Roseanne fired but Sarah Jeong hired?

suicide_circus

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

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

most ideologies are eventually caught out by the hypocrisies of their teachings. it's then the job of the priesthood to come out with unconvincing qualifiers to keep the doctrine watertight.

Wibbs

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Nobody on here has even admitted to being genuinely hurt or offended by Sarah Jeong's words.

So if I called a Black lad a buck nigger and he actually wasn't offended by it that would be nothing much to be concerned about in your world? I doubt it.

Then again this thinking and the thinking that was OK with hiring this muppet is just another good example of the "Progressive's" oppressed/oppressor narrative. If you are or have ever been lumped under one definition, well that's where you stay. The king high watermark of The Oppressor(tm) is the Straight White Male. Top of the tree. Even if he's sleeping on the streets necking meths for sport(and it was probably the "patriarchy" that put him there...). Every other ever more self identifying list of "intersectional" groups is The Oppressed™, with obvious hierarchies attached. A Gay Asian woman is more Oppressed™ than a Straight White woman and so forth. Mind you the latter holds a special place within the hierarchies mostly because it's mostly middle class Straight White Women who came up with much of this bullshite, as they tend to get carte blanche from society no matter how retarded their fall into the rabbit hole goes, so they protect their turf.

suicide_circus

Taytoland wrote: »

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?

I'm suggesting that we should move past the flaming torches and pitchforks for stupid racist comments. it's all gotten a little spanish inquisition for my liking.

Yer Da sells Avon

Malayalam wrote: »

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.

To give those guys some credit, they're so much better at offending and inciting hatred. Sarah Jeong's tweets were, at worst, tiresome.

MayoSalmon

Whitey's day of reckoning is coming..history has a funny way of repeating itself

Yer Da sells Avon

Wibbs wrote: »

So if I called a Black lad a buck nigger and he actually wasn't offended by it that would be nothing much to be concerned about in your world? I doubt it.

Edgy. Go and call someone that, see what happens.

Lash Into The Pints

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Wibbs wrote: »

So if I called a Black lad a buck nigger and he actually wasn't offended by it that would be nothing much to be concerned about in your world? I doubt it.

Edgy. Go and call someone that, see what happens.

Why can't you answer his question?

Yer Da sells Avon

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

Why can't you answer his question?

Because it's a really stupid question.

Wibbs

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Edgy. Go and call someone that, see what happens.

Go get a Black fella to call a skinhead White guy a cracker redneck and see what happens.

Regardless, you didn't answer my question. But of curse you can't. What passes for your student digs "philosophy" doesn't bear much of the weight of scrutiny.

Lash Into The Pints

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

Why can't you answer his question?

Because it's a really stupid question.

How is stupid?

Why won't you answer his question?

Wibbs

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Because it's a really stupid question.

Only because your "progressive liberal" Oppressed/Oppressor simply can't compute any problem, can't compute that racism and sexism can go the other direction.

Venom

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

To give those guys some credit, they're so much better at offending and inciting hatred. Sarah Jeong's tweets were, at worst, tiresome.

There ya go, only took you a few posts to get up to speed and defend what she wrote as just being "tiresome". I will give you bonus points for not picking "problematic", "misguided" or "taking out of context".

Yer Da sells Avon

Wibbs wrote: »

Only because your "progressive liberal" Oppressed/Oppressor simply can't compute any problem, can't compute that racism and sexism can go the other direction.

Yeah, except I've already acknowledged that Sarah Jeong's words were both racist and sexist.

Lash Into The Pints

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Wibbs wrote: »

Only because your "progressive liberal" Oppressed/Oppressor simply can't compute any problem, can't compute that racism and sexism can go the other direction.

Yeah, except I've already acknowledged that Sarah Jeong's words were both racist and sexist.

A minute ago you were saying they were, at worst, 'tiresome.

So she was being racist and sexist but no one was sufficiently offended for her to be racist and sexist?

uncle_sam_ie

Candace Owens
‏
Verified account

@RealCandaceO
Follow Follow @RealCandaceO
More
Sarah Jeong, the @nytimes, and the truth about racism in America.

https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1026161263812927488

Yer Da sells Avon

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

A minute ago you were saying they were, at worst, 'tiresome.

So she was being racist and sexist but no one was sufficiently offended for her to be racist and sexist?

I described her words as tiresome, rather than offensive. Nobody, even on here, appears to have been terribly offended by them anyway. People (probably the kind of people she was trolling and generalising about in the first place) appear to be more offended that she's 'allowed' to be racist, but they aren't (or at least not without being more subtle about it). Although Wibbs got to post the n-word, so yay, at least someone got a naughty little thrill.

Will I Am Not

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I described her words as tiresome, rather than offensive. Nobody, even on here, appears to have been terribly offended by them anyway. People (probably the kind of people she was trolling and generalising about in the first place) appear to be more offended that she's 'allowed' to be racist, but they aren't (or at least not without being more subtle about it). Although Wibbs got to post the n-word, so yay, at least someone got a naughty little thrill.

Please tell me you’re a parody account.

Yer Da sells Avon

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Please tell me you’re a parody account.

Will, I am not.

Taytoland

suicide_circus wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

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?

I'm suggesting that we should move past the flaming torches and pitchforks for stupid racist comments. it's all gotten a little spanish inquisition for my liking.

This weird idea that people who aren't white can't be racist because of  historical oppression from white people is nonsense.

Nermal

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

TSarah Jeong's tweets were, at worst, tiresome.

much like your posting

Keepaneye

It's funny, the same insufferable poster defending this cretin will always attack a poster decrying potentially dangerous refugees being released in Ireland. Selective social justice warriors.

hatrickpatrick

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

To give those guys some credit, they're so much better at offending and inciting hatred. Sarah Jeong's tweets were, at worst, tiresome.

That's your opinion. I'd argue that they're part of a social movement which is endemic and incredibly harmful to young whites and young males - "you're fair game to be attacked and you don't get to defend yourself or hit back, you just have to sit there and take it".

It's not dissimilar to the (in my view) psychological harm done to young boys by the "never hit a girl, even if she hits you first and you're defending yourself, just because she's a girl" thing. It immediately invokes the "why am I not worth as much, why don't I get the same protection from attack as they do? Why doesn't it matter if someone hurts me, just because I'm male / white"?

Children don't think about bullsh!t academic concepts and historical context, they just see what's happening here and now and whether one person is being given more freedom than another just because of their demographic. In my view, there's more or less zero possibility that this doesn't cause psychological harm. I know for an absolutely fact that it f*cked me up big time and it took me years to sort out that sh!te.

Racism and sexism against whites and males is dangerous because of the accompanying undertone of "you deserve this somehow". Children who cannot possibly be expected to understand the "macro" debates and contexts to these battles are going to come across this stuff and just think "great, the world hates me because I'm white / a boy". And yes, it is "the world", because when you're a young pre-teen, what you see in the newspapers or on the TV does represent the world at large, in your young mind.

Oafley Jones

Is there a way to block all posters who joined since the start of the year?

dav3

So we're all agreed then. When we head down to our local shop tomorrow morning to buy the paper, we won't be picking up the New York Times. That'll show them.

DONTMATTER

dav3 wrote: »

So we're all agreed then. When we head down to our local shop tomorrow morning to buy the paper, we won't be picking up the New York Times. That'll show them.

Or maybe send them a strongly worded email!

Keepaneye

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Is there a way to block all posters who joined since the start of the year?

There are many alternative echo chambers you can escape to on the internet if you're that sensitive.

keffiyeh

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.

Did NYT fire Roseanne? No. Different companies different standards, seems very obvious.

Omackeral

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

Why can't you answer his question?

Because he's an absolute hypocrite on this issue.

If anyone here admitted to being offended then what are the odds that they'd be told they've no right to be because white people have historically had the edge when it comes to colonialism and they should check their history and maybe even their famous white privilege. Why should some random white fella or girl bare the brunt for something people hundreds of years ago did? Why should they feel guilt for something they never had a hand in? Always fascinates me that one.

keffiyeh

Omackeral wrote: »

Because he's an absolute hypocrite on this issue.

If anyone here admitted to being offended then what are the odds that they'd be told they've no right to be because white people have historically had the edge when it comes to colonialism and they should check their history and maybe even their famous white privilege. Why should some random white fella or girl bare the brunt for something people hundreds of years ago did? Why should they feel guilt for something they never had a hand in? Always fascinates me that one.

Guilt has never been asked for, it's acknowledgement. But people with a racist snowflake agenda try to reframe it into 'guilt'.

Outlaw Pete

dav3 wrote: »

So we're all agreed then. When we head down to our local shop tomorrow morning to buy the paper, we won't be picking up the New York Times. That'll show them.

If all those tweets she made were homophobic I bet you wouldn't be posting such a trite remark.

Anthracite

I bit like the whole British/Irish thing. I don't blame modern British people for what their ancestors did, but I do expect them to acknowledge that harm was done to our ancestors.

Acknowledgement, not guilt.

pleas advice

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Is there a way to block all posters who joined since the start of the year?

i = 868197

https://www.boards. ie/vbulletin/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=

i++

20 GOTO 10

Sweetemotion

keffiyeh wrote: »

Guilt has never been asked for, it's acknowledgement. But people with a racist snowflake agenda try to reframe it into 'guilt'.

Acknowledgement of what exactly?

dav3

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If all those tweets she made were homophobic I bet you wouldn't be posting such a trite remark.

What kind of bet are we talking about here?

The Pheasant2

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Please tell me you’re a parody account.

Nope; he's just a moron.

Franz Von Peppercorn

keffiyeh wrote: »

Guilt has never been asked for, it's acknowledgement. But people with a racist snowflake agenda try to reframe it into 'guilt'.

I acknowledge that my Irish ancestors were victims of British imperialism. I forgive all modern British people since they werent there.

I don’t forgive Sarah Jeong for being part of the US empire though. Since she’s alive now.

DONTMATTER

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I acknowledge that my Irish ancestors were victims of British imperialism. I forgive all modern British people since they werent there.

I don’t forgive Sarah Jeong for being part of the US empire though. Since she’s alive now.

Am, the British security forces were still bombing and shooting innocent Irish people dead in the very recent past.

Outlaw Pete

dav3 wrote: »

What kind of bet are we talking about here?

This one.

keffiyeh

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Acknowledgement of what exactly?

Are ye havin a laff?

Franz Von Peppercorn

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Am, the British security forces were still bombing and shooting innocent Irish people dead in the very recent past.

Well not in the republic. I’m just reacting to the “we whites should acknowledge our guilt” utter ****. News: whites have lots of different and diverse histories.

DONTMATTER

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Well not in the republic. I’m just reacting to the “we whites should acknowledge our guilt” utter ****. News: whites gave lots of different and diverse histories.

I'm just correcting your error. Many British people were there while Irish people were murdered by their forces, this included both north and south.

Franz Von Peppercorn

keffiyeh wrote: »

Are ye havin a laff?

No. Do go on.

Sweetemotion

keffiyeh wrote: »

Are ye havin a laff?

No. Explain it to me, what this acknowledgement is? That I should acknowledge.

givyjoe

keffiyeh wrote: »

Did NYT fire Roseanne? No. Different companies different standards, seems very obvious.

Oh dear.. are you not aware of the NYT sacking staff for racist tweets previously? But letting this one go?

Ulysses Gaze

keffiyeh wrote: »

Are ye havin a laff?

I guess you'd be as vocally in favour of all Muslims acknowledging the Mughal slaughter of millions of hindus in India, the Armenian genocide and the sacking of Europe by the Ottomans as well.

Just for consistency like.

Venom

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Well not in the republic. I’m just reacting to the “we whites should acknowledge our guilt” utter ****. News: whites have lots of different and diverse histories.

Hate to break it to you but white people are not allowed to be considered different or diverse these days.


https://nypost.com/2017/11/17/apples-diversity-chief-lasts-just-six-months/



Denise Young Smith, Apple's vice president of diversity and inclusion, had to step down after stating “There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blond men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation." due to the usual outrage mob going after her.

keffiyeh

Sweetemotion wrote: »

No. Explain it to me, what this acknowledgement is? That I should acknowledge.

When you say 'white guilt' but it's actually 'acknowledgement', subtract the white from guilt, and then figure it out, because it's real obvious.

You know what never mind, messing around with intentionally dense internet trolls with racist snowflake agendas is just boring. The 'acknowledgement' required is what the white race perpetrated against places like the African and American continents. Reframing the argument into just 'british colonists' is extremely intellectually dishonest. Plenty of others have benefitted from it. I can't imagine being such a butthurt baby that maybe acknowledging this would make me whinge online.

Sweetemotion

keffiyeh wrote: »

When you say 'white guilt' but it's actually 'acknowledgement', subtract the white from guilt, and then figure it out, because it's real obvious.

You know what never mind, messing around with intentionally dense internet trolls with racist snowflake agendas is just boring. The 'acknowledgement' required is what the white race perpetrated against places like the African and American continents. Reframing the argument into just 'british colonists' is extremely intellectually dishonest. Plenty of others have benefitted from it. I can't imagine being such a butthurt baby that maybe acknowledging this would make me whinge online.

So what you are saying is?

SnakePlissken

keffiyeh wrote: »

I can't imagine being such a butthurt baby that maybe acknowledging this.

So because a British colonist acted brutally toward an African several centuries ago, an Irish man should feel guilt as he is the same skin tone as said colonist?

Yeah, you're a racist gob****e.

Franz Von Peppercorn

givyjoe wrote: »

Oh dear.. are you not aware of the NYT sacking staff for racist tweets previously? But letting this one go?

They didn’t hire an American (secular) Muslim called Razib Kahn, a scientist and blogger, who had some views that disagreed with orthodoxy on intelligence and genetics.