• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

New York Times hires a racist and that's OK.

What was the context of these tweets? I don't use twitter and so often find it difficult to find actual strands of discussions. For instance if someone tweeted "kill all the white people to make the world a better place" that could be extracted and would seem to be very racist and violent, but if it followed a tweet saying "this is as stupid as someone saying" this would obviously totally alter the meaning of what is being said.

That said from what I can find at the moment about this particular person it seems she was posting tweets that she believed in and it does seem rather strange to me for a media organisation that seems to consider itself objective and factually based to employ a known racist and sexist for an editorial role.
 
uke2se said:
Yeah, this is a battleground that will really cause people to see things your way. Reporter reacts to racism by posting racist tweets back at the racists. What an outrage.
Click to expand...

Is this actually true though or just a get out of jail free card? Did she post those back at racists?
 
Darat said:
What was the context of these tweets? I don't use twitter and so often find it difficult to find actual strands of discussions. For instance if someone tweeted "kill all the white people to make the world a better place" that could be extracted and would seem to be very racist and violent, but if it followed a tweet saying "this is as stupid as someone saying" this would obviously totally alter the meaning of what is being said.

That said from what I can find at the moment about this particular person it seems she was posting tweets that she believed in and it does seem rather strange to me for a media organisation that seems to consider itself objective and factually based to employ a known racist and sexist for an editorial role.
Click to expand...

Twitter isn't meant for conversations, it's meant to broadcast a short thought out to the entire world, free of context. So that's what happens. It is the wrong medium for thoughtful anything. It is the shrill one-second brainless shriek of an idiot for consumption by millions of other idiots with no attention spans. So it's perfect for advertising and teenagers. Nobody else should be using it or reading it, and those who do deserve all they get. I'd call it "unintended consequences" but the sort of person who uses such a tool is incapable of anticipating any consequence or indeed understanding cause and effect.

It is a tool just for trolling. That people are using it, and responding to it, and letting it shape actual real world events is a tremendous mistake and it will have lasting consequences for our species. It may well be a major contributing factor in our eventual extinction.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Twitter isn't meant for conversations, it's meant to broadcast a short thought out to the entire world, free of context. So that's what happens. It is the wrong medium for thoughtful anything. It is the shrill one-second brainless shriek of an idiot for consumption by millions of other idiots with no attention spans. So it's perfect for advertising and teenagers. Nobody else should be using it or reading it, and those who do deserve all they get. I'd call it "unintended consequences" but the sort of person who uses such a tool is incapable of anticipating any consequence or indeed understanding cause and effect.

It is a tool just for trolling. That people are using it, and responding to it, and letting it shape actual real world events is a tremendous mistake and it will have lasting consequences for our species. It may well be a major contributing factor in our eventual extinction.
Click to expand...

You forgot to add that it's the primary channel of communication of POTUS to the American public.
 
I am generally of mixed feelings when someone's bad behavior on social media, especially activity from years past, results in negative social and professional consequences for an individual, but that seems to be the world we live in now. Turnabout is fair play and I am not ready accept the hand-waving the NYT is trying to pull to say this isn't blatant race-baiting twitter trolling.

Hopefully it will soon cease being fashionable for progressive types to **** all over white people in explicitly racist terms. It's intellectually lazy, morally indefensible, and completely undercuts meaningful discussions of the poor state of race relations in this country. Even toddlers can understand that two wrongs don't make a right.
 
But more seriously, Whites are a minority in the world as a whole, and recently in California too.

Anybody who claims Whites should get no protection from racism is going against all those claims that "Discrimination is bad for EVERYBODY". Remember that catch phrase ? You heard it from everybody from MLK to BLM. Hypocrisy at it's utmost.
 
Are we just supposed to accept that she was using the same language/rhetoric as her opponents/trolls online as being factually true? Because honestly I doubt it

I see a lot of simple disagreement about things (like affirmative action for example) reframed entirely by each opposing side in an argument as below (generic talking points)

"your group thinks that X deserves to suffer and be discriminated against, and you just want to keep your privilege"

and the other saying

"Your group thinks that X is incapable and therefore everyone else needs to suffer to accommodate this incompetence"

edit: and as mentioned twitter is so atrocious for following conversations that it is basically impossible to verify, especially if she wasn't responding directly to people
 
Last edited:
Question: Would anyone that runs a company or any aspect of a company the size of NYT consider hiring a guy like the one who made the below website, especially if he openly admits it is all satire based on what some groups have said on gender relations? (feminists)

Please consider your answer both before and after clicking if you chose to do so

NSFW:
http://womenarebetterthanmen.com
 
Brainster said:
It's not racist if it's anti-white. It's not sexist if it's anti-male. And it's not discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation if it's anti-straight.
Click to expand...

If she's telling the truth, her tweets are at least understandable. She gets bombarded with the most vile attacks relating to her ethnicity and sex for a long period of time, then repeats those attacks against white males to show her attackers how it feels. The point is at least understandable.
 
trustbutverify said:
If she's telling the truth, her tweets are at least understandable. She gets bombarded with the most vile attacks relating to her ethnicity and sex for a long period of time, then repeats those attacks against white males to show her attackers how it feels. The point is at least understandable.
Click to expand...

Only if she is naïve enough to think that her attackers really care what she has to say.
 
trustbutverify said:
If she's telling the truth, her tweets are at least understandable. She gets bombarded with the most vile attacks relating to her ethnicity and sex for a long period of time, then repeats those attacks against white males to show her attackers how it feels. The point is at least understandable.
Click to expand...

I am not a twitter user, so I'm not familiar with how it works, but my understanding is that her tweets were not replies to other tweets. I also have heard that almost all reporters/columnists get abuse from their twitter followers. Michelle Malkin used to do regular posts on her blog showing the vile, racist things that people would say to her in emails and tweets. Strangely, she never responded with racism of her own. Maybe that's because racism is wrong, no matter what the motivation for it?

The problem here is that even if we take her at her word that she was replying to individuals, the racist content of her replies was not about them specifically. It was about all whites.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
The effectiveness of parody can often be gauged by the amount of self-righteous faux-outrage it elicits from its subjects.
Click to expand...

It seems to be generating lots of real outrage from people who never sent her harassing tweets.
 
It's how tribalism works. Members of "my tribe" have to be judged by the entire movie, the deleted scenes, and the behind the scenes featurette. Members of the "other tribe" are allowed to be judged based on only their blooper reel.

This woman's racists tweets obviously don't count because there's a story behind them. Anyone else racist tweets aren't given the same leeway.
 
Last edited:
Stankeye said:
Sarah Jeong Joins The Times’s Editorial Board as lead writer on technology.

Unfortunately she is a racist. (maybe)

But that's OK, she was just trolling the real(TM) racists and the NYTimes is good with that.

https://twitter.com/NYTimesPR/status/1025048766825549830/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1025048766825549830&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2Ftwitter.min.html%231025048766825549830
Click to expand...

You know what really makes the NYT's defense of Jeong sweet? Not her racist tweets, which are basically cliched for the far left at this point, but her **** posting about her current co-workers.
https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1025354199574433798
It's almost like the NYT and Jeong deserve each other.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It's how tribalism works. Members of "my tribe" have to be judged by the entire movie, the deleted scenes, and the behind the scenes featurette. Members of the "other tribe" are allowed to be judged based on only their blooper reel.

This woman's racists tweets obviously don't count because there's a story behind them. Anyone else racist tweets aren't given the same leeway.
Click to expand...

True. And it is astounding how much of this we see on a website supposedly devoted to rational though,and by people who no doubt consider themselves rational thinkers.
But that is what is dangerous about tribalism: you often don't see it for what it is.
And of course it's only the other Tribe that is guilty of Tribalism;your Tribe is totally above it....
When it comes to distorting relality without the person involved being aware of it. religion has nothing on political tribalism.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom