New York Times hires a horribly racist and sexist "writer"

[Derec]

Sarah Jeong. Here are some of her racist statements.

Not surprisingly, she is also a sexist feminazi.

Here she is defending UVA Jackie even after her false rape allegations fell apart.
Something Terrible Happened to Jackie

Typical unhinged hysterical style common for radical feminist writers.

I believe Jackie. It’s a different kind of believe from believing that her story is a historical, factual account. But she’s not lying.

This is what passes for discourse on the feminist Left. Reality doesn't matter. Only narratives do. She goes on:

Of course no one should even be looking at the details. No one should be assessing Jackie’s truthfulness. [..]Those details shouldn’t matter to me. But they matter enough to others, to men who were waiting in the wings, ready to scream LIAR, to post Jackie’s name and picture and address on the Internet, to present this as evidence of feminism gone too far.

People who don't believe UVA Jackie are the bad guys apparently. For not automatically believing a liar.

They own the Truth™, the Truth that makes up how we understand our society—the truth of what happened with the Duke lacrosse players, the truth of the injured burglar who sued the property owner, the truth of the McDonald’s coffee that was too hot.

Apparently she even thinks Duke Lacrosse was a rape. Un-fucking-believable.
And what's with the non sequitur about the hot coffee case anyway?

Is this really the best person NY Times found to hire for its editorial board? That paper is going downhill fast.

 

[Underseer]

Yawn.

Yet another non-issue.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/17644704/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-tweets-backlash-racism

- - - Updated - - -

White people are so persecuted. Some day, you will tell your future grandchildren of all the oppression you faced, and their little eyes will well up with tears of admiration.

Snowflake.

 

[Derec]

Yawn.

Yet another non-issue.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/17644704/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-tweets-backlash-racism

VOX defending an anti-white racist is hardly surprising, but their apologetics doesn't hold water, given the number of tweets.
And besides, Times would never have hired somebody tweeting a hashtag #CancelBlackPeople, no matter their excuse.

White people are so persecuted. Some day, you will tell your future grandchildren of all the oppression you faced, and their little eyes will well up with tears of admiration.

When rank racism is being celebrated by the Left, then this is not that far-fetched. We should be against all kinds of racism, not only the kinds that the Left doesn't like.

Snowflake.

No. Just being against racism, sexism and double standards.
That you defend anti-white racism and anti-male sexism is par for the course. After all, anybody who is not anti-white and anti-male is a "Nazi" in your book, and probably a pedophile too.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Poor Derec.

 

[Derec]

Poor Derec.

That the leftists on here defend sexism and racism when it's against groups they themselves hate is hardly surprising.
Neither is your broken record posting "style".

 

[TSwizzle]

This nonsense is so fucking retarded. It schoolyard tattle tales on steriods. "She called me a mean name, mwaaaaaw". Fuck off.

I'm disappointed she put out a statement;

"While it was intended as satire, I deeply regret that I mimicked the language of my harassers. These comments were not aimed at a general audience, because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns. I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context, and would not do it again."

Have some balls woman (dunno if that's appropriate) and hold up your middle finger and tell them to kiss your ass.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Have some balls woman (dunno if that's appropriate) and hold up your middle finger and tell them to kiss your ass.

Of course, if she does that, she'll be an uppity bitch.

 

[laughing dog]

The OP is based on a unsubstantiated assumption about the purpose or goal of an editorial board. Editorials are opinions. It is reasonable for a newspaper to have a diverse range of editorial writers for at least 2 reasons: 1) to get a wide range of opinions, and 2) sell newspapers.

I find the OP fascinating because it mimics the attitudes Ms. Jeong claims to resist. Derec focuses on the bark on the trees of Ms. Jeong's "forest"which means he is incapable of understanding Ms. Jeong's "forest". For some reason, the notion that understanding the POV of someone is not the same as agreeing with that POV escapes many people.

 

[Underseer]

VOX defending an anti-white racist is hardly surprising, but their apologetics doesn't hold water, given the number of tweets.
And besides, Times would never have hired somebody tweeting a hashtag #CancelBlackPeople, no matter their excuse. [...]

Great. Then you should have an easy time refuting their arguments!

When rank racism is being celebrated by the Left, then this is not that far-fetched. We should be against all kinds of racism, not only the kinds that the Left doesn't like.

You don't understand what racism is because you've never been on the receiving end of it. You make a point of not understanding it because you benefit from it.

No. Just being against racism, sexism and double standards.
That you defend anti-white racism and anti-male sexism is par for the course. After all, anybody who is not anti-white and anti-male is a "Nazi" in your book, and probably a pedophile too.

Sure, black people were enslaved for centuries, strung from trees for centuries more, and are routinely butchered by the police even when they are completely obedient and do nothing wrong, but a mean lady on the Internet said mean things because she was angry about racism, therefore you're the real victim here.

Yup. Not snowflake-like at all.

- - - Updated - - -

This nonsense is so fucking retarded. It schoolyard tattle tales on steriods. "She called me a mean name, mwaaaaaw". Fuck off.

I'm disappointed she put out a statement;

"While it was intended as satire, I deeply regret that I mimicked the language of my harassers. These comments were not aimed at a general audience, because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns. I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context, and would not do it again."

Have some balls woman (dunno if that's appropriate) and hold up your middle finger and tell them to kiss your ass.

You're soooooo oppressed! I can barely hold back my tears when I think of all the injustice you face on a daily basis. Hark, another well of tears is about burst forth! BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

- - - Updated - - -

It never fails. The racists alt-right free speech warriors are the biggest snowflakes of them all.

 

[Trausti]

So a person who owes her freedom to white guys becomes rabidly racists against white people. (And the regressives are happy to explain to us why that is the good racism.) What could have made her hate white guys? It's a wonder.

]

Oh, now it makes sense.

 

[Trausti]

Poor Derec.

That the leftists on here defend sexism and racism when it's against groups they themselves hate is hardly surprising.
Neither is your broken record posting "style".

Oh, you're a dumb-dumb. Racism is prejudice + power. If you were woke you'd know that. Sarah Jeong went to Berkley and then Harvard Law School. She's now on the editorial board of the most influential paper in the country. She obviously has no privilege or power. How could this possibly be racism!?! You dumb-dumb.

 

[Derec]

The OP is based on a unsubstantiated assumption about the purpose or goal of an editorial board. Editorials are opinions. It is reasonable for a newspaper to have a diverse range of editorial writers for at least 2 reasons: 1) to get a wide range of opinions, and 2) sell newspapers.

I do not disagree with any of it. Still, editorial boards have standards. They would not have hired a white racist, so I do not see why they would hire an Asian racist either. And from what I have read by her, she is not even a talented writer. Lastly, the editorial board of NYT doesn't really suffer from a lack of left-wing columnists.

I find the OP fascinating because it mimics the attitudes Ms. Jeong claims to resist. Derec focuses on the bark on the trees of Ms. Jeong's "forest"which means he is incapable of understanding Ms. Jeong's "forest". For some reason, the notion that understanding the POV of someone is not the same as agreeing with that POV escapes many people.

As usual, you are wrong.

 

[Derec]

Great. Then you should have an easy time refuting their arguments!

There are arguments?

You don't understand what racism is because you've never been on the receiving end of it. You make a point of not understanding it because you benefit from it.

I live in Atlanta, so I definitely have been on the receiving end of it. And how do I benefit from racism exactly?

Sure, black people were enslaved for centuries, strung from trees for centuries more, and are routinely butchered by the police even when they are completely obedient and do nothing wrong, but a mean lady on the Internet said mean things because she was angry about racism, therefore you're the real victim here.

You are trying to justify racism as long as it is directed against white people. Slavery and Jim Crow were wrong. But that does not mean that white people should be collectively punished for it.
Besides, this Joeng chick is South Korean. Koreans were not enslaved by white people. So what gives her pasty Korean ass a licence to be racist, even if you want to argue that history gives black people license to be racist? And as far as skin color, she looks pretty pale to me. I bet she burns quite well in the sun herself! I invite her to a bake-off in the Georgia sun. No sun screens allowed!

It never fails. The racists alt-right free speech warriors are the biggest snowflakes of them all.

Wrong. You post dozens of threads about real and imaginary white racism, but the moment somebody dares post a thread about anti-white racism you accuse those who point of this racism of being "racist" and "snowflakes". Starting a thread about an issue does not a snowflake make. Snowflakes want to stifle discussion by declaring topics that upset them out of bounds. You fit that quite well I think.

 

[Derec]

Oh, now it makes sense.

Bad breakup?

 

[laughing dog]

I do not disagree with any of it. Still, editorial boards have standards. They would not have hired a white racist, so I do not see why they would hire an Asian racist either. And from what I have read by her, she is not even a talented writer. Lastly, the editorial board of NYT doesn't really suffer from a lack of left-wing columnists.

Unfortunately for you, your views on what constitutes a talented writer or who is where on the political spectrum are not appreciated by the NYT.

I find the OP fascinating because it mimics the attitudes Ms. Jeong claims to resist. Derec focuses on the bark on the trees of Ms. Jeong's "forest"which means he is incapable of understanding Ms. Jeong's "forest". For some reason, the notion that understanding the POV of someone is not the same as agreeing with that POV escapes many people.

As usual, you are wrong.

Your calling her an Asian racist proves me right.

 

[Derec]

Unfortunately for you, your views on what constitutes a talented writer or who is where on the political spectrum are not appreciated by the NYT.

I posted an article about her, where she defends Jackie Coakley (aka UVA Jackie). Her style is atrocious.

Your calling her an Asian racist proves me right.

I fail to recognize the problem with calling her that. It's simple statement of fact. She is Asian. She is racist.

By the way, some cartoons about Racist Sarah.

I particularly like this one.

LMAO!

 

[repoman]

I know that she is not a sexist or racist based on these posts, just a shitposter. I like shitposters.

But, I bet there a many other shitposters with other, ahem, *demographics* that would be disqualified for employment for similar posts.

 

[laughing dog]

Unfortunately for you, your views on what constitutes a talented writer or who is where on the political spectrum are not appreciated by the NYT.

I posted an article about her, where she defends Jackie Coakley (aka UVA Jackie). Her style is atrocious.

I fail to see how that addresses my point (in italicized bold-face) at all.

I fail to recognize the problem with calling her that.

Obviously.

It's simple statement of fact. She is Asian. She is racist.

She is Asian. The fact she makes fun of white people does not make her racist. The fact she shows little respect for white people does not make her racist. If it did, then she is as much a racist as you are.

 

[Derec]

I fail to see how that addresses my point (in italicized bold-face) at all.

I know you can't speak for NYT, but you can see for yourself what her writing is like by actually reading what she wrote. I linked to one article of hers in the OP. Did you read it?

She is Asian. The fact she makes fun of white people does not make her racist. The fact she shows little respect for white people does not make her racist. If it did, then she is as much a racist as you are.

Her making clearly racist statements makes her a racist.
You call white people racist for far less. Why the double standard?

 

[laughing dog]

I fail to see how that addresses my point (in italicized bold-face) at all.

I know you can't speak for NYT, but you can see for yourself what her writing is like by actually reading what she wrote. I linked to one article of hers in the OP. Did you read it?

I am not a member of the NYT board or staff, so my opinion, like yours, is not relevant to their decision-making.

Her making clearly racist statements makes her a racist.

Then your clearly racist statements make you a racist.

You call white people racist for far less. Why the double standard?

No, I don't, so I don't see I have a double standard. But if you deny you are a racist while maintaining she is a racist, why your double standard?