Roseanne fired but Sarah Jeong hired?

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Atoms for Peace

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Maybe she should be a little bit more grateful after the white people liberated Korea from Japan after WW2 and fought the North Koreans in the 50s.

You shouldn't mess with me
I'll ruin everything you are
You know, I'll give you television
I'll give you eyes of blue
I'll give you men who want to rule the world

Venom

Venom wrote: »

The usual posters like the one who claims its just people getting worked up about nothing over this, would be foaming at the mouth if white was replaced with any other race in those tweets.


Sure if they didn't have double standards, they'd have none at all

The same ones who had a meltdown over George hook and crying to the sponsors of news talk

DONTMATTER

The perpetually offended our out again. The angry men are full of hate.

Yer Da sells Avon

jacksie66 wrote: »

Can I not get offended for once? Seems as if the left have all the fun..

You've unwittingly hit the nail on the head there.

20Cent

What happened to freedom of speech, it's only a joke etc .....

the purple tin

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

She has a problem with Battlestar Galactica!!!!







What a cow.

She's obviously cracked in the head.

DavidLyons_

DONTMATTER wrote: »

The perpetually offended our out again. The angry men are full of hate.

Ah here.

Presume you've no problem with what she tweeted so?

"Perpetually offended"? Deary me. It must be very hard for you to live with so much bitterness and impotent rage.

If your posts weren't so palpably sour and full of hate I'd almost feel sorry for you.

uncle_sam_ie

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Well according to Vox, the tweets are 6 years old, she was just being sarcastic in her tweets using the language of the alt-right against them and she is a celebrated feminist tech journalist so this is all a storm in a teacup.

The fact that she writes a column in Voxs sister site has no bearing on their defence of her.

At all......

Trying to justify her racist remarks by saying she was reacting to harassment is clear BS. There's a clear pattern of racist and sexist behavior
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1025437806775226368.html

Yer Da sells Avon

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

Trying to justify her racist remarks by saying she was reacting to harassment is clear BS. There's a clear pattern of racist and sexist behavior
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...775226368.html

Racist against white people? Sexist against men?

Those are the worst kinds of racism and sexism.

DavidLyons_

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

Trying to justify her racist remarks by saying she was reacting to harassment is clear BS. There's a clear pattern of racist and sexist behavior
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...775226368.html

Racist against white people? Sexist against men?

Those are the worst kinds of racism and sexism.

No they aren't. But surely you'd agree that they are equal to other forms of sexism and racism?

padd b1975

Salvatore Unkempt Smile wrote: »

The same ones who had a meltdown over George hook and crying to the sponsors of news talk

The trots actually banned themselves from appearing on it.

They snuck back a few weeks later though when the outrage died down and they thought no one would notice.

Faugheen

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

Trying to justify her racist remarks by saying she was reacting to harassment is clear BS. There's a clear pattern of racist and sexist behavior
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...775226368.html

And there is a clear pattern of abuse aimed at her long before this.

People saying that they’ll kick her in her lesbian face and calling her a dog-eating gook.

Why are people more outraged at her responses to tweets like that rather than the original tweets aimed at her?

It absolutely proves her point. Her tweets are misguided but the response of outrage to tweets taken completely out of context is evident that it’s not just ‘snowflakes’ who get upset without actually analysing the situation.

steddyeddy

Westernyelp wrote: »

Jaysus. It's comments like that that make me see where she's coming from

No. The response to racism isn't more racism.

uncle_sam_ie

Faugheen wrote: »

And there is a clear pattern of abuse aimed at her long before this.

People saying that they’ll kick her in her lesbian face and calling her a dog-eating gook.

Why are people more outraged at her responses to tweets like that rather than the original tweets aimed at her?

It absolutely proves her point. Her tweets are misguided but the response of outrage to tweets taken completely out of context is evident that it’s not just ‘snowflakes’ who get upset without actually analysing the situation.

Better link, https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1025437806775226368.html

Yer Da sells Avon

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

No they aren't. But surely you'd agree that they are equal to other forms of sexism and racism?

Is there anyone one here who, perceived double standards aside, finds her words genuinely offensive or hurtful?

DONTMATTER

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Ah here.

Presume you've no problem with what she tweeted so?

"Perpetually offended"? Deary me. It must be very hard for you to live with so much bitterness and impotent rage.

If your posts weren't so palpably sour and full of hate I'd almost feel sorry for you.

I don't have a clue who this person is. It's a nobody. Stop looking for something to get offended by and get on with your life.

Will I Am Not

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Is there anyone one here who, perceived double standards aside, finds her words genuinely offensive or hurtful?

If there is will you bat for them or do they have to be a certain colour, religion or sexuality?

Yer Da sells Avon

Will I Am Not wrote: »

If there is will you bat for them or do they have to be a certain colour, religion or sexuality?

I'm sure there'll be no shortage of posters on here willing to bat for them.

Will I Am Not

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I'm sure there'll be no shortage of posters on here willing to bat for them.

So that’s a yes on the colour, religion or sexuality. Thought as much.

DavidLyons_

DONTMATTER wrote: »

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Ah here.

Presume you've no problem with what she tweeted so?

"Perpetually offended"? Deary me. It must be very hard for you to live with so much bitterness and impotent rage.

If your posts weren't so palpably sour and full of hate I'd almost feel sorry for you.

I don't have a clue who this person is. It's a nobody. Stop looking for something to get offended by and get on with your life.

You'd want to be taking your own advice love.

Nermal

Faugheen wrote: »

And there is a clear pattern of abuse aimed at her long before this.

People saying that they’ll kick her in her lesbian face and calling her a dog-eating gook.

Why are people more outraged at her responses to tweets like that rather than the original tweets aimed at her?

All public figures of both sexes and all nationalities are abused online. They don't all respond with racist 'satire'.

gimli2112

I for one shall not be purchasing their newspaper again, wait is that still a thing?

DONTMATTER

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

You'd want to be taking your own advice love.

I'm not offended by anything. I'm just trying to help out the angry men. Too much anger can lead to serious issues. You don't have to thank me.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

uncle_sam_ie

Candace Owens ( Black conservative) copied Sarah Jeong's tweets, replacing the word "white" with "Jewish" and "black".

She was immediately given a 12 hour suspension on Twitter.

Nermal

Contrast her treatment with that of James Damore.

fullstop

DONTMATTER wrote: »

The perpetually offended our out again. The angry men are full of hate.

Do you just copy and paste this reply on every topic?

Venom

Faugheen wrote: »

And there is a clear pattern of abuse aimed at her long before this.

People saying that they’ll kick her in her lesbian face and calling her a dog-eating gook.

Why are people more outraged at her responses to tweets like that rather than the original tweets aimed at her?

It absolutely proves her point. Her tweets are misguided but the response of outrage to tweets taken completely out of context is evident that it’s not just ‘snowflakes’ who get upset without actually analysing the situation.

If that were the case, where is the proof? Leaving aside that those tweets being used in defence of her actions are dated after the racist rants there is evidence she made, why is 99.9% of the tripe she posted not aimed at anyone in particular? Most twitter spats tend to be among a few people responding to each other and not just blanket statement remarks aimed at an entire race or sex of people!


If she was also just responding to trolls (she wasn't) why did she spew out rants at the Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax victims after it was proven they were 100% innocent of any wrong doing?



Maybe, just maybe, she's really just a racist sack of crap like David Duke's, yet somehow I can't see you defending him

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

Better link, https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1025437806775226368.html

Fcuking hell.

Outlaw Pete

Not just white people she has a issue with, if you're a man at all, even a gay or black one, she's had it with ye all.....

https://twitter.com/tomsliwowski/status/878362386272485376

Sommers pointed this out earlier but if you go to the following link you can see a bunch of biased liberals bending over backwards trying to ensure that these tweets of hers, or this story surrounding them, dont get cited on her Wiki page:

https://twitter.com/CHSommers/status/1025943952661381120

2 Scoops

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

Candace Owens ( Black conservative) copied Sarah Jeong's tweets, replacing the word "white" with "Jewish" and "black".

She was immediately given a 12 hour suspension on Twitter.

She's unbanned, they made "an error".

Strange how all these "errors" are always made in the same direction.

DONTMATTER

fullstop wrote: »

Do you just copy and paste this reply on every topic?

No, the angry men are just polluting every topic.

givyjoe

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

No they aren't. But surely you'd agree that they are equal to other forms of sexism and racism?

As if he would.

uncle_sam_ie

Also, Quinn Norton, The NYT fired her over tweets she made. It's the Times themselves who set this standard.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-ny-times-fires-tech-writer-quinn-norton-and-its-complicated/

Yer Da sells Avon

Will I Am Not wrote: »

So that’s a yes on the colour, religion or sexuality. Thought as much.

If the racism or sexism accusations were made against a white person or a man, you can be certain that the very same people making a great big song and dance about Sarah Jeong's words would be engaging in their usual chorus of "what's racist/sexist about that...?" etc.

I'm not arguing that her words weren't racist or sexist, btw - just that for racism and sexism to be effective, they need to have some kind of effect on the target, beyond the idea of some perceived double-standard.

fullstop

DONTMATTER wrote: »

No, the angry men are just polluting every topic.

Am I doing it right?

DONTMATTER

fullstop wrote: »

Am I doing it right?

No.

Malayalam

Seems legit... :rolleyes:
Why would ANYONE be offended?



Edit - would these sentences be permitted on boards.ie?

Malayalam

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I'm not arguing that her words weren't racist or sexist, btw - just that for racism and sexism to be effective, they need to have some kind of effect on the target, beyond the idea of some perceived double-standard.

That is some incredible cognitive acrobatics. Do you reckon people in general should get away with being racist publicly or even public incitement to racial and gender hatred unless it could be proven that there was ''some kind of effect on the target''?

biko

"it's only racist when you do it"

Malayalam

I read that thread reader compilation of her tweets this morning. Take a few minutes to do so if you have any interest at all. Honestly if the majority of society cannot see that that is some hideous content and - worse still - utterly reprehensible (and yet somehow pervasive and tolerated!!)ideology there, we are feckin doomed.
Meh, maybe we already are.

Yer Da sells Avon

Malayalam wrote: »

That is some incredible cognitive acrobatics. Do you reckon people in general should get away with being racist publicly or even public incitement to racial and gender hatred unless it could be proven that there was ''some kind of effect on the target''?

I think your words have to at least do some kind of harm for there to be consequences. That's a fairly basic prerequisite, tbh. Nobody on here has even admitted to being genuinely hurt or offended by Sarah Jeong's words.

Malayalam

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I think your words have to at least do some kind of harm for there to be consequences. That's a fairly basic prerequisite, tbh. Nobody on here has even admitted to being genuinely hurt or offended by Sarah Jeong's words.

It's not up to me to be personally offended by Sarah jeong's words, just like it's not up to me to be genuinely offended if someone refuses to serve a gay person, or evicts a black person from a flat, or creates a conspiarcy theory about Jews - it's up to a civil society to decide what is the acceptable public behaviour to enable people to live free from hatred REGARDLESS of the personal idiosyncratic hatreds and phobias of random people. I thought you would know that.

Yer Da sells Avon

Malayalam wrote: »

It's not up to me to be personally offended by Sarah jeong's words, just like it's not up to me to be genuinely offended if someone refuses to serve a gay person, or evicts a black person from a flat, or creates a conspiarcy theory about Jews - it's up to a civil society to decide what is the acceptable public behaviour to enable people to live free from hatred REGARDLESS of the personal idiosyncratic hatreds and phobias of random people. I thought you would know that.

There must be somebody out there who genuinely finds her words offensive though. I'd love to hear from such a person.

Taytoland

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Some of us have gone very thin-skinned, constantly looking for things to be offended by.

I take then that if the word white were replaced by black or Syrian or traveller and the comments posted here you'd react in the same way should anyone take issue with it?

Of course they wouldn't. I wasn't offended whatsoever when I saw the tweets. It's the double standards that is the issue. Roseanne get's fired for her racist tweets, this woman has a whole bloody timeline full of them and it's perfectly fine.

Malayalam

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

There must be somebody out there who genuinely finds her words offensive though. I'd love to hear from such a person.

Oh Yawn I'll leave you to it...

I hope the NY times follows up by hiring a clutch of white nationalists and rabid homophobes who have all been equally vocal for a long time about their pet hatreds on social media. Fair's fair and at least I know you would not find it genuinely offensive in the least.

Lash Into The Pints

Hope she is fired and her career destroyed.

suicide_circus

I don't think people should be fired for expressing off colour opinions

Lash Into The Pints

Malayalam wrote: »

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I'm not arguing that her words weren't racist or sexist, btw - just that for racism and sexism to be effective, they need to have some kind of effect on the target, beyond the idea of some perceived double-standard.

That is some incredible cognitive acrobatics. Do you reckon people in general should get away with being racist publicly or even public incitement to racial and gender hatred unless it could be proven that there was ''some kind of effect on the target''?

He actually cannot bring himseIf to admit you can be hateful to whites. How can someone be this brainwashed?

Taytoland

suicide_circus wrote: »

I don't think people should be fired for expressing off colour opinions

If white people are fired for racist tweets against black people etc, then so should this woman. What she said was just racist, plain and simple. If you want to live in an equal society shouldn't people be treated equally?