• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

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

I'm glad us white people at least have golf to call our own.

But wait...Tiger Woods?
 
This is much more concerning than the stupid tweets. She deliberately contributed to putting a source in China in danger:

Sarah, although fully aware of at least one of the more immediate threats to my wellbeing, cleverly choses to cast it as a simple issue of an interracial relationship. A mild concern- surely overblown?

Having built her strawman of “interracial relationship” being my complaint, she set two matches to it. The imaginary anonymous source who corroborates interracial relationships are no big deal (again, at this point the audience actually believes that’s the issue). Interestingly enough Sarah has been attacked online for only dating White men, so knows it can be a risk for some Asian women- but also knows from speaking to Vice it’s not my concern. She has zero problem being intellectually dishonest when it suits her goals.

Then Sarah drops a veritable atom bomb of an Appeal to Authority, she is Korean (having lived a full week as an adult in Korea). South Korea is pretty much the same as Mainland China, therefore I was never in any danger. She invokes the monolithic Asian culture myth precisely because she knows her largely White audience believes this anyway.

Sarah knew the truth, she also knew I was straight-jacketed and could not fight back. I was stuck miserably saying “it’s not that”.

Honestly, it was a thing of beauty- pure willful evil of course, but you have to respect the costly training and centuries of legacy knowledge bestowed by highest institutions of learning in the World applied like a magnifying glass on an ant.

...

With the platform that journalism gave her amplifying that power, sent on behalf of the exact sort of “privileged White man” she claims to despise, she went out to destroy another Asian woman. All while knowing full well the issue was far more complex than she was pretending, the facts completely different- and simply not caring. Not then, not in the following months when it became clear to more and more people just how badly she had abused her power, her education, her profession, and her privilege.

https://medium.com/@therealsexycybo...-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5
 
One person?

That is the ignorance of the right.

The ideals of the left, like democracy, don't disappear because of one person.

And the NYT is not on the left.

It is center right.
 
One person?

That is the ignorance of the right.

The ideals of the left, like democracy, don't disappear because of one person.
Because the Left is all about group membership and collectivism, not the individual.


And the NYT is not on the left.

It is center right.
Center right?
giphy.gif
 
One person?

That is the ignorance of the right.

The ideals of the left, like democracy, don't disappear because of one person.

Because the Left is all about group membership and collectivism, not the individual.

Sure.

Democracy is about the group.

Dictatorship is all about the individual.

And the NYT is not on the left.

It is center right.

Center right?

The real De Niro would slap you.

The left questions the validity of capitalism. It is that which questions everything and that which leads to progress.

The right has it's eyes on the past and is forever having to be dragged into the future.

Who at the Times questions the validity of capitalism?
 
Sure.

Democracy is about the group.

Dictatorship is all about the individual.

I see. So if you believe the individual has rights you believe in dictatorship, but if you believe the individual must bow to the collective you believe in democracy as the opposite of dictatorship. No wonder you can't answer my question about the majority violating the rights of the individual - you don't believe in the individual.
 
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.

It also sounds a lot like this from the vox article:

She’s also an outspoken progressive and feminist, making her an obvious target for the right-wing internet mobs that have been especially active of late, launching organized smear campaigns against left-leaning celebrities by weaponizing their old jokes and tweets.
 
Sure.

Democracy is about the group.

Dictatorship is all about the individual.

I see. So if you believe the individual has rights you believe in dictatorship, but if you believe the individual must bow to the collective you believe in democracy as the opposite of dictatorship. No wonder you can't answer my question about the majority violating the rights of the individual - you don't believe in the individual.

The individual has Constitutional rights. But these are not totally beyond the power of the group to change.

In the US Constitution the right to own slaves was implied. That is why it took an amendment to end it.

But this is not about rights it is about power.

Democracy in theory is about spreading power as far as possible.

Dictatorship is about concentrating power into an individual or small group.

Power is the ever present problem with organized groups of humans.

When a small group gets too much power there are always abuses.
 
That's a fancy way of saying "yes, the collective has all the rights, the individual has none."

By your definition, the majority not only has the power but the right to do whatever the majority wishes to the individual, and any individual who says "no" is a dictator.
 
That's a fancy way of saying "yes, the collective has all the rights, the individual has none."

By your definition, the majority not only has the power but the right to do whatever the majority wishes to the individual, and any individual who says "no" is a dictator.

It is saying individual rights once established are protected but not free from the examination of future generations.

Do you see it as bad that individuals lost the power to own slaves?

Individual rights are curtailed in many ways.

I do not have the right to harm others.

My rights are infringed.
 
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.
If she had made exactly the same derogatory statement (except about blacks instead of whites) in the St Louis Post Dispatch where I live there would be hell to pay. There would be rioting with Al Sharpton flying in to help. And they would all be trying to burn down the newspaper printing buildings.

And yes, her comments would still be rasist and disgusting no matter what color of skin they were directed.
 
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.
If she had made exactly the same derogatory statement (except about blacks instead of whites) in the St Louis Post Dispatch where I live there would be hell to pay. There would be rioting with Al Sharpton flying in to help. And they would all be trying to burn down the newspaper printing buildings.
I grew up in St. Louis. I have family in St. Louis, and I say your description is hyperbolic and hysterical rhetoric.
 
Notice the trend. It's not okay to not-hire or fire Nazis because Nazism is just an idea. It's okay to not-hire or fire an Asian woman who writes things about whites that hurts our feelings. But the reality is that Nazis pose an actual risk to persons while a radical writer might be hired because she can express an opinion in a regular opinion section. So what is defending Nazis actually about?
 
Notice the trend. It's not okay to not-hire or fire Nazis because Nazism is just an idea. It's okay to not-hire or fire an Asian woman who writes things about whites that hurts our feelings. But the reality is that Nazis pose an actual risk to persons while a radical writer might be hired because she can express an opinion in a regular opinion section. So what is defending Nazis actually about?

I do not know what universe you live in, but it's not ours. White people get fired and not hired for any hint of racism, much less being an actual Nazi, which is a lot rarer than certain posters on here claim. On the other hand, so-called "POCs" (although Jeong is as light-skinned as any white person she gets the POC privileges) can be as racist as they like and usually do not suffer any repercussions. Take Paula Dean or Roseanne. On the other hand, very overt and explicit racists are deemed perfectly politically correct as long as they are non-white and racist against whites. Like Sarah Jeong. Or Saida Grundy. Or F Keith Slaughter, an Atlanta talk show host at a CBS-owned black radio station (WAOK1380) who always says racist things about whites, but his career is never in any danger over it.

- - - Updated - - -

I grew up in St. Louis. I have family in St. Louis, and I say your description is hyperbolic and hysterical rhetoric.
It may be a little bit hyperbolic (although St. Louisians are not exactly known for not setting stuff on fire when upset - see Ferguson Quiktrip), but the overall point is sound. If a white person had tweeted things about blacks that Joeng tweeted about whites and NYT hired that person, there'd be hell to pay. It's typical lefty double standard on race.
 
Last edited:
https://twitter.com/kimmythepooh/status/1030606408365027334

You’re 8 years old.
Your 3rd grade class orders chinese food & your father delivers it. You are so excited to see your pops in school. He’s your hero. But apparently other kids don’t think he’s so cool. They laugh at him and mimic his accent. You don’t want to be Chinese anymore.

You’re 9 years old.
You attend ballet camp. Someone tells you that another girl *hates* you. She thinks your eyes are an “ugly shape.” You don’t have the vocabulary to describe why that’s hurtful. But now, you hate your distinctly Asian face. You don’t want to be Chinese anymore.

You’re 16 years old.
It’s Halloween & 2 students come to class dressed as “Asian tourists.” They’ve taped their eyes back, strapped cameras around their necks and chucked up peace signs. You feel uncomfortable. When a teacher asks if you find the costumes offensive, you say no.

You don’t want people thinking you’re uptight. You laugh along with everyone else. You don’t want to be Chinese anymore.

You’re 17 years old.
You’re off to college & you meet other Asians. They have pride that you never had. You meet a boy & he wonders why you don’t speak your family’s tongue. Why your favorite food is grilled cheese, not xiao long bao. You say your family doesn’t live that way.

Here's the thing. This woman met a lot of people who felt it was OK to treat her that way because of systemic racism.

Racism isn't "someone said something mean and now I feel bad."

It's about a series of assumptions that say one group's well-being and feelings matters more than everyone else's. That series of assumptions teaches black kids to hate their own black-ness and Chinese-American kids to hate their own Chinese-ness and me to hate my own Japanese qualities. When you say and do racist things, you reinforce that system of beliefs that abuse entire populations.

I know. You think that you have it exactly as bad as any minority because being accused of racism is just as awful as inflicting it on others for hundreds of years. You are able to think that way because deep down you believe you are so superior that a minor inconvenience for you really is equivalent to the suppression and abuse of entire populations for centuries.

Fuck you. You're not a special snowflake because you're white. And to insist that something like this is racist is absurd on the face of it.

When people say and do racist things to Asians, they are reinforcing systemic racism we've been dealing with all our lives, and I know damn well that African-Americans deal with much worse than what we Asians put up with.

All of this is just more snowflake bullshit from snowflake white supremacists.

From the kind of people who laughed while wearing these shirts:

CusBWVpVMAADOqy.jpg

Fucking fuck off. I'm tired of your snowflake bullshit, and you are not special just because your parents fucked.
 
You’re 8 years old.
Your 3rd grade class orders chinese food & your father delivers it. You are so excited to see your pops in school. He’s your hero. But apparently other kids don’t think he’s so cool. They laugh at him and mimic his accent. You don’t want to be Chinese anymore.
Could it be that the reason the kids didn't think her dad was "cool" was that he delivered food for a living? Would it really be different if he was white and worked for Pizza Hut?

You’re 9 years old.
You attend ballet camp. Someone tells you that another girl *hates* you. She thinks your eyes are an “ugly shape.” You don’t have the vocabulary to describe why that’s hurtful. But now, you hate your distinctly Asian face. You don’t want to be Chinese anymore.
Kids can be mean. You don't think white kids ever get bullied because of physical attributes?

You’re 16 years old.
It’s Halloween & 2 students come to class dressed as “Asian tourists.” They’ve taped their eyes back, strapped cameras around their necks and chucked up peace signs. You feel uncomfortable. When a teacher asks if you find the costumes offensive, you say no.
That's being oversensitive. It's Halloween for fuck's sake, not PC-fest. She could have chosen a costume that was stereotypically white. Like a viking or something.

You don’t want people thinking you’re uptight. You laugh along with everyone else. You don’t want to be Chinese anymore.
Oh please! Especially since the tourist trope is Japanese, not Chinese.

Here's the thing. This woman met a lot of people who felt it was OK to treat her that way because of systemic racism.
No. It's not systemic racism. Most of them were kids being mean because kids are mean, not because of race. And oversensitivity to a Halloween costume.
This is the double standard I decry. You think a high schooler's Halloween costume is some sort of "systemic racism" but a journalist tweeting #CancelWhitePeople or comparing white people to dogs is just fine.
Let's compare apples to apples.

Racism isn't "someone said something mean and now I feel bad."
Except when it happens to a so-called POC with Halloween costumes.
Racism is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior" or "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." Which fits Jeong's statements. It does not fit wearing non-PC Halloween costumes.

It's about a series of assumptions that say one group's well-being and feelings matters more than everyone else's. That series of assumptions teaches black kids to hate their own black-ness and Chinese-American kids to hate their own Chinese-ness and me to hate my own Japanese qualities. When you say and do racist things, you reinforce that system of beliefs that abuse entire populations.

Bullshit. The most wide-spread form of this in contemorary culture is white kids being taught to hate their own white-ness. All the other races are taught they should be proud of being X, but white people are taught to be ashamed to be white and to experience white guilt.

I know. You think that you have it exactly as bad as any minority because being accused of racism is just as awful as inflicting it on others for hundreds of years. You are able to think that way because deep down you believe you are so superior that a minor inconvenience for you really is equivalent to the suppression and abuse of entire populations for centuries.
Bullshit. For one, nobody alive today has inflicted anything on anybody for 100s of years. You believe in collective punishment where white people should be punished for what people who kinds sorta looked like them did hundreds of years ago. Second, Jeong is Korean. What have white people done to Korea that was so horrible, especially compared to what Japanese inflicted on them in the 20th century? If you want to use history as justification for anti-white racism, it does not fly in the case of Korea.

Fuck you. You're not a special snowflake because you're white.
Fuck you too. You are not a special snowflake because you are part Japanese. You are not a special snowflake because you hate one half of your DNA.

And to insist that something like this is racist is absurd on the face of it.
What Jeong wrote is most certainly racist. Something racist does not cease to be racist just because it is directed at a race you dislike.

When people say and do racist things to Asians, they are reinforcing systemic racism we've been dealing with all our lives, and I know damn well that African-Americans deal with much worse than what we Asians put up with.
But saying and doing racist things to white people is ok because reasons?

All of this is just more snowflake bullshit from snowflake white supremacists.
You are the snowflake here because you want special protections because of who some of your ancestors have been.

Fucking fuck off. I'm tired of your snowflake bullshit,
Then stop being such a snowflake and discuss things rationally. Instead of becoming overly emotional because somebody wore a Halloween costume at 16.

and you are not special just because your parents fucked.
Neither are you. Neither is Jeong. And you two are also not special because of your eye shape. Skin color or eye shape should not give one licence to be racist.
 
That's a fancy way of saying "yes, the collective has all the rights, the individual has none."

By your definition, the majority not only has the power but the right to do whatever the majority wishes to the individual, and any individual who says "no" is a dictator.

It is saying individual rights once established are protected but not free from the examination of future generations.

Do you see it as bad that individuals lost the power to own slaves?

Individual rights are curtailed in many ways.

I do not have the right to harm others.

My rights are infringed.

Your "examples" just continue to show your disdain for the individual, who has no value to you. You think those are examples of individual rights, and therefore conclude that individual rights are meaningless.

To paraphrase Mussolini, "Everything within the collective, nothing outside the collective, nothing against the collective." He also placed no value on the individual, and would probably have given the same absurd examples of individualism that you did. By the way, Mussolini was a dictator, just like everyone who despises the individual.
 
Do you see it as bad that individuals lost the power to own slaves?
The reason slavery is wrong is that it infringes on rights of other individuals.
Ironically, slavery was often good for the collective, which is why it was so widespread and persisted so long until the advent of mechanical power.
And even in the ancient world, philosophers that emphasized individuals tended to oppose slavery.
 
Back
Top Bottom