotel California because last time they said I could check out any time I liked, but I found out I could never leave.

Do you want a comprehensive list of things I refuse to watch and do?

What was ridiculous about the four examples I chose? Why are you continuing to ignore the incels and the goobers?

You clearly think I’m some fan of his. I’m not. He has problematic views but he also makes some important and lucid points that are relevant and accurate.

That you think he has made important and lucid points that are accurate and relevant says very little about Jordan Peterson but says everything we need to know about you.

I just think you are an idiot for dismissing everything a person says out of hand

And this is your fucking mistake.

You don’t know me, you don’t know what research I’ve done, you don’t know my history.

I’ve done my due fucking diligence on Peterson. I’ve done a fuck more than you’ve ever done. I don’t have to prove my bonafides to you. But I’ve made it my business to know what the alt-right have been up to ever since the rise of the goobers back in 2014.

So don’t fucking come here and lecture me. Just because I choose not to indulge you in this particular thread does not mean I don’t know what I’m fucking talking about. I’ve done my research. I’ve done my due diligence. I said "I wouldn’t read anything written by Jordan Peterson. That doesn’t mean that I haven’t read his work in the past, or that I haven’t watched his work on youtube. I have. I’ve watched them critically and with purpose and yes I’ve read actual direct quotes.

But I don’t need to prove that to you. So just fuck off with this bullshit. I simply used Peterson as an example of someone I won’t read. It wasn’t intended to inspire debate. Out of all the things I’ve said in this thread that really honest-to-goodness was the thing that I thought anybody would give a fuck about. Why the fuck do you care what I read or I don’t? Why are you so invested in the fact that I won’t read Peterson that you won’t let this go?

If I had of known you would be so obsessed with this I wouldn’t have used it. But how was I to know you had so little self-control?

and are scared of examining the things that they say because of the horror of having to agree with some of it.

You are fucking pathetic.

[Riemann]

I am amused at how butthurt you are here:

@Banquet_Bear

…You don’t know me, you don’t know what research I’ve done, you don’t know my history.

I’ve done my due fucking diligence on Peterson. I’ve done a fuck more than you’ve ever done. I don’t have to prove my bonafides to you. But I’ve made it my business to know what the alt-right have been up to ever since the rise of the goobers back in 2014.

So don’t fucking come here and lecture me. Just because I choose not to indulge you in this particular thread does not mean I don’t know what I’m fucking talking about. I’ve done my research. I’ve done my due diligence. I said "I wouldn’t read anything written by Jordan Peterson. That doesn’t mean that I haven’t read his work in the past, or that I haven’t watched his work on youtube. I have…

May I take this opportunity to remind you that about the third thing you said to me earlier in this thread, when you really had no idea whatsoever who I am, was:

@Banquet_Bear

…you cited micro-aggression’s. Why did you cite micro-aggression’s? Was it because you didn’t understand what the word meant and you cited it to make yourself look smart?

At least Novelty Bobble was relying on your own pathetic claim that you won’t read the ideas of people who don’t meet your criterion of signaling ideological purity. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that it turns out that isn’t true. Have you tried putting a Jordan Peterson book inside the cover of a comic book, so your friends can’t see what you’re reading?

[Banquet_Bear]

@Riemann

I am amused at how butthurt you are here:

…I’m not butthurt at all.

May I take this opportunity to remind you that about the third thing you said to me earlier in this thread, when you really had no idea whatsoever who I am, was:

You never actually got around to explaining why you chose to cite microaggressions.

And do you remember what I did?

I let the matter drop.

Did you notice that Novelty Bobble won’t let the matter drop?

At least Novelty Bobble was relying on your own pathetic claim that you won’t read the ideas of people who don’t meet your criterion of signaling ideological purity.

That wasn’t my claim you fucking liar.

I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that it turns out that isn’t true. Have you tried putting a Jordan Peterson book inside the cover of a comic book, so your friends can’t see what you’re reading?

Why would I choose to do that?

[Riemann]

@Banquet_Bear

…I’m not butthurt at all.

Oh, great! My mistake.

@Banquet_Bear

…you fucking liar.

Hmm. Are you sure you’re not butthurt? I’m starting to get suspicious again.

@Banquet_Bear

I let the matter drop.

You unilaterally lowered the level of discourse to the basement, but then let the matter drop. Good for you! Claim that moral high ground.

[wintertime]

@Banquet_Bear

(…)
(…)
I simply used Peterson as an example of someone I won’t read. It wasn’t intended to inspire debate. Out of all the things I’ve said in this thread that really honest-to-goodness was the thing that I thought anybody would give a fuck about. Why the fuck do you care what I read or I don’t? Why are you so invested in the fact that I won’t read Peterson that you won’t let this go?

Frankly, you have made me curious as well by now. I haven’t followed anything related to Peterson closely, but I was involved in a couple of discussions about his historical views, and so I read and watched the relevant material. Though given his list of publications and the volume of available lectures, I might have missed something important - you see, your claim is not one I’d make without extensive studies.

And since I’m not an expert in psychology, I’d not even make this claim if I had read it all - though I’d still feel competent to check his statistical work for proper methodology and math.

So, I do wonder why you seem to be so confident in your assertion? Of course, you don’t have to tell me or anyone else. But you shouldn’t be surprised that you meet some incredulity.