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

[Skeptic Tank]

I was thrilled when NYT stood by her and refused to fire her.

This kind of thing wakes up white sleepers like nothing else.

The double standards, the endorsement of anti-white sentiment, etc.

What sort of credibility can these media outlets really expect to have when they call out "racism" on the part of whites and then do something like this?

Best possible outcome from my perspective.

 

[Foolmewunz]

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.

Yeah, Salon did a good write-up of this. https://www.salon.com/2018/08/04/an...-tweets-by-new-york-times-hire-were-innocent/

The NYT doesn't need lawyers when they have attackers who make their case for them. The timeline is so obvious that the complainers are being reduced to "Yeah, but...." arguments. Yeah, but it doesn't matter; she shouldn't say racist-sounding things even if she's just parodying stuff that actual racists said.

 

[pharphis]

Here's a selection of other archives I came across. There is some duplication due to the links but if you click on some of them you will see that not all the tweets are deleted and can peruse the other comments.


edit: probably NSFW in some way
http://archive.fo/igOck
http://archive.fo/XUFku
https://archive.fo/B4kG3
http://archive.fo/ooD0I
http://archive.fo/MEORV
http://archive.fo/Q6qvX
http://archive.fo/9Wdcu

 

[Foolmewunz]

Here's a selection of other archives I came across. There is some duplication due to the links but if you click on some of them you will see that not all the tweets are deleted and can peruse the other comments.


edit: probably NSFW in some way
http://archive.fo/igOck
http://archive.fo/XUFku
https://archive.fo/B4kG3
http://archive.fo/ooD0I
http://archive.fo/MEORV
http://archive.fo/Q6qvX
http://archive.fo/9Wdcu

I'm becoming a fan. Some of her stuff is very funny. I like when she says she's going to take away all men's games and replace them with kale.

For the humor challenged*, it's sarcasm and it's funny.


*You know, like when Donald Trump makes fun of a handicapped reporter? Now that's humor! Ha ha. It was a joke. You people don't understand his 4D chess sense of humor.

 

[pharphis]

Here's a timeline someone made of her tweets that mention "white"

https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1025437806775226368


and I'm not denying that the gamer thing was a joke. I think that's pretty obvious

 

[Hungry81]

Yeah, Salon did a good write-up of this. https://www.salon.com/2018/08/04/an...-tweets-by-new-york-times-hire-were-innocent/

The NYT doesn't need lawyers when they have attackers who make their case for them. The timeline is so obvious that the complainers are being reduced to "Yeah, but...." arguments. Yeah, but it doesn't matter; she shouldn't say racist-sounding things even if she's just parodying stuff that actual racists said.

But right wing commentators did it first, so lets sink to their level. That way we can eventually sink down into the muck enough to get a left wing version of trump and beat them at their own game next elections.

Just because the hypocrites on the right are having their day in the sun, it does not mean we should be endorsing the equivillent witless hypocrites on the left. Call the hypocrites out directly and stop the revenge bigotted generalisations. Ammo for the extreme right wing is still ammo even if it is "blank rounds" that just make alot of noise.

 

[Aridas]

Ammo for the extreme right wing is still ammo even if it is "blank rounds" that just make alot of noise.

And they'll have "ammo" even if the rounds are created out of nothing. Obama's such a Muslim, after all. The Parkland students and Sandy Hook parents were crisis actors, after all.

I'm to the point where I just don't endorse shrinking away in fear from, say, being a reasonable person. Seriously, why should we be intimidated by the right wing's unreasonability, lies, and penchant for vile threats? Standing up for what's actually right is what we should actually be doing, not kowtowing to the aching butts of those who are too busy trying to engage in tu quoque and the like. Racism (definitely including against whites) is a real problem... where it's actually happening. Indulging their attempts to drag others down with quarter truths and lies that play to things that they've been shown to be just validates their opinion that those who think they are, say, racist can be easily manipulated and dismissed.

 

[Foolmewunz]

But right wing commentators did it first, so lets sink to their level. That way we can eventually sink down into the muck enough to get a left wing version of trump and beat them at their own game next elections.

Just because the hypocrites on the right are having their day in the sun, it does not mean we should be endorsing the equivillent witless hypocrites on the left. Call the hypocrites out directly and stop the revenge bigotted generalisations. Ammo for the extreme right wing is still ammo even if it is "blank rounds" that just make alot of noise.

She was mocking them. If you can't see that, then you are choosing not to. That is not a tu quoque defense.

You can respond to idiots by making a six page footnoted counter-argument.
Pulling you hair from your head and throwing up your hands in disgust.
Scream at them and call them names. (see Trump, Donald J.)
Ignore them and hope they'll go away.
Mock and ridicule them.

She chose the latter. It's a form of response, IMHO, far better than three others (2, 3, 4) and more effective in many circles than the scholarly discourse route.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm becoming a fan. Some of her stuff is very funny. I like when she says she's going to take away all men's games and replace them with kale.

For the humor challenged*, it's sarcasm and it's funny.

It's sarcasm, but it isn't funny. Not because it's offensive but because it's lazy and unimaginative.

 

[Aridas]

It's sarcasm, but it isn't funny. Not because it's offensive but because it's lazy and unimaginative.

Ehh, turnabout is fair play. If it validly highlights how stupid the things that it's responding to are, it works. Mockery doesn't actually need to actually be funny to accomplish its purpose.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's sarcasm, but it isn't funny. Not because it's offensive but because it's lazy and unimaginative.

This is why they give us chocolate and vanilla. Or, more accurately, P.G. Wodehouse and Benny Hill. Tastes in humor vary.

I believe they say "that's why they give us chocolate and vanilla". More appropriate to this topic, perhaps, "That's why they give us Benny Hill and Mark Twain".

ETA: It's not really sarcasm. I misspoke. It's parody (or satire if you want to elevate it).

 

[Klimax]

I'm becoming a fan. Some of her stuff is very funny. I like when she says she's going to take away all men's games and replace them with kale.

For the humor challenged*, it's sarcasm and it's funny.


*You know, like when Donald Trump makes fun of a handicapped reporter? Now that's humor! Ha ha. It was a joke. You people don't understand his 4D chess sense of humor.

Would it be still funny if targets were black or Asians?

 

[Aridas]

Would it be still funny if targets were black or Asians?

If the blacks or Asians got similarly parodied with absurdity for racist things that they said, why wouldn't it be funny to those who like that kind of humor?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

*You know, like when Donald Trump makes fun of a handicapped reporter? Now that's humor! Ha ha. It was a joke. You people don't understand his 4D chess sense of humor.

https://youtu.be/CsaB3ynIZH4

 

[Damien Evans]

I could find no evidence that motherboard vice called local police and had a SWAT team sent to Naomi's residence.

The allegations they made could easily have lead to her being disappeared by the Chinese authorities as an embarrassment, and were doubly wrong by making them after explicitly agreeing not to.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Would it be still funny if targets were black or Asians?

Well, that would depend on the blacks or Asians. Plenty of idiots to go around in this world. And it would depend on what aspect she was making fun of. We don't have to speculate in the current iteration because by backtracking, they've shown who and what she was mimicking.

The I'm Rubber You're Glue tactic is very hard to pull off. Gays got some mileage out of "breeders" for a while, but it just didn't upset the hetero world as clever as we cool-hip urban denizens thought it was. Trashing white people in general seems to work.

Lookit, I'm not subscribing to her newsletter or starting a fan club, but I am saying that I agree with what the conservatives think is just an excuse. It's a viable way to treat trolls. Throw their **** right back in their own faces. The conservasphere reaction is manufactured, manufactured by the same people who manufactured the outrage over YECs being banned from teaching, over the War Against Christmas, and the liberal bullying that shuts down free speech.

 

[paulhutch]

The allegations they made could easily have lead to her being disappeared by the Chinese authorities as an embarrassment, and were doubly wrong by making them after explicitly agreeing not to.

Ah OK, so nothing at all like swatting a person, thanks for the info.

 

[Wildy]

Jeet Heer shows why you shouldn't just assume good faith with these 4chan goons.

They're called "anons" Mumbles, "goons" are from Something Awful. /ackchyually

 

[The Norseman]

She was mocking them. If you can't see that, then you are choosing not to.

She was mocking them... for five years?

We don't have to speculate in the current iteration because by backtracking, they've shown who and what she was mimicking.

Did you read the link in post 65? 'Cause by your responses here, it really doesn't seem like it.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

What if... instead of saying ''they' are getting 'our guys' fired by dredging up some out of context tweets, so now we're going to get random strangers fired by taking their tweets out of context, because we believe those people are part of 'them'', everybody just cuts it out with the faux outrage and trying to divide the world into 'us' and 'the enemy'?

It's the strategy that is wrong, not the choice of victim.