Roseanne fired but Sarah Jeong hired?

PlaneSpeeking

emo72 wrote: »

You're so right. Attention seeking dopes, the pair of them and we gave them our time. Arguing with each other about who's right? Who cares! Everyone go for a walk right now.

I'd say go out and read a book but apparently that needs "quantifying"!!!!!

professore

I requested Brian? to provide a definition of racism but he hasn't replied. No one has yet defined what racism is. Below is what dictionary.com comes back with. Sarah Jeong definitely has tweeted hundreds of examples of a. Roseanne's tweet does not fall under either. Yet she got fired.

And anyone who comes back with privilege + power can fcuk right off. The Kulaks in the Soviet Union, the intelligentsia in Mao's China and even the Jews in Nazi Germany are all examples of groups that had privilege and power, and were still racially discriminated against, murderously in these cases. I would argue that the current leftist rhetoric against straight white males is straight out of the racist's playbook. Anyone that can't see this is wilfully ignoring the facts.

noun
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

pickarooney

I'm the Radicalized Right and so's my wife!

professore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In fairness, Apple devices by default autocorrect to "z" so expect that one to become far more common across the board.

Apple devices beloved by lefties designed and built by the most capitalist company on the planet. Oh the irony!!!!

Malayalam

pickarooney wrote: »

I'm the Radicalized Right and so's my wife!

It's kind of got a ring to it, doesn't it, although if I could I'd opt instead to be the Radicalised Right-On. At least it would explain my hippie wardrobe.

Omackeral

keffiyeh wrote: »

I dare you to properly qualify what you 'meant' by that.

I dare you.

Here, you still haven't come back with my dare of you finding a post of mine that can be considered alt-right.

Actually, I asked twice so it's a double dare.

PlaneSpeeking

Malayalam wrote: »

It's kind of got a ring to it, doesn't it, although if I could I'd opt instead to be the Radicalised Right-On. At least it would explain my hippie wardrobe.

I've begun to agree with a few FG policies.

Was I radicalised by Simon Harris when he handed out an 8th leaflet outside my College ?

He only said "Use your vote" but was that a subliminal message ????

/sarcasm

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: keffiyeh, don't post in this thread again

Everyone else, stop replying to keffiyeh

Malayalam

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I've begun to agree with a few FG policies.

Was I radicalised by Simon Harris when he handed out an 8th leaflet outside my College ?

He only said "Use your vote" but was that a subliminal message ????

/sarcasm

Heh Probably. Lookit, one only has to flinch ever so slightly at the thought of loping off kids genitals to be considered right wing nowadays so, reluctantly, I embrace my new-found nazi credentials. It's kind of a pity because the right have such bad breath, awful sex-lives and boring outfits but, hey, what are ya gonna do?

Omackeral

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In fairness, Apple devices by default autocorrect to "z" so expect that one to become far more common across the board.

Ah I know, it's just this particular delightful fella has the cheek to call everyone else Yank and a wannabe American when he himself spells it that way and uses words like dude, incel and a whole plethora of other US-centric jargon.

Omackeral

pickarooney wrote: »

I'm the Radicalized Right and so's my wife!

I don't know what a Radicalised Right mortgage is!

PlaneSpeeking

Malayalam wrote: »

Heh Probably. Lookit, one only has to flinch ever so slightly at the thought of loping off kids genitals to be considered right wing nowadays so, reluctantly, I embrace my new-found nazi credentials. It's kind of a pity because the right have such bad breath, awful sex-lives and boring outfits but, hey, what are ya gonna do?

The SS outfits were black and therefore slimming - happy to get on board with that!

Venom

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

The SS outfits were black and therefore slimming - happy to get on board with that!

Well they were designed by Hugo Boss after all.

PlaneSpeeking

Venom wrote: »

Well they were designed by Hugo Boss after all.

Were they ??? Never knew that!!

kubjones

Malayalam wrote: »

Heh Probably. Lookit, one only has to flinch ever so slightly at the thought of loping off kids genitals to be considered right wing nowadays so, reluctantly, I embrace my new-found nazi credentials. It's kind of a pity because the right have such bad breath, awful sex-lives and boring outfits but, hey, what are ya gonna do?

And speaking vit ze Gherman accent makes me sound exotic.

Venom

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Were they ??? Never knew that!!

To be fair I think the company may have just made them but he was a member of the Nazi party.



Manufacturing for the Nazi Party

That same year, he became a member of the Nazi Party, receiving the membership number 508 889, and a sponsoring member ("Förderndes Mitglied") of the Schutzstaffel (SS). He also joined the German Labour Front in 1936, the Reich Air Protection Association in 1939, and the National Socialist People's Welfare in 1941. He was also a member of the Reichskriegerbund and the Reichsbund for physical exercises[3]. After joining these organizations, his sales increased from 38,260 RM ($26,993 U.S. dollars in 1932) to over 3,300,000 RM in 1941[3]. Though he claimed in a 1934–35 advertisement that he had been a "supplier for National Socialist uniforms since 1924", it is probable that he did not begin to supply them until 1928 at the earliest.[3] This is the year he became a Reichszeugmeisterei-licensed supplier of uniforms to the Sturmabteilung (SA), Schutzstaffel, Hitler Youth, National Socialist Motor Corps, and other party organizations[4][5].
By the third quarter of 1932, the all-black SS uniform was designed by SS members Karl Diebitsch (artist) and Walter Heck (graphic designer). The Hugo Boss company was one of the companies that produced these black uniforms for the SS. By 1938, the firm was focused on producing Wehrmacht uniforms and later also uniforms for the Waffen-SS.[6]


Heinrich Himmler in an SS uniform, of a type manufactured by Hugo Boss, visiting Dachau Concentration Camp.


During the Second World War, Hugo Boss employed 140 forced laborers, the majority of them women. In addition to these workers, 40 French prisoners of war also worked for the company briefly between October 1940 - April 1941. According to German historian Henning Kober, the company managers were fervent National Socialists who were all great admirers of Adolf Hitler. In 1945, Hugo Boss had a photograph in his apartment of him with Hitler, taken at the Berghof, Hitler's Obersalzberg retreat.[7] [6]
Because of his early NS Party membership, his financial support of the SS and the uniforms delivered to the National Socialist German Workers Party, Boss was considered both an "activist" and a "supporter and beneficiary of National Socialism". In a 1946 judgment, he was stripped of his voting rights, his capacity to run a business, and fined "a very heavy penalty" of 100,000 DM ($70,553 U.S. dollars).[3] However, Boss appealed, and he was eventually classified as a ‘follower’, a lesser category, which meant that he was not regarded as an active promoter of National Socialism.[6]
He died in 1948, but his business survived. In 2011, the company issued a statement of "profound regret to those who suffered harm or hardship at the factory run by Hugo Boss under National Socialist rule".[8]

Venom

It seems apart from making hundreds and hundreds of racist tweets, Jeong's journalistic ethics (lol) are coming under fire seeing as she doxed a rape victim in the UK.



http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=6029


I suppose this is just satire as well is it?

RasTa

Sal Butamol wrote: »

What works of his have you read?

Usual stuff. Shark hunt, Curse of lono, Fear and loathing Las Vegas, Hells Angels , Rum Diary, Great Shark hunt and my favoruite, Fear and Loathing on the campaign trail.

PlaneSpeeking

Venom wrote: »

It seems apart from making hundreds and hundreds of racist tweets, Jeong's journalistic ethics (lol) are coming under fire seeing as she doxed a rape victim in the UK.



http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=6029


I suppose this is just satire as well is it?

Love the line "the rape victim's anonymity was restored" - pretty sure that bell cannot be un-rung!

She is one right pox her!

Brian?

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

So was Roseanne's - yet many people called for her sacking, and got it.

The method of communication does not negate the content, nor should it.

"Just a tweet" is such a cop out.

Was it only tweets with Roseanne? If so it was wrong.

I am aware that she was somewhat of a conspiracy before that. Was the tweet the final straw? Either way, cancelling her show was the wrong move IMO. People should be free to express opinions, no matter how stupid said opinions are. It's up to the public if they want to watch her show after that.

Brian?

professore wrote: »

I requested Brian? to provide a definition of racism but he hasn't replied. No one has yet defined what racism is. Below is what dictionary.com comes back with. Sarah Jeong definitely has tweeted hundreds of examples of a. Roseanne's tweet does not fall under either. Yet she got fired.

When did you request that? I'm happy with the dictionary definition. I usually am with words.

And anyone who comes back with privilege + power can fcuk right off. The Kulaks in the Soviet Union, the intelligentsia in Mao's China and even the Jews in Nazi Germany are all examples of groups that had privilege and power, and were still racially discriminated against, murderously in these cases. I would argue that the current leftist rhetoric against straight white males is straight out of the racist's playbook. Anyone that can't see this is wilfully ignoring the facts.

noun
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Who is coming back with the privilege argument? If those tweets weren't satire, they are racist. The only bone of contention is whether you believe they were satire or not. I'm keeping an open mind on it until proved otherwise.

Despite all the brick bats, I think thats a pretty reasonable stance to take.

Taytoland

Brian? wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

A few? Pages full of them. I saw a Twitter thread earlier with them. Staggering actually.

It doesn’t change the fact that it’s tweets and only tweets. That’s my point.

You could literally say this about anything.

Brian?

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Were they ??? Never knew that!!

They were. The Nazis were a very well turned out bunch of homicidal maniacs. They loved a bit of genocide, but that was no reason to abandon sartorial elegance.

Brian?

Taytoland wrote: »

You could literally say this about anything.

I could say that about any tweets. Yes

professore

Venom wrote: »

It seems apart from making hundreds and hundreds of racist tweets, Jeong's journalistic ethics (lol) are coming under fire seeing as she doxed a rape victim in the UK.



http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=6029


I suppose this is just satire as well is it?

Let's sit back and watch the gymnastics here. The difference with the SJWs here and "Serious Men of Boards" (TM) is the SMOB wouldn't unquestioningly support anyone just because of their politics.

Taytoland

Brian? wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

You could literally say this about anything.

I could say that about any tweets. Yes

So anything goes on Twitter then?

professore

Brian? wrote: »

They were. The Nazis were a very well turned out bunch of homicidal maniacs. They loved a bit of genocide, but that was no reason to abandon sartorial elegance.

A bit like what I posted in another thread about being a hetero man but still having my head turned by Blaire White, DAMN those SS uniforms were cool !

keffiyeh

Omackeral wrote: »

Here, you still haven't come back with my dare of you finding a post of mine that can be considered alt-right.

Actually, I asked twice so it's a double dare.

I did actually. Your dialogue. The terms you use. I absolutely did.

Good to see I was right about you not being able to qualify it at all because it was all waffle. You have my permission to keep avoiding it because you can't. I already know you can't.



Mod: Banned for ignoring mod instruction

professore

Brian? wrote: »

When did you request that? I'm happy with the dictionary definition. I usually am with words.

Who is coming back with the privilege argument?

No one ... yet.

Brian? wrote: »

If those tweets weren't satire, they are racist. The only bone of contention is whether you believe they were satire or not. I'm keeping an open mind on it until proved otherwise.

Despite all the brick bats, I think thats a pretty reasonable stance to take.

I don't believe for a second they were satire. She clearly hates white people, especially men. Satire is funny. Satire makes fun of everyone equally. This wasn't funny and focussed on white people only, especially men. That's racist. Far more racist than even Trump for example, who qualifies everything he says with "criminal elements within" or some such.

Brian?

Taytoland wrote: »

So anything goes on Twitter then?

As I said earlier, what really matters is if they back up the tweets elsewhere. In this case she hasn't.

Brian?

professore wrote: »

No one ... yet.



I don't believe for a second they were satire. She clearly hates white people, especially men. Satire is funny. Satire makes fun of everyone equally. This wasn't funny and focussed on white people only, especially men. That's racist. Far more racist than even Trump for example, who qualifies everything he says with "criminal elements within" or some such.

Satire is an attempt to be funny. Even if these tweets are satire, they certainly aren't funny.

2 Scoops

Brian? wrote: »

Even if these tweets are satire

Which they aren't, just to reiterate.

Brian?

professore wrote: »

Let's sit back and watch the gymnastics here. The difference with the SJWs here and "Serious Men of Boards" (TM) is the SMOB wouldn't unquestioningly support anyone just because of their politics.

That article is like someone puked on their keyboard with front page open. It hurts my eyes

If she doxxed a rape victim, which it looks like she did, that's absolutely awful and beyond defending. I think we can all handily agree on that.

Brian?

2 Scoops wrote: »

Which they aren't, just to reiterate.

Ah you're back. Hello. No insults this time or irrelevant posting history?

She says they are. They read like satire. Why are you so sure they aren't?

Brian?

professore wrote: »

A bit like what I posted in another thread about being a hetero man but still having my head turned by Blaire White, DAMN those SS uniforms were cool !

I regret googling Blaire White.

splashuum

Brian? wrote: »

As I said earlier, what really matters is if they back up the tweets elsewhere. In this case she hasn't.

She has showed racism not only in her tweets but at speeches. She spoke at Harvard law school stating “White men are the reason why the world sucks”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2ql6H7NpiM&app=desktop

Do people really believe she is being “satirical” here?

PlaneSpeeking

Brian? wrote: »

Ah you're back. Hello. No insults this time or irrelevant posting history?

She says they are. They read like satire. Why are you so sure they aren't?

To quote Mandy Rice-Davies "well she would say that, wouldn't she ?"

PlaneSpeeking

splashuum wrote: »

She has showed racism not only in her tweets but at speeches. She spoke at Harvard law school stating “White men are the reason why the world sucks”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2ql6H7NpiM&app=desktop

Do people really believe she is being “satirical” here?

Why in God's name would she be invited to address Harvard Law ????

Dave0301

Brian? wrote: »

As I said earlier, what really matters is if they back up the tweets elsewhere. In this case she hasn't.

Just to clarify, going by this logic, it is okay to be racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist etc. on Twitter as long as you do not back it up anywhere else?

So you can tweet derogatory things about certain types of people, but if you claim elsewhere that you don't really mean it, you get a free pass?

hatrickpatrick

professore wrote: »

Apple devices beloved by lefties designed and built by the most capitalist company on the planet. Oh the irony!!!!

I really hate this argument TBH. Being anti corporatist doesn't mean that a person opposes free enterprise or the existence of private companies, it just means that they oppose those corporations defiling the "one person, one vote" principle of democracy.

The existence of Apple for instance is not at issue. When it is able to lean on a government to overturn the democratic will of the people, that's when it becomes an issue. And when it exploits workers, that is also when it becomes an issue.

Being left wing doesn't mean companies shouldn't exist at all, it means that ethics should be required by law and not left up to the free market. Arguments for rent controls for instance aren't arguing that professional landlords shouldn't exist, just that they shouldn't be allowed to exploit people just because they could exploit people.

Brian?

splashuum wrote: »

She has showed racism not only in her tweets but at speeches. She spoke at Harvard law school stating “White men are the reason why the world sucks”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2ql6H7NpiM&app=desktop

Do people really believe she is being “satirical” here?

That's the 3rd time someone has posted a poorly edited sliver of a speech. If she's such a man hating racist why is it edited down so much? Why isn't there more?

Venom

Brian? wrote: »

That article is like someone puked on their keyboard with front page open. It hurts my eyes

If she doxxed a rape victim, which it looks like she did, that's absolutely awful and beyond defending. I think we can all handily agree on that.

Jeong and the Vice website also tossed Naomi Wu, a Chinese equal rights activist under the bus by breaking their word on keeping elements of her private life out of the story, which caused her serious problems with the Chinese government.


https://nextshark.com/naomi-wu-vice-controversy/


https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5



Is this still satire Brian?

2 Scoops

Brian? wrote: »

Ah you're back. Hello. No insults this time or irrelevant posting history?

She says they are. They read like satire. Why are you so sure they aren't?

It's not my fault you say things like "Ben Shapiro isn't a conservative" when even his own podcast is self entitled "the biggest conservative podcast in America". My spoofer opinion hasn't changed and I think it's well founded.

Why do I not think they're satire? She held the same sentiment and posted the same racist views for years on twitter. She then repeated the exact same views while giving a talk at Harvard. It's not rocket science Brian. Read her timeline and see for yourself.

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

kubjones

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I really hate this argument TBH. Being anti corporatist doesn't mean that a person opposes free enterprise or the existence of private companies, it just means that they oppose those corporations defiling the "one person, one vote" principle of democracy.

The existence of Apple for instance is not at issue. When it is able to lean on a government to overturn the democratic will of the people, that's when it becomes an issue. And when it exploits workers, that is also when it becomes an issue.

Being left wing doesn't mean companies shouldn't exist at all, it means that ethics should be required by law and not left up to the free market. Arguments for rent controls for instance aren't arguing that professional landlords shouldn't exist, just that they shouldn't be allowed to exploit people just because they could exploit people.

Well put.

Brian?

Dave0301 wrote: »

Just to clarify, going by this logic, it is okay to be racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist etc. on Twitter as long as you do not back it up anywhere else?

So you can tweet derogatory things about certain types of people, but if you claim elsewhere that you don't really mean it, you get a free pass?

That depends. It depends how the Twitter activity is clarified.

If someone has a load of racist tweets and when challenged says, yeah I absolutely meant them. Case closed. We have a racist.

If someone has a load of racist tweets and when challenged says, they were a reaction to the online abuse I've received. They were a satire of the abuse I get. Case open. Some more reading and watching needed.

It's really that simple for me .

professore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I really hate this argument TBH. Being anti corporatist doesn't mean that a person opposes free enterprise or the existence of private companies, it just means that they oppose those corporations defiling the "one person, one vote" principle of democracy.

The existence of Apple for instance is not at issue. When it is able to lean on a government to overturn the democratic will of the people, that's when it becomes an issue. And when it exploits workers, that is also when it becomes an issue.

Being left wing doesn't mean companies shouldn't exist at all, it means that ethics should be required by law and not left up to the free market. Arguments for rent controls for instance aren't arguing that professional landlords shouldn't exist, just that they shouldn't be allowed to exploit people just because they could exploit people.

Yes, really mean communists here rather than lefties. I'm actually quite left leaning myself believe it or not with a sprinkling of right ideas about order and taking responsibility for yourself.

Brian?

Venom wrote: »

Jeong and the Vice website also tossed Naomi Wu, a Chinese equal rights activist under the bus by breaking their word on keeping elements of her private life out of the story, which caused her serious problems with the Chinese government.


https://nextshark.com/naomi-wu-vice-controversy/


https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5



Is this still satire Brian?

That's terrible.

professore

Venom wrote: »

Jeong and the Vice website also tossed Naomi Wu, a Chinese equal rights activist under the bus by breaking their word on keeping elements of her private life out of the story, which caused her serious problems with the Chinese government.


https://nextshark.com/naomi-wu-vice-controversy/


https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5



Is this still satire Brian?

Jesus H Christ. This is one evil woman. But Roseanne is somehow still worse.

Brian?

2 Scoops wrote: »

It's not my fault you say things like "Ben Shapiro isn't a conservative" when even his own podcast is self entitled "the biggest conservative podcast in America". My spoofer opinion hasn't changed and I think it's well founded.

Why do I not think they're satire? She held the same sentiment and posted the same racist views for years on twitter. She then repeated the exact same views while giving a talk at Harvard. It's not rocket science Brian. Read her timeline and see for yourself.

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

Back on form.

This is old information. Why bother posting it again.

Venom

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Why in God's name would she be invited to address Harvard Law ????

She ticks the right social justice boxes.