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

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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.

You mean like the exact bullshit you’re flinging around and bots just like you are shitting all over the interwebs? That kind of “hell to pay”?

It's typical lefty double standard on race.

Ahh whataboutism. See, no matter how many times rbots redeploy tu quoque it never fails to fuck them over.

What if it were a double standard? So what? We all know the difference and the context and the intent, so what exactly do you think you gain by conceding that racism is bad, because that’s what you’re actually doing without comprehending that fact?

Whatabout this other person doing the bad thing? I don’t know, but I do know you just confirmed that it’s a bad thing, you fucking moron so now whatabout you being a racist p.o.s.?

You hoist yourself with your own petard every single time. Like a lobotomized automaton smacking into the wall over and over and over again. Whatabout whatabout whatabout whatabout.

And we just watch in stunned silence as the stupid keeps going and going and going...

But, hey, maybe you can post more cartoons? Pickshures. Pretty shiny pickshures make the phunny smart.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

I live in this Universe where you defend Nazi free speech but want this woman to be fired. Explain your inconsistency. Argument only. No anecdotes or pictures of black men. Just give logic.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Do you realize how stupid it looks to somehow equate the reaction to a killing to a potential reaction to hypothetical written words?

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.

Except that would not happen, since the historical and current roles and positions of white people and black people in the US are not consistent with those tweets. Please stop confusing your bigoted fantasies with reality.

It's typical lefty double standard on race.

Typical alt-right snowflake whining.

 

[southernhybrid]

This is old news Derec and I wonder what took you so long to find it. I found the editorial by the NYTimes editorial board explaining why they decided to stay with Sarah, despite her tweets. And, the conservative editorialist Bret Stephens also defended her hiring, although he does feel as if there is a bit of a double standard regarding how the left reacted to this. Stephens feels as if we take what people tweet far too seriously. I don't tweet and never will, but I have seen how tweeting sometimes brings out the worst in people.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/business/media/sarah-jeong-new-york-times.html

On Wednesday, The New York Times announced that it had hired Sarah Jeong as the lead technology writer for its editorial board, saying she “has guided readers through the digital world with verve and erudition, staying ahead of every turn on the vast beat that is the internet.”

There was soon an outcry on right-wing websites over tweets Ms. Jeong wrote from 2013 to early 2015, which referred to white people with terms like “groveling goblins” and “dogs.”

On Thursday, The Times released a statement saying that it knew about the tweets before hiring Ms. Jeong, 30, and that she would stay on the editorial board.

“Her journalism and the fact that she is a young Asian woman have made her a subject of frequent online harassment,” The Times said in its statement. “For a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers. She sees now that this approach only served to feed the vitriol that we too often see on social media.”

So, her tweets were basically reactions to the bias and prejudice that she faced online from others and she has admitted that she didn't handle this harassment in the best way. So, give the woman a break and see if she's learned from her mistake. Most people are willing to accept what appears to be a sincere apology and give the individual another chance. I think those tweets were made at least four years ago, no? It appears as if she's moved on. I think the rest of us should too. Now if you'd like to discuss the lies and racist tweets of the president, I'm listening.

 

[ZiprHead]

But, hey, maybe you can post more cartoons? Pickshures. Pretty shiny pickshures make the phunny smart phoney real.

FTFY

 

[repoman]

I chuckle at the thought of Jonathan Swift putting out a modernized (current lingo), abridged version of "A Modest Proposal" one tweet at a time.


On another note, Candace Owens (who is a bit of a grifter based on her earlier doxing/snitching website), and the "Amazing Atheist (also a bit of a breezy conman) put out rejiggered Jeong tweets that were clearly parodies and had explicit postscripts to this effect. Both were suspended only their social media reach got their accounts restored.

Personally, it is exciting to watch a twitter thread where it has been a tennis volley of 8+ tweets back and forth of people switching the subject and object of a social interaction. I mean a leftist, intersectionalist will show up a Trumper on some point by switching things up and putting the shoe on the other foot. Vice versa, someone will replace the word white with black or jew or chinese to make a point.

Counter trolling is totally valid for sides, but it comes with risks for old tweets. I think that Ramzpaul https://twitter.com/ramzpaul is about the best at counter trolling for his own side, it is a minor miracle he has not been banned. I also have seen a lot of excellent left wing counter trolls, mostly on economic issues - but then again I like both nationalism and socialism.

Let all trolls and counter trolls bloom.

 

[barbos]

NYT must have seen something in her besides her obvious trolling tendencies. I mean she must be incredible writer.

 

[Trausti]

NYT must have seen something in her besides her obvious trolling tendencies. I mean she must be incredible writer.

Or her open anti-White racism was seen as a qualification. See all the racism apologists in this thread.

 

[barbos]

NYT must have seen something in her besides her obvious trolling tendencies. I mean she must be incredible writer.

Or her open anti-White racism was seen as a qualification. See all the racism apologists in this thread.

Well, I buy "It was an obvious satire" excuse. But I can't see hiring her just for her "satire".

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

NYT must have seen something in her besides her obvious trolling tendencies. I mean she must be incredible writer.

Or her open anti-White racism was seen as a qualification.

Who are you talking to? You’re the fifth grader who doesn’t know he shit his pants, but we all do. Get it now DK?

See all the racism apologists

So you agree that racism is wrong.

Every. Fucking. Time.

 

[Trausti]

Who are you talking to? You’re the fifth grader who doesn’t know he shit his pants, but we all do. Get it now DK?

See all the racism apologists

So you agree that racism is wrong.

Every. Fucking. Time.

Yes. Do you? Or will you entertain us with double standards?

 

[Trausti]

 

[Mumbles]

I chuckle at the thought of Jonathan Swift putting out a modernized (current lingo), abridged version of "A Modest Proposal" one tweet at a time.


On another note, Candace Owens (who is a bit of a grifter based on her earlier doxing/snitching website), and the "Amazing Atheist (also a bit of a breezy conman) put out rejiggered Jeong tweets that were clearly parodies and had explicit postscripts to this effect. Both were suspended only their social media reach got their accounts restored.

Personally, it is exciting to watch a twitter thread where it has been a tennis volley of 8+ tweets back and forth of people switching the subject and object of a social interaction. I mean a leftist, intersectionalist will show up a Trumper on some point by switching things up and putting the shoe on the other foot. Vice versa, someone will replace the word white with black or jew or chinese to make a point.

Counter trolling is totally valid for sides, but it comes with risks for old tweets. I think that Ramzpaul https://twitter.com/ramzpaul is about the best at counter trolling for his own side, it is a minor miracle he has not been banned. I also have seen a lot of excellent left wing counter trolls, mostly on economic issues - but then again I like both nationalism and socialism.

Let all trolls and counter trolls bloom.

Well, yes, Twitter has changed their guidelines over the past 6-7 years - stuff you could get away with may or may not get you suspended now. And again, the bottom of the supposed "slippery slope" would be if Owens and Kirk didn't get their accounts reinstated due to their media presence - especially given what's happened to, say, Cult of Dusty, people who call nazis "racist" or transgendered people who refer to radical feminists who wish to exclude trans people as "TERFs", which is an acronym for...well, exactly what they are.

"How dare you call @kikegasser1488 an anti-semite!" Twitter often says...

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Who are you talking to? You’re the fifth grader who doesn’t know he shit his pants, but we all do. Get it now DK?

See all the racism apologists

So you agree that racism is wrong.

Every. Fucking. Time.

Yes.

Then stop being a racist. Congratulations, you’re done.

Whataboutism ALWAYS screws your own pooch. When racists point to someone else doing the same behavior that they've been condemned for--in the ignorant belief that they're pointing out hypocrisy--all they are doing is agreeing that the behavior is wrong. But we know from their racist comments that they do not in fact believe the behavior is wrong, thus making them the hypocrites.

So, double dunning-kruger trouble.

 

[laughing dog]

Who are you talking to? You’re the fifth grader who doesn’t know he shit his pants, but we all do. Get it now DK?

See all the racism apologists

So you agree that racism is wrong.

Every. Fucking. Time.

Yes. Do you? Or will you entertain us with double standards?

<edited> that is truly ironic but not entertaining. In fact, it literally funny as shit.

 

[Copernicus]

The Terms of Use have a clarification page: https://talkfreethought.org/termsofuse/?p=clarification. Please note our clarification of the above rule:

Calling a fellow poster a liar, deceitful, or making a similar accusation, is not acceptable even if you believe that your fellow poster really is a liar or deceitful. This kind of accusation never furthers the debate. Some people sincerely believe the strangest, most illogical things, and they aren't 'lying' when they express those irrational beliefs. They really believe them to be true, even when they obviously contradict other things they have said. The only acceptable response to what appears to be a lie from a fellow poster is to present evidence or argument to contradict what your fellow poster has said.

Similarly, hyperbolic or overly emotive language and imagery, such as unwarranted comparisons to Nazi Germany, are generally discouraged and will be deleted if they appear to serve no purpose other than to inflame the discussion. We strive for rational and civil discussion here at TF, and if the moderators believe a post or a part of a post is counterproductive to that, they may need to edit.

For the most part, any personal remark about another member may be subject to edit/infraction. Address the content of the person's post; refrain from making comments about the person.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

NYT must have seen something in her besides her obvious trolling tendencies. I mean she must be incredible writer.

Or her open anti-White racism was seen as a qualification. See all the racism apologists in this thread.

We are not racism apologists.

 

[blastula]

NYT must have seen something in her besides her obvious trolling tendencies. I mean she must be incredible writer.

Or her open anti-White racism was seen as a qualification. See all the racism apologists in this thread.

Ha, maga guy complaining about racism.

 

[untermensche]

Who cares about the NYT?

It is the paper for corporate America.

It is the paper for capitalism.

It is a moderate right wing conservative publication. Krugman is not a critic of capitalism. He is an ardent supporter.

There is nothing left wing about it.

It's just that some have drifted so far to the fringe on the right, to the insane right, the moderate right wing looks very left to them.

The NYT is not a left wing publication.

Nobody on the left holds it up as their own.

It is close to center which today means compared to the insane right many read it because there is some truth in it.

 

[Derec]

Who cares about the NYT?

It is the paper for corporate America.

What do you read? The Daily Worker?