cd
n/m wrong thread.
It’s not hypocrisy. It’s nuance. Trevor Noah is in trouble because he refuses to apologize or even try to understand the hurt he caused. He plays it off a+s a joke people didn’t like. It’s his response that created the problem.
Roseanne Barr has a long history of racist comments, but was given a chance up until she said something racist again. And then gave an excuse that doesn’t wash, both because she gave so many excuses that it was clear she was just fishing for the one that works, and because it doesn’t explain why it’s entirely consistent with what she’s posted before.
It is the alt-right–the actual racists–who want to make these all look the same. They are not waging a war of ideology but of propaganda. They are trying to take control of the narrative on these subjects. They start the outrage, so they can control where it goes.
JVDaly. A poster I can’t remember seeing in a while. He just happens to be here to try and redirect the conversation and keeping the in-fighting going.
This isn’t complicated. She shouldn’t have said what she said. Whether we call it racist or ill-advised, it doesn’t matter. The good thing is that she accepted why it might hurt people and apologized, and promised that she would never do it again. And her track record seems to agree with that.
There’s no story here. Just alt-right manufactured outrage. Don’t fall for it.
Calling her a racist is missing the point, imo; I’d rather call her a tribalist in tribal times. If, for example, a majority of white women had shown up in the polls to support Hillary, she would likely have applauded them*.
But they didn’t, and so she reacted with unqualified disdain toward the whole group.
If she were to get an influential job in the judicial system or in a government agency, I’d be more critical of her attitude - though expressing even partisan beliefs privately doesn’t inhibit anyone from being a consummate professional in the chosen field. The decisions made within the profession should be the benchmark, not the private ones.
And for a journalist, having and expressing strong views might even constitute the professional work. In any case, I prefer a journalist’s beliefs to be out in the open; then bias is visible and content can be more easily put into context.
Jeong worked for a media outlet where her political and cultural views fit.
The Times obviously thinks that she will follow their professional standards; and that her perspective will be a valuable addition to their voice in the public discourse.
The public discussion will surely help their readership to be more attentive - and that’s never a bad idea when we process information that is given to us.
- yes, I can’t know this for sure, it’s just an impression derived from limited information.
I’m going to go back to an argument I made during the Trevor Noah kerfuffle thread. Having viewed his act more thoroughly and read more about his current refusal to apologize, I backtracked and concluded that he should apologize. It’s worth noting that Jeong has already expressed regret for her comments.
But one of the supporting arguments that I made in the Noah discussion, and one I still happen to agree with, is that, in a lot of examples, non-whites have a little more latitude when it comes to examples of ‘racism’. By that, I do not mean that writers, artists, or commentators have license to express antipathy for the sake of antipathy, or to be edgy. But much of what whites perceive as anti-white ‘racism’ is not really racism, but frustration of having to deal with racism in all of its overt and subtle forms on a constant basis. Minorities don’t trust white society and the white establishment that still governs most places, and this fear and distrust is clearly justified and understandable.
I know some white readers will dismiss this idea immediately, but unless you’ve been in a position of being foreign or of being clearly ‘different’ from the majority group in power, you really don’t understand what this experience is like. You don’t know what it’s like to be a black man who gets pulled over by police just because he fits the profile of some suspect. You don’t know what it’s like to be a black person and have neighbors call the cops on you because they don’t know you. You don’t know what it’s like to be Hispanic or Asian and told to ‘go back to your country where you belong’ even when the US is the only country you’ve ever known.
All of that being said, I won’t disagree that Jeong could have chosen a different approach to respond to her perceived harassers or subjects of critique. She did not have to use such coarse language. She said as much herself. If you want to make the argument that her choice of words debased the discussion rather than elevated it, I could go along with that. But that’s different than debating whether she’s ‘racist’. Sullivan could have written about the former and actually contributed meaningfully to a debate over productive discourse in our society, but he chose to delve into the topic of race. His allegation that Jeong was being ‘racist’ is a false equivalency, borne either out of ignorance of what racism truly is or, worse, a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters and mute the voices of those who’ve sustained real racism.
Given this new information, I now dislike Jeong just for her excess use of “lol”.
The alleged racism, I continue to not give a fuck about.
Quoted For what I think is Truth, though I’m not in a position to know from personal experience. (But it’s precisely because I’m not in such a position that I need to keep it in mind.)
As I’ve already said, I think the problem with Jeong is not that she’s a racist (at least not in remotely the same sense as the real racists), but that she’s clearly adopted a habitual satirical rhetorical of disparaging monolithic “white people”. Does she really place collective blame for Trump on the 48% of white women who didn’t vote for him? I don’t think so, but that’s the plain meaning of her words. This style of rhetoric is incredibly divisive and counterproductive. She should stop - and based on her own comments, she herself agrees that she should stop.
But your defense of her specific language is something that I do have a problem with.
No, it’s not a reasonable exclamation. My overall judgment of Jeong is certainly a function of the context of this conversation and her rhetorical style. But taking your position of defending these actual words - that she has nothing to apologize for - is just wrong. My judgment of you is based on what you wrote here. These words are not ever okay (when not meant satirically), and it’s certainly an incredibly bad idea to use this kind of “white people” rhetoric on Twitter, where context can easily be misunderstood or misrepresented. It’s divisive, it is prima facie racist language, and it is obviously enabling the alt-right to create their narrative.
There’s certainly a role for well crafted satire of the “white people” genre. Or, on a more academic level, for the kind of discussion that Robin DiAngelo presents, to raise awareness of our (all white people’s) unconscious ingrained racist patterns of thought and behavior, whether we are consciously progressive “good people” or not. But as I said to our angry friend Huey on the other thread:
When I, as a white person, say in goddamn frustration, “seriously, fuck white people,” I am not being racist. I am just goddamn frustrated. I bitch about men, and about white people, because there are a lot of men and white people who make me complicit in their shit.
Someone like Sarah Jeong says to me, or even near me, “seriously, fuck white people,” I’m right there. Yeah, we suck. I’m sorry.
But I also know she’s not talking about every melanin-deprived person in the world. She’s not talking about her white friends or her white partner or her white family members or white allies who hear her frustration and respond, “I know, right? We suck, I’m sorry. We’re trying to make things better.”
Of course #notallmen, of course #notallstraights, of course #notallwhitepeople. That should go without saying–and it does in Jeong’s mind and in her circles and in the civilized world. Calling her a racist, even choosing to frame her words as racist, is bullying nonsense, the faux trolling outrage of the alt-right. It’s stupid, and anyone who does it is stupid.
.
I appreciate what you’re saying. Part of me wants to just “Like” this post and not challenge it.
But part of me wants to say “Why we?” How does frustration with something other people are saying or doing turn into “We suck?” Why does it make sense to group all white people together and hold them all responsible for what some of them do? How is it any more reasonable than “seriously, fuck blond people” or “seriously, fuck tall people” or “seriously, fuck people whose names begin with J”?
That’s not entirely a rhetorical question, and I’m going to risk trying to at least start to answer it.
I think part of the answer is that we’re hard-wired to make generalizations and so we do so even when they’re not appropriate. The instinct that leads us to say “Those white berries made me really sick, so white berries are bad and I’m going to avoid all of them” also leads us to say things like “those white people hurt me, so white people are bad and I’m going to avoid all of them.”
And part of the answer is that we white people do have something significant in common besides just our pigmentation: we’re typically spaced the sort of racism and prejudice that people like Jeong are subject to, often without even realizing what we’re missing. (It’s what some people call “white privilege,” though using that term here might just muddy the waters.)
And part of the answer is that the assholes who say and do assholish things all too often make it about race and claim to speak for white people—they, as you say, “make me complicit in their shit.”
I think the NYT should hire you they want to. I have a problem with a social media mob veto over people’s jobs as a general issue.
However I think much of the defense of Jeong is dishonest. For example acting as if all her many disparaging statements were literally rejoinders to trolls spewing similar (or worse) things at her, in the heat of the moment. But it seems not, that rather this was more a general internet persona she adopted. That’s a ‘nuance’ of some importance in my opinion of her, which is now quite low, again leaving the Times to make their own judgments.
Also many arguments in her favor are just too complicated when the simple version amounts to ‘it’s OK for non-whites to disparage whites as a group, it’s not OK for whites to disparate non-whites as a group’. And I simply (some may say ‘simplistically’) find this hypocritical. And more importantly practically unworkable in pursuit of a harmonious society. But I sometimes get the feeling the latter isn’t even the goal anymore for a lot of people. Individuals have to be held to the same standards. It’s not the same debate as whether eg. the Chinese Exclusion Act* and Sarah Jeong’s tweets were/are equally harmful. Just not workable to have a unified society built around the principal of different standards of behavior for different individuals based on their group identity, IMO.
*which I’ve seen more than once invoked in her defense, albeit a long time ago, albeit her background is Korean.
Actually, you are being racist and sexist. Assigning collective guilt based on declared gender or skin color is racist and sexist almost by definition. Of course, consistency is inconvenient so weird and convoluted definitions are created to establish a pseudo-intellectual framework in which to justify the hypocrisy.
You miss the point. The words used aren’t meant to fix a problem. They are used to silence and demonize political opposition. Weaponizing language is just a means to an end and the end isn’t some form of cosmic justice. The end is political and economic power.
Funny thing happened to me about this. Didn’t pay any attention, saw some stuff here and elsewhere, and somehow I assumed that she was black. Dunno why, but was surprised when I saw her picture. Then I was wondering why I was surprised. Haven’t figured it out yet, most likely won’t.
This happen to anybody else?
Ignoring the complicated in favor of the simple is the opposite of nuance.
Or, to put it another way, why do you think that your simpler explanation is better than the more nuanced explanations we’ve been giving? Why do you think you can ignore the myriad other factors involved?
And why do you assume that the defenses are dishonest? I can’t see a single one that is out of line with the usual liberal thinking on the subject–whether I agree or not.
My argument holds: she no longer does these things. So, if it’s racism you care about, then the problem is over. She’s no longer going to make the allegedly racist content, and her current history shows that she means it.
So, even if you argue she was racist, that problem has been fixed. Since she listened and fixed it, she doesn’t need to be punished. Otherwise, we get into a world where you might as well never reform.
Well, and that is what they want. If we live in a world where you might as well never reform, then they never have to put any effort into reforming.
…and whats wrong with that?
Nope.
I agree.
A world without nuance is a pretty fucking boring world.
It wasn’t at the time she said it to the person she said it too and to the people that follow her like myself.
Yeah. But I don’t give a fuck.
Yes it was.
Surprise! I disagree.
Cool!
Are you sure?
Said in this very thread. Not satire. Was that OK?
How about this?
Are you not okay with that as well? And andros says in his edit:
Are you going to give andros the same sermon you’ve just given Jeong? Or does andros get a pass?
Nope. I think the people that are enabling the alt-right to create their narrative are people like you. Literally. I don’t accept the narrative. I reject the narrative. How about you?
Well thanks for citing yourself. Unfortunately I don’t take your word as authoritative at all, but thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I hesitate to jump in but . . .
. . . I’m seeing this on the rounds on my Facebook today in the form of a meme (assuming it’s a real quote, but my point stands even if it’s not):
The people sharing it do so with comments like “YAS PLEASE!” and “Forget the lottery, let’s snip them all.”
Inevitably, someone says, “hey, um, that’s kind of a gross sentiment,” to which someone else will either reply “it’s satire, chill out!” or “stop whining, we’re living in Gilead and you expect me to care about a cis white man’s feelings?”
This is common discourse in the circles in which I communicate on social media (generally, 25-45 year old white people, more likely to be women than men, much much more likely to be gay and/or trans and/or nonbinary than the general population, and almost all liberal, and almost all people from my real life).
Whether or not Jeong in these specific instances was expressing satire or anger is a little bit beside the larger point; this sort of language is weak satire at best, and more often than not, its not satire at all, but an expression of justified anger and frustration.
Not every action based on justifiable feelings is always worth defending. If one is keeping score, or ranking grievances, the transgression of calling men shitheads is not even on the same planet as, say, the transgression of not hiring women for leadership positions, or paying them less than men, or enacting laws that make abortions and less controversial forms of birth control available, or for not developing male hormonal contraception, and and and and and. Not the same thing at all.
But, it doesn’t make variations on “men are the worst, fuck 'em” free from moral implications.
I just don’t understand people who vehemently fight for the rightness of disparaging a particular cohort. And, I don’t believe they really, really, believe what they say. If I asked, can I call your husband a piece of trash when I see him next? What about your son? Should I tell little Timmy he’s fucking scum who should be castrated? Or does he not become trash until his bar mitzvah? Your grandfather? Fucking shithead male. I can’t wait to remind him that the next time I see him using his male privilege, which is basically all the time.
Am I off here? It just feels so . . . unadmirable. Unnecessary. Unproductive. And intentionally hurtful. And, ultimately, it’s the same dehumanizing language that paves the way for a lot of awful behavior that the powerful and/or scared enact upon others.
Which, again, I get. I get where it comes from. I’m not even saying one ‘shouldn’t’ say those things (I’m not going to tell you how to deal with your personal trauma and anger).
But I do think the “it’s just satire” response is most often a lie to avoid the truth of saying “I don’t care if I’m being a shitty person, because I feel like being a shitty person right now.”
And maybe you have lots of good reasons to be a shitty person. But it’s still shitty.
Satire or not, I can’t disagree that the coarseness of our modern discourse is what fuels social and political sectarianism, and I can’t defend Jeong in that sense. Yes, I get she is frustrated at dealing with racism and sexism, and in a lot of ways, I can understand her sounding off. But the fact is, her language, as cathartic as it might feel, only intensifies the animus. I can’t argue with that at all.
I’m mostly just outraged about her unprovoked attack on Breaking Bad. I don’t really care what the fuck else you might think, if you’re not down with Breaking Bad the gloves are off! When has any other show been able to so deftly combine edge-of-your-seat constant nonstop cliffhanger tension with comedic relief?
Walt: “What will we use to conduct this beautiful current of ours? What particular element comes to mind, hmm?” [dangles a piece of copper wire]
Jesse [nodding head knowingly]: “ahhhhhhhhh…wire!”
Walt: “uh…copper.”
lmfao
I’ve seen a lot of white men who feel that having their position of superiority reduced (it’s hardly disappeared) is a form of discrimination.