• 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.

Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...
Heh. It's almost like the real reason they hired her was to fill the "controversial douchebag" quota.
 
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...
Can you tell me which "tribe" she is meant to be?
 
RolandRat said:
Is this actually true though or just a get out of jail free card? Did she post those back at racists?
Click to expand...

There's no evidence of that, just a lame excuse for pathetic behavior.

Some are trying to make her see the light with their own idiotic messages, most posts on her public Facebook page (including photos) are polluted with disgusting comments:

https://www.facebook.com/sarahSMHjeong
 
quadraginta said:
In other words;

It's okay when real racists do it because ... free speech.

It's not okay to mock racists by doing it right back at them because ... reasons.
Click to expand...

A couple of additional points:

202-2013 was before Twitter users had any real means of ignoring groups that decided to dogpile anyone - blocklists and the like only became popular due to Gamergate and other 4chan harassment campaigns.

It's also true that, back then, it was particularly tough to get any sort of nuance into replies, with all of 140 characters to work with.

But even worse, many places want to see this sort of edgy, "funny" reply that set off people that were clearly just trolling - unless they went to an Ivy League university, this is basically how many people started their writing careers, so you'd pretty much lock out everyone outside of a very narrow group going forward.

Now, if places want to toss out anyone who, at any time, wrote something on Twitter that could be misconstrued as "hateful", especially when pushed by people who deliberately take things out of context, they're free to ruin themselves. Personally, I think Verge has the proper response to these efforts - "We know what this is, we're not interested in these games".

And anyone who wants to discuss what I said about Roseanne Barr can feel free to search the forum for it.
 
She is an unappologetic racist. The "I was only doing it cause others were doing it to me" excuse wouldnt fly if she was a white male right winger, so her bigottedness should not be handwaved away with excuses you would expect from a 5 to 14 year old child.
 
Last edited:
Reading other tweets she has made she comes across as an extremely unpleasant person and she seems to be mix her "personal" with her "professional" which I never like.
 
Mumbles said:
A couple of additional points:

202-2013 was before Twitter users had any real means of ignoring groups that decided to dogpile anyone - blocklists and the like only became popular due to Gamergate and other 4chan harassment campaigns.

It's also true that, back then, it was particularly tough to get any sort of nuance into replies, with all of 140 characters to work with.

But even worse, many places want to see this sort of edgy, "funny" reply that set off people that were clearly just trolling - unless they went to an Ivy League university, this is basically how many people started their writing careers, so you'd pretty much lock out everyone outside of a very narrow group going forward.

Now, if places want to toss out anyone who, at any time, wrote something on Twitter that could be misconstrued as "hateful", especially when pushed by people who deliberately take things out of context, they're free to ruin themselves. Personally, I think Verge has the proper response to these efforts - "We know what this is, we're not interested in these games".

And anyone who wants to discuss what I said about Roseanne Barr can feel free to search the forum for it.
Click to expand...

I'm largely in agreement with The Verge's opinion, myself. With that said, while she's hired, she is also representing the New York Times, and thus, needs to be held accountable for that which she says there. It's apparently been made clear to her that that kind of behavior is unacceptable while employed, regardless. If she does restart such behavior, even somewhat sarcastically, I would expect there to be consequences.

But then, hey, I also don't consider racism to be THE WORST THING EVER. It's a mark against a person, but there are frequently more important qualities to look at during any particular evaluation.
 
Darat said:
Reading other tweets she has made she comes across as an extremely unpleasant person
Click to expand...

That's why I want her to stay at the NYT. She's a toxic person, and she'll make them miserable.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's why I want her to stay at the NYT. She's a toxic person, and she'll make them miserable.
Click to expand...

I could understand them employing her as a - in today's vernacular - generator of clickbait columns, newspapers have always known the drawing power of having "controversial" columnists, but it seems strange to me that you would want this person in an editorial position.
 
quadraginta said:
In other words;

It's okay when real racists do it because ... free speech.

It's not okay to mock racists by doing it right back at them because ... reasons.
Click to expand...

The issue I have with it is not that they are hiring this person, but that so many companies have fired so many others.


She was being a "mock racist". So was Dr. Laura. So was Don Imus. So was the Papa John's guy. So was that comedian who played on Seinfeld. So was that PR representative flying over Africa.

There's no reason to believe that any of those people were racists.

Jimmy the Greek wasn't even racist, although he did say some things about race that most people wouldn't agree with.


If you touch the wrong nerves, it doesn't matter what you actually meant. You're gone. On the other hand, as long as you are insulting white people, context matters.
 
Darat said:
That doesn't actually follow....
Click to expand...


The New York Times fired a white editor in February for racial bigotry.

The New York Times has now decided not to fire an editor for racial bigotry.

Who the bigotry was targeted at is the difference.

Or another way to put it –

White person displays bigotry = GTFO
POC displays bigotry = nuance and context need to be considered
 
Jeet Heer shows why you shouldn't just assume good faith with these 4chan goons. So columnist Andrew Sullivan was apparently hurt by the awful awful racism of Sarah Jeong - and helpfully quotes some of her awful racist quotes.

One problem - the racist quote she took from her, from 2013, was a parody of "we must listen to both sides" takes on scientific racism. And the specific person she was mocking? Why none other than noted defender of The Bell Curve...Andrew Sullivan. Yeah, he's angry about a parody of himself.

Maybe he should have looked into that before firing off his column.
 
The bigger issue that no one seems to care about is that she helped those disgraces to journalism over at Vice SWAT Chinese maker Naomi Wu.
 
Mumbles said:
Jeet Heer shows why you shouldn't just assume good faith with these 4chan goons. So columnist Andrew Sullivan was apparently hurt by the awful awful racism of Sarah Jeong - and helpfully quotes some of her awful racist quotes.

One problem - the racist quote she took from her, from 2013, was a parody of "we must listen to both sides" takes on scientific racism. And the specific person she was mocking? Why none other than noted defender of The Bell Curve...Andrew Sullivan. Yeah, he's angry about a parody of himself.

Maybe he should have looked into that before firing off his column.
Click to expand...

picture.php
 
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