You can’t say that unless you believe that this country belongs to white people and everyone else is here just at white people’s whim.
She’s not going to “go back” because there’s no going back. She’s an American, and this country belongs to her, no less than it belongs to any single white person. And she gets the right to say whatever she wants in her efforts to make it, in her view, better than it is now.
What point do you think you are you making by saying this? Fighting for equality in America is a thing we Americans have the right to do. And we get to do that regardless of what it’s like anywhere else.
Yes, there are some shitty things about human nature. One of the purposes of civilization—maybe the purpose—is to fight those shitty things and promote the good things.
These two posts of yours basically reveal that white supremacism is at the base of your assumptions about the world. You’re part of the problem, and you need to start fixing yourself.
One thing he brought up was the mainstreaming of Jeong and, of all people, Ta-Nehsi Coates.
Seriously, I’ve heard some really fucking weird guilt by associations before, but that one’s probably a new low.
Blalron, if you insist that you’re actually just a “concerned liberal”, maybe it would be nice if you didn’t push evidence-free right-wing bullshit. There is nobody “spitting in the face” of white voters. There are a whole lot of people who would like to take a handful of context-free incidents and pretend that that’s the case, precisely because they want the reaction you’ve presented.
Very well said, and it is exacerbated by demographic change. I recall reading a political science research finding that the states where whites are most likely to vote Republican are those where the percentage of African Americans is highest. Thus Mississippi can be overwhelmingly red even though it has a huge black population. If we don’t manage this transition carefully, the same could happen in the country as a whole, which would be a disaster.
No, this never happened. You are, again, confusing me with another poster or just outright peddling falsehoods. You still think these are accurate characterizations of anything I said? Then cite the quotes from my posts. Put up or shut the fuck up.
I’ve never seen this date used (as opposed to 1964, 1965, or 1967). Care to explain?
:dubious: If being “white” is all in someone’s mind, why don’t POC end racism by just mentally positioning themselves white also, thus negating any possibility of racial discrimination?
Who are you addressing this to? I don’t think anyone missed that. And it’s certainly a duious stance, to oppose immigration and demographic change in a country where white people (if you now accept they exist? You’re hard to keep track of) stole the land from nonwhite native peoples only a few generations ago. Which is not, however, to say there should be open borders or no standards at all for immigration.
In a country like France, Norway, or Japan, it is a much more tenable position IMO to oppose virtually all immigration and demographic change.
Occasionally you do make a good point. (And BTW, I would certainly be in favor of their losing any benefit they get from the federal government, such as subsidized student loans.)
This is all true, but the smart response to these tactics is to stop giving them ammunition, rather than impotently whining that they are being unfair meanies or doubling down on the maligning of white people.
And I’ve seen plenty of examples of people on Twitter talking shit about straight white men (as an undifferentiated group) without it being a response to an attack.
One thing he brought up was the mainstreaming of Jeong and, of all people, Ta-Nehsi Coates.
Seriously, I’ve heard some really fucking weird guilt by associations before, but that one’s probably a new low.
Blalron, if you insist that you’re actually just a “concerned liberal”, maybe it would be nice if you didn’t push evidence-free right-wing bullshit. There is nobody “spitting in the face” of white voters. There are a whole lot of people who would like to take a handful of context-free incidents and pretend that that’s the case, precisely because they want the reaction you’ve presented.
Why does TNC rate this “of all people” verbiage? I’m honestly perplexed by this. Even if you love him, do you seriously not pick up that he is constantly positing that the U.S. is a bullshit country not only founded on white supremacy, but which will be fundamentally based on white supremacy for as long as any of us are alive, and then some? Or do you not see that as an inflammatory message? I’m genuinely puzzled by this reaction.
It would be disingenuous for you to make the assumption that I am talking about all white people, when I specifically was talking about the people attacking her.
My point is that you are taking the bully’s side, not that everyone is a bully.
Sure. So demonstrate that there is a general discourse that has a binding effect on the actions that companies take.
Right, and in that meeting, showing that he was completely oblivious to how hurtful that word could be by using it.
Because I don’t agree with your conclusions. You can keep repeating your conclusion, all that crap you wrote after “so”, but that doesn’t make it any better or convincing. I understand what you are saying, I just don’t agree with it.
You just stated exactly what the threat was. You even personalized it from being upset with people who react to racist attacks with unwise language to people who try to put that into context for you. Not just a threat to her, but to anyone who would associate with her, anyone that would dare to consider her side of the story.
What did Valerie say to Rosanne to justify Rosanne’s tweet?
Right, you’ve asked and asked and asked why two people who worked for two different companies, in two completely different industries, who did entirely different things were not treated exactly the same.
That you haven’t gotten an answer that you like doesn’t mean that that question was not answered pretty fully several times now.
You are talking about a leader of a company. A person who makes decisions on the direction of the company, what types of shows that will be produced, what talents to hire, what talents to let go. If his judgement is suspect, he does need to go, otherwise, they open themselves up for massive lawsuits if someone feels that they were discriminated against by this person who has shown remarkably poor judgement.
Are you not at all capable of seeing the difference in character that is needed to run a company, vs be an employee? Do you not see that there is a higher standard for a CEO than a writer?
Once again, your conclusions after your “so” are completely unsubstantiated.
Depends on how you manage to read her mind. I have heard that conservatives are excellent mind readers, so I am sure that you can tell us what she was thinking and what was in her heart when she wrote an apology.
Short of that, your question is utterly stupid.
It is, once again, only a double standard if you insist that two different things must be the same.
The way this conversation is going can be summed up as:
“I don’t like oranges that are red.”
“I just saw you eat that apple, and it was red, you are a hypocrite.”
Stop excusing her current actions, or forgive her for the actions that she has done in the past, apologized for, and stopped doing?
Why people would be angry about something that doesn’t affect them in the slightest, and that is entirely made of ginned up anger by the people who don’t want to see minorities get a voice.
Not saying that you are one of these people, just that you are doing their work for them. They won’t thank you, BTW.
Was there a particular tweet you wanted me to see, or are you just linking to NYT’s com director for no good reason.
And sure, your second link is about her joining the NYT. What about that cite were you thinking was relevant?
Holy Strawman Batman!
That would only make sense if you were completely incapable of reading, but you obviously are capable of reading, so you must just be trolling.
Because you are complaining about minorities not knowing their place and reacting to violent racist language directed at them with satirical yet racially charged language directed back. You are continue to complain about it, even after they have apologized and promised to stop.
It is your actions alone that I can judge you by, your words on this board. And your words on this board indicate that you do not appreciate that minorities don’t just take violent racist attacks with a grin and a compliment to their attacker.
I get your anger. You saw poor white people face responsibility for their actions, and you want to make sure that there is no possibility that a minority gets away with anything that any white person may have been sanctioned for. I get it, I really do. You don’t care that there are plenty of white people who have done or said things far worse than even the white examples that we have been talking about who have kept their jobs. You don’t care that there are white people who not only said far worse things than Jeong but said them to her for the specific purpose of provoking a reaction who keep their jobs. You just care that there were some white people who were called out for their harmful actions and that they got sanctioned for it, so you want to make sure that any minority that does anything at all similar to what these people did gets no less than the fullest punishment that can be doled out.
So yeah, I do get your anger. I just think being angry over it is dumb at best, in that it takes a certain level of maintaining ignorance to get angry over this. Of course, in the not so unlikely case that the ignorance is not involuntary, my opinion of the justification of your anger goes down precipitously.
I didn’t say that they were about bullying, I said that they were a reaction to being bullied.
Send me her email addy.
Nice that you love that, but you’re the one that set up the question. I asked no question, but you categorically said that you disagreed with all of that. I lay out all the things that you categorically disagreed with, and ask individually if you meant to disagree with them.
That you would call an attempt at clarifying your categorical disagreement a trap to call you a liar is more than a bit of disingenuousness on your part.
Yeah, it really is.
Did I say that? Nope. However, the point that Sullivan is the one who made a point of publicizing it should at the very least give you a reason to check into the story a bit, make sure that you aren’t just taking his word for it.
You have done nothing in this thread but repeat his talking points, showing not a single iota of independent thought. Try thinking for yourself, or at least, stop letting racists do your thinking for you.
Why would the BBC be alt right because they report on a story about the alt-right? Does that mean that if they report on a terrorist, they are terrorists?
I have no idea what sort of agency you have, but as far as this topic, the right wing trolls wanted to make a bunch of fragile white guys angry, and they have succeeded in making you angry. Whatever agency you have is in the service of alt right. I don’t know if they have fooled you into doing their work, or if you choose to do it, but there is no question that you are advancing their agenda.
Man, these poor strawmen. Who said that it was “ok right”? Forgivable and understandable that someone would react to violent racists trolls with unwise words of their own? Yeah. OK? No, she should not do that anymore.
I don’t understand why you have such a difficult time understanding this.
So, you demand that, even though you agree that the situations were drastically different, that they should be treated the same.
If Jeong was associating with white nationalists and slurring gay people, then I would probably have less sympathy for her. As it was not Jeong, but Quinn, who was doing this, I cannot hold it against her.
Well, I agree that threats are counter productive, but what is your point in declaring many times in this post about how angry you and your fellow angronauts are, except to indicate that you may do something with and about that anger?
Final question, you say that you don’t believe that there is any difference between punching up and punching down, right? That it is just as bad for an oppressed population to criticize their oppressors as it is for the oppressors to criticize those they oppress?
From what you have been arguing, I would “presume” to say that your answer here is yes, that a suppression of the oppressed is just as justified as an uprising of the oppressed, but you are welcome to explain how you would come to a different answer, while still feeling that the privileged majority should be coddled and defended from anything that may make them uncomfortable, no matter how much discomfort you have to give to the minorities to get them to shut up.
That’s a remarkably stupid question. You do realize that it is the racists who would have to be convinced of that, not the victims of racism, right? That’s like the whole “If I can’t see them, they can’t see me.” so you turn your back motif.
Sure, if we could get the racists to see everyone as white, then racism would end. You have any ideas for that?
ORLY? Jon Chait, my favorite political editorialist, quoted TNC as follows:
Chait responded to this as follows, and I cosign every word:
So you really don’t see anything controversial about TNC’s rhetoric? Ask yourself this: if he were the Democratic nominee for president against a “normal” Republican like Romney or McCain, and he continued to say these things, how would he do? If you don’t think he’d be wiped out by double digits (maybe by twenty or thirty points), I think you’re in a serious bubble (and I’d note that the HBO “High Maintenance” episode that spoofed liberal bubbles used a TNC book to illustrate one).
So…being white is not really a thing, it’s just in white people’s minds. But they can tell who else is white (people who are biologically born to white parents) upon first meeting, and a black person without much white ancestry can’t “pass” for white no matter how much they change their hair, clothing style, and speech patterns (absent plastic surgery and/or professionally applied makeup like on that Eddie Murphy sketch). This somehow makes sense to you?
[QUOTE=By Mychal Denzel SmithTwitter
April 1, 2014
]
Our impatience and rage is what has produced progress. That we are still impatient and angry reflects not black people’s failing but how far America still has to go.
[/QUOTE]
Your complete maligning of what is a pretty straightforward point makes no sense to me, nor why you would got to such mental gymnastics to try.
Do you not get that racists are not as enlightened as you seem to think that they are, and they are not looking at the content of one’s mind, but only at the color of their skin?
Are you actually blind and not able to see that there are people out there with different skin colors? Do you think that racists are blind, and cannot see that people have different skin colors?
Don’t try to presume this time, no “So,… along with whatever erroneous conclusion that you have come up with.” Yes or no, do people that racists consider to be white have any obvious physical characteristics that differentiate them from the people that racists consider to be black?
Which is why she stopped giving them ammunition when it was brought to her attention that she what she was doing did have some downsides.
So, the smart response is exactly what the response was. What is your criticism here again?
Oh, plenty of people? Any of those people Jeong, or is she responsible for what everyone on twitter does as well?
So what? That’s not what you said. That’s a reasonable assertion from Coates about American history – for most of our history, black people in America had very good reason to hate and fear both the apparatus of the American state and American society, for which white supremacism formed a very large part of the basis. And, especially considering the last couple of years, skepticism about great progress and entirely overcoming white supremacism seems entirely reasonable to me.
Those things are not the same as what you said.
Of course much of his rhetoric is controversial – extremely so. So was abolition in the mid 19th century. I’ve never disputed that many of his opinions are controversial.
You know, Andy, I actually held out some hope that you would be less disingenuous than this—god knows why, given your past postings. Somehow I thought you might actually respond along the lines of “Okay, fine: I hadn’t seen this quote, so I take it back about your not characterizing his writing fairly, although even Chait was surprised by it so I think it’s fair to note that it isn’t representative of his earlier work. And I understand why he feels this way…” Etc.
Instead, you are still stubbornly insisting that this:
No, you are the one that has to see how silly is to deny what minorities had to experience then and now. As Mychal Denzel Smith said to Chait too:
"We continue to be asked to stop. We continue to be told we’ve won enough.
Emancipation was supposed to be enough. “Separate but equal” was supposed to be enough. Brown v. Board of Education was supposed to be enough. The Civil Rights/Voting Acts were supposed to be enough. Affirmative action was supposed to be enough. A black president is supposed to be enough. Yet, here we are, facing mass incarceration, food insecurity, chronic unemployment, the erosion of the social safety net, income inequality, housing discrimination, police brutality and the seemingly unending deaths of our young people at the hands of police and armed vigilantes. Pardon the “profound gloom.”
What some call depression or pessimism, I would call impatience and rage. Our impatience and rage is what has produced progress. That we are still impatient and angry reflects not black people’s failing but how far America still has to go.
My question/challenge to white people who claim to be on the side of equality and justice: when will you get just as angry that these things have been done in your name?"
Just because the people bullying her doesn’t make the issue with her tweets wrong, nor does it mean I’m taking their side. That kind of nuance seems lost on you.
If a white person had done the same thing as Jeong in the situation she was in, they would be out on their ass in no time, we know it I know it, it happened in February to Quinn Norton. Show me that isn’t the general discourse instead of saying the equivalent of ‘Nuh uh!’
He apologised to the people who called him out on it, and mentioned the word again in a private meeting with HR in relation to the original incident, and was still fired.
And I don’t agree with your conclusions, because I’ve demonstrated numerous times how hypocritical they are.
Being angry isn’t a threat, it’s an emotional reaction to something that’s hurtful, unless you consider when POC are racially abused and protest about that, that is also a threat, would a POC care about context?
I have considered her side of the story, she said racist jokes in her tweets, got a job at NYT, tweets were discovered, then there was outrage, she backtracked and apologised and said it was only in because the alt right were trolling her, NYT defended her actions and that’s it.
I’ll quote myself again since you didn’t get it I don’t justify Rosanne Barrs behaviour
NYT and Netflix, get this, operate in this thing called the media industry, they are viewed by the public on a consistent basis. They will be influenced by how other media companies react to such incidents and set the benchmark
So why do you keep coming back to it if you’re so confident you’ve already explained it. Why feel the need to constantly shore up your opinion.
Jeong is going to an editor of NYT, she will write articles and contribute opinions to people who read the newspaper, which is pretty much an institution and respected newspaper in the US, so from what you’re saying she gets a pass even though by your own standards she would need to go as her own judgement is seen as ‘suspect’
Btw Jonathan Friedland didn’t run Netflix, again, I implore you, bother to do some research.
You’re a hypocrite.
You’ve attempted to mind read to me and decided upon yourself that I feel Jeong is ‘Uppity’ and ‘Needs to be in her place’
I’m not a conservative you dipshit.
They’re not different things, they were both accused of being racist, one got fired, the other kept her job.
I didn’t say current actions, I said her previous actions that she had apologised for.
Ah right, I lack agency, to raise an objection to the NYT being hypocritical, I must have been influenced by the alt-right, that’s all you’ve got as a counterpoint.
Yeah, how you don’t bother to research your points properly, don’t worry I’ll do the work for you, since you can’t be bothered.
Exhibit 1:
In bold, no, that’s not what happened, the NYT reviewed her tweets, still gave her the job, and then when there was a public furore, only then did NYT issue a statement standing by her, and only then did Jeong apologise, so again, I ask you, what is it do you not understand about public anger at the double standards imposed at NYT that you fail to grasp.
“In the course of my work, I’ve had many people of color give me feedback in ways that might be perceived as intense or emotional or angry. And on one level, it’s personal—I did do that thing that triggered the response, but at the same time it isn’t only personal. I represent a lifetime of people that have hurt them in the same way that I just did.”
Again, as I’ve said in this thread numerous times moron, she isn’t the main issue here, the main issue is the NYT hypocritical standards when it comes to firing people based off racism.
So if you’re going to white knight for POC, do so by at least bothering to read what I write.
Do you even bother to read my posts, or do you go straight to white knighting as soon as I reply back? As I’ve said before, and I’ll repeat again, Jeong isn’t the issue, I’m not bothered too much about her casual racism, as I am about the NYTs stance towards the issue in general, they’re hypocrites, and this double standard will have longer term effects on race relations which could have a larger impact than any of her tweets have made.
No you don’t, you went straight for the boring tired old ‘He must be alt right/convervative’ BS, you even said I MUST of received the information from Andrew Sullivan when I got it from the BBC. Speaking of maintaining ignorance, is that the reason why you ignored my linking of the tweets in respects to her being hired after NYT knew about her tweets, and feigned ignorance as to why I would link those websites of when she joined and her press and NYT’s press statement?
But as I said, if you bothered to do any research, you’d realise they weren’t all her being bullied, alot of it was just casual racism.
Go get it yourself. Don’t be lazy like you are in your research.
But it was a trap, I’m obviously not what you’re saying. Btw, *she can write as much as she wants, and I’ll happily read it, I’m calling for a little consistency in NYT’s hiring and firing methods, that’s all. *
Forgot to address that part didn’t you? And you call me disingenous lol.
No it isn’t.
I did check into the story, she still made racist jokes and was a casual racist.
The didn’t report on the alt right, they reported on Jeong and the NYT
Knock yourself out here’s the link (Again, doing the research for you)
Yup something something alt right, something something conservative trope. Boring.
Here’s a thought, ask yourself when her casual racism would not be acceptable.
Because we’re looking at it through two fundamentally different viewpoints. You claim she did it as a defence against right wing trolls, where as I said she did on a more casual basis and the defence was just a part of what happened, you’re claiming it as the whole. I also have stated, repeatedly, the issue isn’t primarily with her, but with how NYT has reacted to it.
They weren’t drastically different, again, different viewpoints.
Less sympathy, but not fired. I know this because you’ve excused her casual racism, haven’t bothered to research her tweets or Quinn Nortons situation, and just tried to deflect what I’m saying as somebody who lacks agency.
That’s your dumb interpretation, I like debating about this, so that’s what I’m doing.
Not every white person is an oppressor anymore than a POC is the oppressed, the very supposition of that arrangement in your question is the problem. It’s also a problem at the NYT. That’s my entire argument.
There are two tracks here. You are arguing for TNC being right, and I’ll be happy to dipute that in a moment. But there’s a meta-point we were disputing, which was whether it makes sense for TNC to be in the “of all people” category, where there are fainting couches pulled out if anyone declares him to be a polarizing figure who is risky to be associated with if you are a politician trying to appeal to swing voters in Middle America. You can understand that the latter is true even if you completely agree with his radical ideology.
On the merits: the argument you seem to be making (via quotes from others that don’t appear when I quote your post) is that his “rage” and bitterness are justifiable and only to be expected given the black experience in America. But this ignores an important point Chait made: polling consistently shows that African Americans are the most optimistic about the present and future of America, much more so than whites. Or at least that was true when TNC wrote what I quoted. So he is the opposite of representative of that black experience.
