You are being played by 4chaners if you saw that tweet in isolation to the original conversation.
Remember, twitter only extended its character limit last fall. Before that, you were limited to 140 characters, which made expression somewhat haiku like: it was severely limiting, had the flavor of text messaging.
She conversed with a lot of hateful bigots. It was part of her job actually, as a social media reporter.
I call bullshit on Sullivan’s article. You want to attack Jeong? Fine. Report the whole conversation then, rather than snipping out preposterously misleading weaponized 4chan images. To take these attacks seriously is to support cowardice.
Oh, and “Unapologetically racist” in the title is false and should have been retracted by the OP, after TriPolar post (#19). For shame, for shame, too many lack shame.
I strongly oppose the NYT ever hiring Banquet Bear, based on his comments above.
But Jeong? Nah. She mirrored back language that was being tossed at her. She thought it made the point of how flawed that language was. She was blind to the possibility of how inappropriate her own tactic was, especially if quoted out of context.
When she became aware of this, she acknowledged the problem and apologized. What else can she do?
We are talking about he NYT that facilitated the Iraq invasion lies, right? Yeah? Ok. As long as she peddles war propaganda, which probably won’t be a problem for her, I think she will fit right in.
What kind of “white” racists have you known that hate all “black” people. Every single one that I have met will say “you have your black people, and you have your …”
It’s interesting that you’ve attempted this weak parody, suggesting that I think use of these words even in reported speech in debating their use is unacceptable. Your point, presumably, is that the true meaning of words cannot be discerned in isolation, and that anyone who does not pay careful attention to context and intent is obviously a fool.
And yet, on intent, the debate of the last several decades has led us all to understand that:
And, on context, it’s now a widely accepted social norm that non-black people must use a placeholder for the word “nigger” even in the situation that you attempt to parody above, for example as reported speech in an academic discussion of historic literature.
To preempt the straw man that you will inevitably trot out again, I’m not claiming that prejudiced statements against historically privileged groups are equivalent to similar statements against marginalized groups in their effect or significance. Sarah Jeong is not oppressing anyone.
But when there’s a general principle that the effect of our speech and actions is paramount, whatever the intent & context, you can’t credibly claim that this principle should only apply to white people. Her public Twitter rhetoric should be discussed on the basis of its divisive and antagonistic impact. Her original intent and context are not all that matters here.
I was a bit perplexed by a “new” story today implying that Jeong’s comparison of Trump to Hitler is the ultimate faux pas that will get her fired. Then I realized that I was looking at the “Washington Times” rather than the Washington Post.
Whatever the “fuck white women lol” controversy, a Trump=Hitler tweet seems like something all civilized people can reunite behind.
I figured from the topic of this thread that she wasn’t white. I assumed from her last name that she was Asian, which I just confirmed by googling a picture of her.
There’s no question there were abusive tweets directed at her. But - not that I’m expressing any particular opinion about the location of Blalron’s head relative to his ass - it’s pretty clear at this point that this is a red herring. There were many, many tweets from Jeong over several years adopting the same style of “white people” rhetoric, i.e. it’s a persistent rhetorical style she consciously and deliberately adopted. And I don’t think her apology was disingenuous about this. She described her style as satirical counter-trolling, but she didn’t claim that her tweets were attributable only to occasional responsive moments of anger and frustration. That’s something that some of her defenders erroneously inferred, I think.
Fine. Show me 3 tweets of hers that you don’t like in context.
Because showing 30 tweets of hers back to back without context paints a highly misleading picture and is done in bad faith.
The OP makes claims regarding Jeong. It is his burden of proof to prove his case and to do that he has to show tweets in context. Three will do. That this isn’t easy shows the disingenousness of Jeong’s critics.
Your claim, your burden of proof. We’ve already falsified the “Unapologetic” aspect.
I’m not sure why on earth you think this is a “gotcha”. Quite obviously I’ve said that I think rhetoric that treats “white people” as a monolithic enemy is divisive and wrong, and my opinion of andros saying “fuck white people” or similar is the same as Jeong or anyone else saying it.
The David French article that I linked above states my own views more eloquently than I could, so I don’t have a lot more to say here, except to echo Bricker’s opinion that Jeong appears to be a highly intelligent journalist who deserves her place at the Times, whereas you are a sloppy idiot more concerned with virtue-signaling than clear thought about progressive values, and I wouldn’t employ you to write a menu.
