Roseanne fired but Sarah Jeong hired?

Yer Da sells Avon

Omackeral wrote: »

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.

I don't care if you (or all of your fellow Serious Men) think I made a holy show of myself. Tbh, even if it was objectively true, it wouldn't matter. Sounds like it would be your worst nightmare though.

On the topic of 'little digs and remarks', I've been on the receiving end of quite a lot of those, but I'm satisfied that I've kept it fairly lighthearted and haven't responded in kind. Although I'll admit, I came close with the "G'way and get a hug off someone" remark, which was originally going to be a very different suggestion altogether.

Brian?

professore wrote: »

The SMOB.

Typical. Not a brown lad in sight.

WinnyThePoo

Omackeral wrote: »

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

Aaaaannnnndddd There it is.

Omackeral

Can someone tell me what this means? Apparently it makes sense but I just can't make heads nor tails of it.

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

Thanks in advance,
Omackeral
(Junior Secretary, Serious Men of Boards)

professore

Omackeral wrote: »

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

THE SMOB DOES NOT APPROVE OF YOUR TONE. OMAKERAL'S MEMBERSHIP IS HEREBY REVOKED FOR 30 MINUTES.

Omackeral

professore wrote: »

THE SMOB DOES NOT APPROVE OF YOUR TONE. OMAKERAL'S MEMBERSHIP IS HEREBY REVOKED FOR 30 MINUTES.

Can I at least take my e-cock with me?

WinnyThePoo

Omackeral wrote: »

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

This poster might be able to help you. He brought it up .

Omackeral

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

This poster might be able to help you. He brought it up .

Hapax Legomenon brought it up actually but who gives a fcuk at this stage, I've been booted out of the SMOB :mad:

dark crystal

Omackeral wrote: »

Can I at least take my e-cock with me?

Sorry, I've been following these traded insults like I'd imagine it would be like watching a game of verbal ping pong between Trump and Kim Jung Un and it has kept me entertained no end.


This comment, though... water....everywhere.

Yer Da sells Avon

Omackeral wrote: »

Can I at least take my e-cock with me?

Only if you're finished playing helicopter with it.

professore

Omackeral wrote: »

Hapax Legomenon brought it up actually but who gives a fcuk at this stage, I've been booted out of the SMOB :mad:

You can come back in if you promise to help us troll and oppress Hapax and their ilk.

Omackeral

professore wrote: »

You can come back in if you promise to help us troll and oppress Hapax and their ilk.

Only if it's done satirically.

DickSwiveller Returns

Good piece on the whole controversy

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/sarah-jeong-and-the-battle-of-the-twittermobs/21656#.W2neF9JKjcs

Ken.

Mod- Winny the poo and Omackeral do not post in this thread again. Reason- Derailing thread, trying to WUM each other.

Sal Butamol

RasTa wrote: »

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.

Read his letters collections. The Proud Highway and Fear and Loathing in America. Afterwards you'll understand why I made the post I did as to why Hunter wouldn't be happy with media today.

Trust me.

RabbleRouser2k

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.

I've seen many, many peddling the 'cancel white people' stuff, and too often they are women.
Go thru twitter-you'll see the 'white people are the biggest purveyors of rape, terrorism, racism etc'... as well as the 'cancel white people' s**t.

I saw someone tweet the above kind of message on a day when Canada suffered a terrorist attack by a Muslim terrorist. Her claims weren't even routed in fact.
Do a wiki or google search-you'll see caucasian countries don't even make the top 10-for any of that stuff.

Or there was the Guild Wars 2 devs who were fired for attacking the gaming customers-one was previously fired for the same thing. They both cried victim when it was behaviour nobody would endorse.

RasTa

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Read his letters collections. The Proud Highway and Fear and Loathing in America. Afterwards you'll understand why I made the post I did as to why Hunter wouldn't be happy with media today.

Trust me.

Sure Hunter himself said " “the best fiction is far more true than any kind of journalism.” Well Faulkner first which Hunter took on for his gonzo stuff so he would be delighted

Sal Butamol

RasTa wrote: »

Sure Hunter himself said " “the best fiction is far more true than any kind of journalism.” Well Faulkner first which Hunter took on for his gonzo stuff so he would be delighted

Delighted by what?

TomSweeney

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Good piece on the whole controversy

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/sarah-jeong-and-the-battle-of-the-twittermobs/21656#.W2neF9JKjcs

Seriously ?

Sarah Jeong, a tech journalist, is the latest public figure to be shamed over old tweets. The four-year-old tweets, in which Jeong disparages white people, were dug up by right-wing tweeters after the New York Times announced she was joining its editorial board. Within 24 hours of the NYT’s announcement, a Twittermob was calling for her to be sacked. The tweets were ugly, peddling the strange kind of woke racialism perfected by identitarians. Here’s a selection: ‘Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men’; ‘Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like grovelling goblins?’; ‘white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants’. Charming, eh?
The NYT has stood by Jeong, as well it should.

Yeah , so "right wing tweeters" again the "liberal" left has fallen into the trap of smearing, so only right wingers should find that racism unacceptable ??
It's basically saying if you are upset by racism against whites - it's cos you are a far right nazi KKK asshole.

F*ck Off.

And the 2nd major piece of bull**** The NYT has stood by Jeong, as well it should.
I stopped reading.


But seriously, left wing MSM keep it up, Donald Trump is rubbing his hands together should be a landslide for him in 2020.

dav3

TomSweeney wrote: »

But seriously, left wing MSM keep it up, Donald Trump is rubbing his hands together should be a landslide for him in 2020.

You do realise that this is an Irish forum right?

animaal

I'm ambivalent about whether or not this Jenog one is fired or not for her very obviously racist tweets. However, I would like more consistency on the parts of media and employers. Either racist tweets are acceptable or they're not.

In a way, I'd like to see everybody free to spout racist rubbish - it would be clearer who to ignore, and why. No more guessing through veils at people's real opinions and motivations. I would have no problem saying to a child "That person is just full of hate, and it's making him/her say silly things. And here's another hateful person with the opposite view, and (s)he's doing the same thing".

On a separate note, I agree with the poster (sorry can't remember who it was) who was uncomfortable with the "piling on" posters with unpopular views. Personally, I'm glad there are honest opinions that differ from my own, and I'd rather listen to them and disagree than pressure them into silence.

TomSweeney

dav3 wrote: »

You do realise that this is an Irish forum right?

Yeah and you do realise this is an all American topic right ?

Skylinehead

TomSweeney wrote: »

But seriously, left wing MSM keep it up, Donald Trump is rubbing his hands together should be a landslide for him in 2020.

I've seen this mentioned a few times. The number of people that will vote based on media bias or whatever is miniscule. Trump got in on the economy, not people disliking the New York Times.

TomSweeney

Nixonbot wrote: »

I've seen this mentioned a few times. The number of people that will vote based on media bias or whatever is miniscule. Trump got in on the economy, not people disliking the New York Times.

Well yeah, but it's one grain of a bloody desert !!

mad muffin

The White American people had done fücked up and fûcked up good. They’ve convinced the American nation that racism is only perpetrated by white people.

Any racist talk against whites is no racism at all, and everyone except whites are victims of racism.

Could you believe the uproar if this was tweeted by a white woman against a minority? She’d be gone quicker than you could say Roseanne Barr.

Taytoland

Waiting for her to be fired, any day now.

RabbleRouser2k

Taytoland wrote: »

Waiting for her to be fired, any day now.

I doubt it-because if she gets fired, then the NYT person who hired her gets fired too.
It reflects badly on them either way. I don't like Ben Shapiro, but I try and listen to opinions on both sides before I form an opinion. And he made an interesting point.
He believes past tweets should not get someone fired. If you make those tweets on company time, sure, fire the person.
But prior to being hired-then no. The reporter who NYT fired for negative comments, she was seen as more right wing. At the moment, if you're anywhere close to the Right, you're gonna get less opportunities.

The Guild Wars example I mentioned a few posts earlier? Those were made when she was working with and advertising herself as an employee of the GW2 company. So obviously they had to do something when she was harassing the customers.

The NYT gave a flimsy excuse, a bad excuse for sure. And Jeong is a horrible person, for sure. But she's essentially put a target on herself-if she majorly screws up, I wouldn't be surprised if she was fired.

hatrickpatrick

Nixonbot wrote: »

I've seen this mentioned a few times. The number of people that will vote based on media bias or whatever is miniscule. Trump got in on the economy, not people disliking the New York Times.

I think you'd be surprised how many people, particularly young Trump voters, were influenced far more than you'd expect by the mainstream "white males are scum" narrative.

When a political faction actively promotes hate speech against your demographic, it will cause many people to react in unpredictable and counter-intuitive ways. A lot of people will put economic issues to one side if the alternative is voting for someone who has an agreeable economic message, but also thinks that tweeting #KillAll[your identity group] is ok, because [your identity group] somehow deserves it.

I don't really understand why this is so downplayed as a motivating factor in how people vote. Being subjected to demographic-based hate speech invokes a very basic, visceral reaction in many humans.

RabbleRouser2k

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think you'd be surprised how many people, particularly young Trump voters, were influenced far more than you'd expect by the mainstream "white males are scum" narrative.

When a political faction actively promotes hate speech against your demographic, it will cause many people to react in unpredictable and counter-intuitive ways. A lot of people will put economic issues to one side if the alternative is voting for someone who has an agreeable economic message, but also thinks that tweeting #KillAll[your identity group] is ok, because [your identity group] somehow deserves it.

I don't really understand why this is so downplayed as a motivating factor in how people vote. Being subjected to demographic-based hate speech invokes a very basic, visceral reaction in many humans.

As was the media's 'don't vote for Trump' narrative-they kept telling people not to vote for one person, that eventually they did an accidental reverse psychology.
And people voted for Trump-including non-white voters.

They failed to understand how Trump was able to manipulate media, including social media. Hillary's campaign failed on every single count of using media to her advantage (even Obama noted this). She couldn't compete against Donnie because he had experience in it. When the media focused so much attention on Donnie's health, and then shut down any question about Hill's health, that left many people with a lot of questions about Hillary (why the deflection, for example), especially when Hillary's pneumonia diagnosis was revealed-folks asked more questions about what else the media wasn't telling them.

They continue to attribute false quotes to Donald, and continue the narrative of the 'he insulted a disabled reporter' when actually he insulted himself.

I despise Alex Jones, but part of me is left worried about what other opinions will be 'shut down'. There's no winning in these situations.

Skylinehead

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think you'd be surprised how many people, particularly young Trump voters, were influenced far more than you'd expect by the mainstream "white males are scum" narrative.

When a political faction actively promotes hate speech against your demographic, it will cause many people to react in unpredictable and counter-intuitive ways. A lot of people will put economic issues to one side if the alternative is voting for someone who has an agreeable economic message, but also thinks that tweeting #KillAll[your identity group] is ok, because [your identity group] somehow deserves it.

I don't really understand why this is so downplayed as a motivating factor in how people vote. Being subjected to demographic-based hate speech invokes a very basic, visceral reaction in many humans.

Oh I do think it's a factor. Just not the main one. Trump won the election in the Rust Belt, a place that's heavy on manufacturing and mining, which have both declined massively over the years. He promised the resurgence of both, so they voted for him. Internet hate wars really don't factor into the real lives of many people, at least in my experience. Your mileage may vary.

PlaneSpeeking

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

As was the media's 'don't vote for Trump' narrative-they kept telling people not to vote for one person, that eventually they did an accidental reverse psychology.
And people voted for Trump-including non-white voters.

They failed to understand how Trump was able to manipulate media, including social media. Hillary's campaign failed on every single count of using media to her advantage (even Obama noted this). She couldn't compete against Donnie because he had experience in it. When the media focused so much attention on Donnie's health, and then shut down any question about Hill's health, that left many people with a lot of questions about Hillary (why the deflection, for example), especially when Hillary's pneumonia diagnosis was revealed-folks asked more questions about what else the media wasn't telling them.

They continue to attribute false quotes to Donald, and continue the narrative of the 'he insulted a disabled reporter' when actually he insulted himself.

I despise Alex Jones, but part of me is left worried about what other opinions will be 'shut down'. There's no winning in these situations.

I was told on FB the other day that I'd "put out some wrong opinions". When I asked the person - who I'd have considered a friend - what made an opinion "wrong" I got "some were anti women" (I distrust Vicky Phelan intensely); "disagreeing that the UK Government are trying to kill poor people" (of course they're not!) and "Jeremy Corybn is God" (no, he's a Trotskyite chancer who would bankrupt the UK in a week - plus I've a Jewish nan, he's an anti-semitic bollix).

Point is - there seems to be a set of "criteria" that the left have allowed for discussion - go beyond their parameters and you are called racist and worse.

givyjoe

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I was told on FB the other day that I'd "put out some wrong opinions". When I asked the person - who I'd have considered a friend - what made an opinion "wrong" I got "some were anti women" (I distrust Vicky Phelan intensely); "disagreeing that the UK Government are trying to kill poor people" (of course they're not!) and "Jeremy Corybn is God" (no, he's a Trotskyite chancer who would bankrupt the UK in a week - plus I've a Jewish nan, he's an anti-semitic bollix).

Point is - there seems to be a set of "criteria" that the left have allowed for discussion - go beyond their parameters and you are called racist and worse.

Just out of interest, why so distrustful of Vicky Phelan?

PlaneSpeeking

givyjoe wrote: »

Just out of interest, why so distrustful of Vicky Phelan?

I can't put my finger on it, I have the most profound sympathy for the victims of this and feel they should be propelled to the top of any waiting list, nay seen privately and immediately. Get the best oncologists on it - now.

But I feel she is making political and personal hay out of this and rather enjoying the limelight and giving FG a bloody nose.

Handing over hundreds of millions of Euro from an already strapped Health budget so people can buy an overpriced second house in Dublin City Centre is NOT appropriate either.

dav3

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I can't put my finger on it, I have the most profound sympathy for the victims of this and feel they should be propelled to the top of any waiting list, nay seen privately and immediately. Get the best oncologists on it - now.

But I feel she is making political and personal hay out of this and rather enjoying the limelight and giving FG a bloody nose.

Handing over hundreds of millions of Euro from an already strapped Health budget so people can buy an overpriced second house in Dublin City Centre is NOT appropriate either.

You "distrust Vicky Phelan intensely"? Well this thread has certainly taken a turn for the worse.

You're a lot more tolerable when you're in your Walter Mitty mode. I'd advise against going down the path you're going.

kunst nugget

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I can't put my finger on it, I have the most profound sympathy for the victims of this and feel they should be propelled to the top of any waiting list, nay seen privately and immediately. Get the best oncologists on it - now.

But I feel she is making political and personal hay out of this and rather enjoying the limelight and giving FG a bloody nose.

Handing over hundreds of millions of Euro from an already strapped Health budget so people can buy an overpriced second house in Dublin City Centre is NOT appropriate either.

Her cancer diagnosis is terminal - being propelled to the top of the waiting list or being seen privately isn't going to change her outcome. She'll likely be dead within 6 months from something that she might have had a fighting chance against if she found out back in 2011 when her test was misread or in 2014 when an audit showed her 2011 test was misread. She won't see her children become adults. I can fully understand her desire to hold the HSE accountable and I thought her receiving compensation that will help her children after she passes was the least she deserved.

To say it's so she can buy an overpriced second home in Dublin is very edgelord I'll grant you that but it's unbelievably juvenile.

PlaneSpeeking

kunst nugget wrote: »

Her cancer diagnosis is terminal - being propelled to the top of the waiting list or being seen privately isn't going to change her outcome. She'll likely be dead within 6 months from something that she might have had a fighting chance against if she found out back in 2011 when her test was misread or in 2014 when an audit showed her 2011 test was misread. She won't see her children become adults. I can fully understand her desire to hold the HSE accountable and I thought her receiving compensation that will help her children after she passes was the least she deserved.

To say it's so she can buy an overpriced second home in Dublin is very edgelord I'll grant you that but it's unbelievably juvenile.

She wasn't the one given the money to buy a second home.

"Edgelord" ??? When did we stop using correct language ???

Nermal

kunst nugget wrote: »

She'll likely be dead within 6 months from something that she might have had a fighting chance against if she found out back in 2011 when her test was misread or in 2014 when an audit showed her 2011 test was misread.

Back up a minute.

The misreading in 2011 is one issue - put that to one side.

Are you suggesting that when the 2011 misread was discovered in 2014, that resulted in a treatment delay?

It's my understanding she was already undergoing treatment at that stage, because a test after 2011 but before 2014 had come back positive.

This is the problem with the reporting of this story - people are being given the impression that the HSE concealed information that could have affected treatment.

jcdf

splashuum wrote: »

I find it incredible that main stream media can pick and choose who and what they define as racist.
Sarah Jeong has just been hired by the New York Times despite her clear hatred against white people. What is even more astounding is that the NYT have doubled down on Jeong after seeing her tweets. They have now publicly declared a vote of confidence in her.

I am reasonably content that the New York Times has sincerely condoned her. It is important for the future well-being of us all that articles genuine faith are deliberately expressed by all including institutions like the NYT. Deceit and self-deceit comes all to easily to mankind. NYT made the right decision so we now know more clearly where it stands. It is my hope that Sarah Yeong will influence the NYT internally to speak its thoughts.


A good Youtuber called The Distributist has spoken more clearly on this topic than I could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_O8sUkI-CU

inforfun

Jeong (in its Korean meaning) is a very broad concept in Korea and is a really important part of Korean people and culture. But it’s really hard to define (even in Korean!). It can be considered love, but that’s too simple of a definition. It also includes affection, compassion, sympathy, community, attachment, etc. And of course jeong is between humans, but it can also be felt towards objects.

If ever a name was ironic.

splashuum

She was given the blue tick on Twitter today.
Mind boggling.

givyjoe

splashuum wrote: »

She was given the blue tick on Twitter today.
Mind boggling.

Verified racist.

Brian?

splashuum wrote: »

She was given the blue tick on Twitter today.
Mind boggling.

Doesn’t that mean her identity was verified ?

inforfun

Brian? wrote: »

Doesn’t that mean her identity was verified ?

What types of accounts get verified?
An account may be verified if it is determined to be an account of public interest. Typically this includes accounts maintained by users in music, acting, fashion, government, politics, religion, journalism, media, sports, business, and other key interest areas.

A verified badge does not imply an endorsement by Twitter.

Bit of a mixed bag.

Richard Hillman

You do have to worry about what will happen when White people become a minority in the U.S. Blatant racism against white people has become acceptable within the establishment and is being ramped up. This has been occurring quite strongly over the last 4-5 years (and longer). What will it be like in 10-20-30 years?

We're Talking about in the 2040s when it happens. Hatred is getting ramped up. Black Pride is returning the levels of the days of the Black Panthers. Children are being indoctrinated with the mindset of getting retribution on whitey.

keffiyeh

Richard Hillman wrote: »

You do have to worry about what will happen when White people become a minority in the U.S. Blatant racism against white people has become acceptable within the establishment and is being ramped up. This has been occurring quite strongly over the last 4-5 years (and longer). What will it be like in 10-20-30 years?

We're Talking about in the 2040s when it happens. Hatred is getting ramped up. Black Pride is returning the levels of the days of the Black Panthers. Children are being indoctrinated with the mindset of getting retribution on whitey.

Whites are the invaders on that continent, long overdue that they're vilified, no? Love your fairly accurate prediction by the way.

The blatant extremist views being touted here, with mods just swanning around it and doing nothing, is very telling.

Ulysses Gaze

keffiyeh wrote: »

Whites are the invaders on that continent, long overdue that they're vilified, no? Love your fairly accurate prediction by the way.

The blatant extremist views being touted here, with mods just swanning around it and doing nothing, is very telling.

Yes...the Jacksonian Democrats, wasn't it?

keffiyeh

keffiyeh wrote:

Whites are the invaders on that continent, long overdue that they're vilified, no? .

No.

Wibbs

keffiyeh wrote: »

Whites are the invaders on that continent, long overdue that they're vilified, no?

No. That you can't see the irony in wittering on about "blatant extremist views being touted here" while typing the above speaks volumes. Mind boggling levels of irony for one.

And is it just the "Whites"? Are Asians, Africans also in the "invaders" mix? They're not "native" either. Ah sure they must get a free pass. Not being pale of face an all.

TomSweeney

keffiyeh wrote: »

Whites are the invaders on that continent, long overdue that they're vilified, no? Love your fairly accurate prediction by the way.

The blatant extremist views being touted here, with mods just swanning around it and doing nothing, is very telling.

So an innocent kid deserves all the hate and abuse just because of the colour of his skin ? - unlucky to be born white in the USA today ?


I see by your username that you support terrorism and anti semitic hatred, so no surprise really.

keffiyeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No.

Why not? Invaders who have thrived due to land theft and slavery shouldn't be vilified? Why? Got more to qualify that than a two letter word? No? Shocking.

Trump is not a disease, he is a symptom of a disease.