Roseanne fired but Sarah Jeong hired?

2 Scoops

Brian? wrote: »

This is old information. Why bother posting it again.

Might as well be talking to the wall.

"How do you know it's not satire?"

She's been tweeting an anti-white sentiment without provocation for years, here's proof of it. She confirmed her anti-white views in a Harvard talk.

"This is old information, why are you posting it?"

hatrickpatrick

Brian? wrote: »

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 .

Personally, for me, it's "if someone has a load of racist tweets, case closed. We have a racist".

There is no nuance, context, or other "reasons" that SJWs like to trot out which can justify hate speech. It's an entirely black and white issue (an issue of colour, if you will :pac: ) - a person who tweets race based hate speech is a racist. Case closed. A person who tweets sex based hate speech is a sexist. Case closed.

Brian?

2 Scoops wrote: »

Might as well be talking to the wall.

"How do you know it's not satire?"

She's been tweeting an anti-white sentiment without provocation for years, here's proof of it. She confirmed her anti-white views in a Harvard talk.

"This is old information, why are you posting it?"

You simply reposted the material she says is satire. Surely you can at least find a non Twitter source to prove your point.

Brian?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally, for me, it's "if someone has a load of racist tweets, case closed. We have a racist".

There is no nuance, context, or other "reasons" that SJWs like to trot out which can justify hate speech. It's an entirely black and white issue (an issue of colour, if you will :pac: ) - a person who tweets race based hate speech is a racist. Case closed. A person who tweets sex based hate speech is a sexist. Case closed.

I completely understand why you'd think that way and it is your right to do so. I disagree though.

Malayalam

I really hate the way there is a mob mentality on boards if someone disagrees. It becomes such an unpleasant ad hominen free for all, and usually makes me click the unfollow option. If someone - in this instance Brian? but it could be anyone - strongly agrees with a different point of view than the majority of posters, ie that there is some possibility that the tweets were satire in this case, then why pile in on top of him/her once people have clearly expressed their disagreement with him/her. I don't agree with the POV but okay it's allowed to exist. It may even be correct. The same happened in so many threads on important issues in the past - if someone or some few had a minority opinion they are basically hounded or shamed into silence. There is no room for ambivalence, nuance, dissent. I really dislike it. Obvious trolling is a different matter and fair game, but there has to be room for variance. Did you never hear, as you are going along defending an opinion and see someone elses argument, that small voice inside that says hmmm, there may be something in that?

professore

It's clear to me she is a sociopath. Just read Part 2 of the below where she put the life of a brave Chinese woman social media personality in STEM in danger and lied about it just to further her career. Disgusting behaviour.

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

Dave0301

Brian? wrote: »

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 .

And what if a person made no comment about their tweeting style?

I only ask as I haven't seen anything to suggest that she was clearly making an effort at satire throughout her tweeting style, and her suggestion of it being satire now would appear to be damage limitation.

Also, when you look at some of the tweets, they are certainly not directed at people that provoked her first. In some instances, it is just a running commentary aimed at deriding white men and women.

WinnyThePoo

Omackeral wrote: »

That user is thread banned I believe FVP. I wanted to respond and rip their crummy argument to pieces but no point. Not that there's much point trying to debate them anyway, they're not an honest poster by any stretch of the imagination. Even people that lean the same way as them politically want zero to do with them.

Hey Omackeral

Omackeral wrote: »

Have to say, fair play to ancapailldorcha, the only one that I'd consider staunchly on that side of the divide to simply just come out and call a spade a spade. Everyone else from Hapax Legomenon to Brian? to Winny The Poo tripping up over themselves to makes excuses for an out and out racist sexist just because they're from an ethnic minority... a racist act in itself ironically.

Fancy backing up what you said here about myself. Or was it nonsense?

professore

Malayalam wrote: »

I really hate the way there is a mob mentality on boards if someone disagrees. It becomes such an unpleasant ad hominen free for all, and usually makes me click the unfollow option. If someone - in this instance Brian? but it could be anyone - strongly agrees with a different point of view than the majority of posters, ie that there is some possibility that the tweets were satire in this case, then why pile in on top of him/her once people have clearly expressed their disagreement with him/her. I don't agree with the POV but okay it's allowed to exist. It may even be correct. The same happened in so many threads on important issues in the past - if someone or some few had a minority opinion they are basically hounded or shamed into silence. There is no room for ambivalence, nuance, dissent. I really dislike it. Obvious trolling is a different matter and fair game, but there has to be room for variance. Did you never hear, as you are going along defending an opinion and see someone elses argument, that small voice inside that says hmmm, there may be something in that?

Some do that, some just disagree with him. The former group are a bunch of idiots. He's well able to stand up for himself. As we all are. I don't think anyone can shame you into silence unless you have something to be ashamed of - which he doesn't BTW. I have a large voice listening to see if I might be wrong. In fact that's the whole point - otherwise I wouldn't engage at all and just broadcast my opinion. I like to learn. I learned about the origin of alt-right in this thread for example.

I remember on the 8th amendment I held a minority view - abortion limited by the constitution - and there were several strongly attacking me. Some did try to discuss in fairness.

P_1

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally, for me, it's "if someone has a load of racist tweets, case closed. We have a racist".

There is no nuance, context, or other "reasons" that SJWs like to trot out which can justify hate speech. It's an entirely black and white issue (an issue of colour, if you will :pac: ) - a person who tweets race based hate speech is a racist. Case closed. A person who tweets sex based hate speech is a sexist. Case closed.

If they did a few years ago and have since become not a sexist or racist then do we judge them on their past bad character?

Dave0301

Malayalam wrote: »

I really hate the way there is a mob mentality on boards if someone disagrees. It becomes such an unpleasant ad hominen free for all, and usually makes me click the unfollow option. If someone - in this instance Brian? but it could be anyone - strongly agrees with a different point of view than the majority of posters, ie that there is some possibility that the tweets were satire in this case, then why pile in on top of him/her once people have clearly expressed their disagreement with him/her. I don't agree with the POV but okay it's allowed to exist. It may even be correct. The same happened in so many threads on important issues in the past - if someone or some few had a minority opinion they are basically hounded or shamed into silence. There is no room for ambivalence, nuance, dissent. I really dislike it. Obvious trolling is a different matter and fair game, but there has to be room for variance. Did you never hear, as you are going along defending an opinion and see someone elses argument, that small voice inside that says hmmm, there may be something in that?

Is the whole point of a discussion forum not to discuss though? Having opposing views is always a good thing, but if you have a minority opinion then you should not be surprised if you have to defend it.

I agree that it could be difficult for a poster to reply to every point raised, but if you can provide a logical, cohesive and well-reasoned opinion it should be applauded and respected, and it should help to mitigate the effect you are talking about.

Taytoland

Brian? wrote: »

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

So people can just say what they want then. I actually agree with you but so often we hear you aren't allowed to say "offensive" things.

Malayalam

professore wrote: »

Some do that, some just disagree with him. The former group are a bunch of idiots. He's well able to stand up for himself. As we all are. I don't think anyone can shame you into silence unless you have something to be ashamed of - which he doesn't BTW. I have a large voice listening to see if I might be wrong. In fact that's the whole point - otherwise I wouldn't engage at all and just broadcast my opinion. I like to learn. I learned about the origin of alt-right in this thread for example.

I remember on the 8th amendment I held a minority view - abortion limited by the constitution - and there were several strongly attacking me. Some did try to discuss in fairness.

Fair points. Most seem able to stand up for themselves but still it makes me feel squirmy. I had the same view as you on the 8th, strangely enough, and wouldn't have dreamed of subjecting myself to the abuse.

professore

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

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

She's a Harvard Law graduate - hard to believe when you see the basement level of her journalism - or even the ridiculous speech she gives.

Malayalam

Dave0301 wrote: »

Is the whole point of a discussion forum not to discuss though? Having opposing views is always a good thing, but if you have a minority opinion then you should not be surprised if you have to defend it.

I agree that it could be difficult for a poster to reply to every point raised, but if you can provide a logical, cohesive and well-reasoned opinion it should be applauded and respected, and it should help to mitigate the effect you are talking about.

I totally agree. It's the snideness of tone that bugs me. Like writing (for example) Eh, Malayam? at the end of a point, or dragging up past opinions as if people are static lumps of lead who never vary. I often disagree with people in real life but I don't sneer at them and thankfully they don't sneer at me. At least to my face.

professore

Malayalam wrote: »

Fair points. Most seem able to stand up for themselves but still it makes me feel squirmy. I had the same view as you on the 8th, strangely enough, and wouldn't have dreamed of subjecting myself to the abuse.

I guess you have to. A lot of stuff I would debate on here I wouldn't dream of debating in public as it would be pointless. Here you can't be shouted down. Most people have good intentions at least.

Omackeral

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Hey Omackeral
Fancy backing up what you said here about myself. Or was it nonsense?

I wouldn't consider you the worst offender by a long shot but you have had a tendency to thank the posters that do seem to excuse her racism. Below is an excerpt of a post you thanked which says the poster don't care what she said... even though it's racist to the core.

super_furry wrote: »

I don’t know her, don’t know of her or her work and I don’t really care about what she may have said a decade ago or however long it was.

professore

Malayalam wrote: »

I totally agree. It's the snideness of tone that bugs me. Like writing (for example) Eh, Malayam? at the end of a point, or dragging up past opinions as if people are static lumps of lead who never vary. I often disagree with people in real life but I don't sneer at them and thankfully they don't sneer at me. At least to my face.

Good point Malayalam. Some people are ignorant and it's all about ego and point scoring. The truth doesn't matter.

WinnyThePoo

Omackeral wrote: »

I wouldn't consider you the worst offender by a long shot but you have had a tendency to thank the posters that do seem to excuse her racism. Below is an excerpt of a post you thanked which says the poster don't care what she said... even though it's racist to the core.

awww you over care about 'likes' . So cute.

professore

Another thing that grinds my gears about this is that some posters assume the only reason Sarah Jeong is being criticised by the Serious Men of Boards (as one of them christened us) is because she is a woman and a feminist. Ehhh no. Roseanne is also a woman and a feminist (described as a working class feminist) but she isn't a sociopathic monster like Jeong. She might be uncultured but if my life was at risk in China I know who I'd want on my side.

professore

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

awww you over care about 'likes' . So cute.

@Malayalam snide quotes Exhibit A.

WinnyThePoo

professore wrote: »

@Malayalam snide quotes Exhibit A.

Are you sure you know what the word snide means? I know you where struggling with Alt right yesterday.

Venom

professore wrote: »

She's a Harvard Law graduate - hard to believe when you see the basement level of her journalism - or even the ridiculous speech she gives.

She's a small-time tech journalist that most people never heard of until her tweets came to light, so a rather odd choice to be invited to speak unless just for box-ticking imho. I would imagine that Harvard has lots of law graduates with much more impressive accomplishments to choose from.

Omackeral

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

awww you over care about 'likes' . So cute.

Wouldn't expect much else from you Winny. Anything but address the issue. The thanks button can be used an indicator that you agree with a post by the way.

Omackeral

professore wrote: »

@Malayalam snide quotes Exhibit A.

It's preposterous, it really is. I was asked to back up my post and viewpoint by that poster, which I did, and was met with childish jibes and nothing else. No counterpoint, no discussion, no offering. Is there any point even engaging with posters like that?

Venom

Omackeral wrote: »

Wouldn't expect much else from you Winny. Anything but address the issue. The thanks button can be used an indicator that you agree with a post by the way.

One of the things that bugs me about boards is having a "thanks" instead of a "like" button.

2 Scoops

Brian? wrote: »

You simply reposted the material she says is satire. Surely you can at least find a non Twitter source to prove your point.

Is she a journalist or comedian? Repeating the same "satire" for years on end would point towards the latter.

At least one non twitter source? There's a video of her at Harvard among her peers repeating the same sentiment

If you're looking for a source as in news source I found this article in nymag very fair which is hardly a right wing publication.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-anti-white-racism.html

Omackeral

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Are you sure you know what the word snide means? I know you where struggling with Alt right yesterday.

If you're going to attempt to be a smart-arse, try using the correct spellings.

professore

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Are you sure you know what the word snide means? I know you where struggling with Alt right yesterday.

Exhibit B.

Omackeral

professore wrote: »

Exhibit B.

Don't mind him/her, it was a perfectly cromulent use of the word.

WinnyThePoo

Omackeral wrote: »

Wouldn't expect much else from you Winny. Anything but address the issue. The thanks button can be used an indicator that you agree with a post by the way.

There is no issue with me liking that post.

That idiot has no effect on my life. There is no reason to get your undies in a mix and start naming posters who don't follow your world view.

#mustnameposterswhodontsharemyoutrage

Omackeral

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

There is no issue with me liking that post.

That idiot has no effect on my life. There is no reason to get your undies in a mix and start naming posters who don't follow your world view.

#mustnameposterswhodontsharemyoutrage

More juvenile crap from you. What is it with you lot and undies and e-cocks and the like?

WinnyThePoo

Omackeral wrote: »

If you're going to attempt to be a smart-arse, try using the correct spellings.

Oh my god. The Spelling police are here!

WinnyThePoo

Omackeral wrote: »

More juvenile crap from you. What is it with you lot and undies and e-cocks and the like?

You lot?

Omackeral

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Oh my god. The Spelling police are here!

Irony Police, if anything. You see, normally I wouldn't do that but you tried to belittle another poster and insinuate that they're dumb when you yourself couldn't even spell a four letter word correctly in your attempt to put him down.

Brian?

2 Scoops wrote: »

Is she a journalist or comedian? Repeating the same "satire" for years on end would point towards the latter.

At least one non twitter source? There's a video of her at Harvard among her peers repeating the same sentiment

If you're looking for a source as in news source I found this article in nymag very fair which is hardly a right wing publication.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-anti-white-racism.html

You seem to be missing my point. I want a source where she talks directly or writes about race. Not an article that is simply someone’s opinion on her tweets.

If she’s a man hating, racist journalist it shouldn’t be too hard to find. All I can find are more articles about her tweets and her blog. Her blog is clean.

Omackeral

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You lot?

Yeah, it's satire. Don't sweat it.

Yer Da sells Avon

Omackeral wrote: »

More juvenile crap from you. What is it with you lot and undies and e-cocks and the like?

You take this stuff way, way too seriously.

Brian?

Malayalam wrote: »

I really hate the way there is a mob mentality on boards if someone disagrees. It becomes such an unpleasant ad hominen free for all, and usually makes me click the unfollow option. If someone - in this instance Brian? but it could be anyone - strongly agrees with a different point of view than the majority of posters, ie that there is some possibility that the tweets were satire in this case, then why pile in on top of him/her once people have clearly expressed their disagreement with him/her. I don't agree with the POV but okay it's allowed to exist. It may even be correct. The same happened in so many threads on important issues in the past - if someone or some few had a minority opinion they are basically hounded or shamed into silence. There is no room for ambivalence, nuance, dissent. I really dislike it. Obvious trolling is a different matter and fair game, but there has to be room for variance. Did you never hear, as you are going along defending an opinion and see someone elses argument, that small voice inside that says hmmm, there may be something in that?

I completely agree. I’m happy to defend my position though. I just don’t like the insults, I feel they drag ever thread off course.

I’ve been called a hypocrite and a spoofer today, which is better than usual.

Omackeral

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

You take this stuff way, way too seriously.

Great input. Any more racists you'd like to excuse? Anything resembling a discussion? It is a discussion site after all. You made a holy show of yourself yesterday and it seems you've f*ck all else to offer with the exception of little digs and remarks. You should quit while you're behind.

Anyway, I'm a Serious Man of Boards so of course I take it seriously.

WinnyThePoo

Omackeral wrote: »

Irony Police, if anything. You see, normally I wouldn't do that but you tried to belittle another poster and insinuate that they're dumb when you yourself couldn't even spell a four letter word correctly in your attempt to put him down.

Me belittle?
When a poster such as proferre makes up nonsense and gets called out on it and continues with that nonsense after. Of course I can take the mick, or if you prefer because your so serious e-cock out of him.

Anyway continue your outrage.

Omackeral

Brian? wrote: »

I completely agree. I’m happy to defend my position though. I just don’t like the insults, I feel they drag ever thread off course.

I’ve been called a hypocrite and a spoofer today, which is better than usual.

You do. I've gained a lot of respect for you today I must say. You actually take people on and challenge their views and defend your own. That's what it should be about.

Omackeral

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

or if you prefer because your so serious e-cock out of him.

I honestly don't know what you're even trying to say here.

hatrickpatrick

Brian? wrote: »

You seem to be missing my point. I want a source where she talks directly or writes about race. Not an article that is simply someone’s opinion on her tweets.

If she’s a man hating, racist journalist it shouldn’t be too hard to find. All I can find are more articles about her tweets and her blog. Her blog is clean.

Why does it matter? If the NYT will criticise and fire others (for example Quinn Notron) for tweets - nothing else, just tweets - containing hate speech, then they should fire everyone for hate speech. And if mainstream commentators and activists will condemn some people for racist tweeting, they shouldn't be defending anyone for racist tweeting.

Any deviation from this constitutes a double standard, AKA hypocrisy. That's the issue here. The tweets themselves and even the medium for them are irrelevant, what matters is that Jeong is not being subjected to the same level of criticism as other racists, specifically because of who she was targeting with her racist remarks.

This is unacceptable no matter how you dress it up.

For what it's worth, I believe in free speech so I don't advocate for ever firing anyone for offensive speech, but I care more about equality, so if one side is subjected to treatment I ideologically oppose, I do advocate for the other side to receive the same treatment. Equality of humans is right at the top of the list of priorities, and so it should be.

WinnyThePoo

Omackeral wrote: »

I honestly don't know what you're even trying to say here.

It's simple, they are letters. When you put them together they make words. When you put words together they make sentences.

Omackeral

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

It's simple, they are letters. When you put them together they make words. When you put words together they make sentences.

Yes, usually. This, however, is nowhere near a coherent sentence;

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

if you prefer because your so serious e-cock out of him.

If it is, it's in a dialect or creole I've yet to master. Anyway, I'm not getting dragged down to your dreadful posting style anymore.

WinnyThePoo

Omackeral wrote: »

Yes, usually. This, however, is nowhere near a coherent sentence;



If it is, it's in a dialect or creole I've yet to master. Anyway, I'm not getting dragged down to your dreadful posting style anymore.

Makes perfect sense. Bye.

Brian?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why does it matter? If the NYT will criticise and fire others (for example Quinn Notron) for tweets - nothing else, just tweets - containing hate speech, then they should fire everyone for hate speech. And if mainstream commentators and activists will condemn some people for racist tweeting, they shouldn't be defending anyone for racist tweeting.

I’ll be honest, I don’t know anything about Quinn Norton. So I’ll have to google that.

It matters to me. I said earlier, I think more than once, no one should be fired for their tweets. I essentially the tweets are only one data point on making that decision.

Any deviation from this constitutes a double standard, AKA hypocrisy. That's the issue here. The tweets themselves and even the medium for them are irrelevant, what matters is that Jeong is not being subjected to the same level of criticism as other racists, specifically because of who she was targeting with her racist remarks.

This is unacceptable no matter how you dress it up.

For what it's worth, I believe in free speech so I don't advocate for ever firing anyone for offensive speech, but I care more about equality, so if one side is subjected to treatment I ideologically oppose, I do advocate for the other side to receive the same treatment. Equality of humans is right at the top of the list of priorities, and so it should be.

Look, if the NYT has fired people in the past for racist tweets. Take that up with them, they shouldn’t have.

I’m merely presenting the argument that the tweets in this case aren’t necessarily racist as the author claims they are satire. I don’t see any proof they aren’t satire. I’m leaning toward believing her.

The more I read about her, the more I dislike the woman. It hasn’t change my opinion on the debate at hand.

Omackeral

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Makes perfect sense. Bye.

It does, if you're brain damaged. Later baby x x x

professore

The SMOB.