Roseanne fired but Sarah Jeong hired?

Franz Von Peppercorn

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.

What’s the “white race”. Is it the Albanians? The Latvians? The Greeks? The Serbs? The Irish. Most of the EU is in fact made up of countries with no imperial past. Some have been colonised.

Do all of these groups have the same responsibility for British or French colonialism as say, the brits or French?

And the people responsible for American colonialism (in say manifest destiny) are all American. Only about 20% of the world’s white population is American. And only 70% of the US, and declining, is white but the imperialism of the US hasn’t exactly gone away, you know.

Sarah Jeong is an imperialist, I’m not.

Franz Von Peppercorn

SnakePlissken wrote: »

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.

I think that in the “white race guilt” fallacy we are also responsible for the British imperialism in Ireland too. When the brits shot protestors in Derry, or when famine food was exported out of Ireland, that was all white guilt. They were just as guilty as us, we were as guilty as them. Anything else would be “reductionist”.

fullstop

DONTMATTER wrote: »

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

Ah they were just angry men™

Yer Da sells Avon

Nermal wrote: »

much like your posting

Keepaneye wrote: »

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.

Omackeral wrote: »

Because he's an absolute hypocrite on this

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

Nope; he's just a moron.

Ah here, you wouldn't want to be thin-skinned when expressing views that differ from those of The Serious Men of Boards. Lads, do yourselves a favour; don't spend the Sunday night of the August bank holiday weekend getting outraged at someone having a opinion on the internet. G'way and get a hug off someone, FFS.

hatrickpatrick wrote:

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.

I accept that it could be damaging if young males or young white people were constantly subjected to, and took literally, the "urgh... men... white ppl" narrative that you see on some parts of the internet, Twitter especially. It's not usually meant to be taken literally though - and it shouldn't take too much effort to see such comments in their true context either. Do a quick search for "men r trash" or "why are white people..." and you could easily come away thinking that 'misandry' and 'anti-white racism' are the biggest issues facing society today. Dig a bit deeper though, and it's just people blowing off steam, spouting hyperbolic crap, using 'white people' as shorthand for 'assholes who happen to be white', or in the case of Sarah Jeong, simply breaking the 'two wrongs don't make a right' rule and trolling the trolls.

Sweetemotion

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Ah here, you wouldn't want to be thin-skinned when expressing views that differ from those of The Serious Men of Boards. Lads, do yourselves a favour; don't spend the Sunday night of the August bank holiday weekend getting outraged at someone having a opinion on the internet. G'way and get a hug off someone, FFS.



I accept that it could be damaging if young males or young white people were constantly subjected to, and took literally, the "urgh... men... white ppl" narrative that you see on some parts of the internet, Twitter especially. It's not usually meant to be taken literally though - and it shouldn't take too much effort to see such comments in their true context either. Do a quick search for "men r trash" or "why are white people..." and you could easily come away thinking that 'misandry' and 'anti-white racism' are the biggest issues facing society today. Dig a bit deeper though, and it's just people blowing off steam, spouting hyperbolic crap, using 'white people' as shorthand for 'assholes who happen to be white', or in the case of Sarah Jeong, simply breaking the 'two wrongs don't make a right' rule and trolling the trolls.

Yawn...

2 Scoops

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

trolling the trolls.

Pretty long troll, years even. Click the tweet, scroll down and see for yourself.

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

Venom

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Ah here, you wouldn't want to be thin-skinned when expressing views that differ from those of The Serious Men of Boards. Lads, do yourselves a favour; don't spend the Sunday night of the August bank holiday weekend getting outraged at someone having a opinion on the internet. G'way and get a hug off someone, FFS.



I accept that it could be damaging if young males or young white people were constantly subjected to, and took literally, the "urgh... men... white ppl" narrative that you see on some parts of the internet, Twitter especially. It's not usually meant to be taken literally though - and it shouldn't take too much effort to see such comments in their true context either. Do a quick search for "men r trash" or "why are white people..." and you could easily come away thinking that 'misandry' and 'anti-white racism' are the biggest issues facing society today. Dig a bit deeper though, and it's just people blowing off steam, spouting hyperbolic crap, using 'white people' as shorthand for 'assholes who happen to be white', or in the case of Sarah Jeong, simply breaking the 'two wrongs don't make a right' rule and trolling the trolls.

Racism is racism. Just because you are ok with it and justify it as blowing off steam doesn't mean it is. All your posts in this thread have been trying to downplay the actions of an out and out racist, who you continue to make excuses for.



Jeong wasn't responding to trolls when speaking at Harvard, ranting and blaming all the worlds problems on white people. She wasn't responding to trolls with her five years worth of tweets, just blanket statements that again were aimed at white people. She wasn't responding to trolls when attacking the victims of the UVA Rolling Stone false rape claim, because once again they were white. She is just a racist and no amount of bs excuses from her, the New York Times or you will change that.

Outlaw Pete

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

... trolling the trolls.

She's not trolling. She posted hundreds upon hundreds of vile tweets ffs.

Here's a few particularly vile ones:


https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/692545556237914116


https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/547580782030888960

pleas advice

she forgot to add: /s

.


..




/s

deco nate

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

She's not trolling. She posted hundreds upon hundreds of vile tweets ffs.

Here's a few particularly vile ones:


https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/692545556237914116


https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/547580782030888960

So can I say she smells of msg? And ghee??

She is a troll of the highest order. Still Cant believe she got a high paying job from her racist (yes, all of her racist) tweets.


The world has gone crazy now, kick one of your journalists out of his job for racist posts and months later, replace him with someone that has posted nothing but racist posts?!
And people defending her?
This world is truly crazy now, Aslan was right.

Yer Da sells Avon

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

She's not trolling. She posted hundreds upon hundreds of vile tweets ffs.

Here's a few particularly vile ones:


https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/692545556237914116


https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/547580782030888960

'Vile' lol. The Daily Mail called, they want their terminology back. I dunno, maybe she doesn't literally want to cut people. Maybe what she was doing there was using hyperbole to make an exaggerated point. Or maybe the staff at the New York Times will have to watch themselves.

She uses the language of the right ('PC lies'), so I'm guessing there's some element of piss-takery going on there, maybe? Certainly has the effect of some top notch trolling anyway (i.e. drawing out the kind of outraged responses that she's getting, from the kind of people who wouldn't ordinarily give two hoots about racism).

deco nate

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

'Vile' lol. The Daily Mail called, they want their terminology back.

Certainly has the effect of some top notch trolling anyway .

Hello, Yea. But try harder next time...

pleas advice

Kevin Myers is turning in his grave

Yer Da sells Avon

pleas advice wrote: »

Kevin Myers is turning in his grave

Myers, now there's a troll. And then he went and spoiled it all by saying something stupid about the Jews, when his actual target wasn't the Jews at all - who he's actually rather fond of, in a weird sort of way - but those poor highly-paid women who aren't paid quite as highly as their male counterparts. Such a messy, undignified ending.

pleas advice

people were just too dumb to understand the point he was trying to make,

Outlaw Pete

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

'Vile' lol. The Daily Mail called, they want their terminology back.

Now that's lazy and laughable, as sure even your friends use that term.

I dunno...

Yeah, I noticed and you should have stopped there as everything after that was just excuses for her racism. This wasn't a handful of tweets over a few months. This was many hundreds over several years and it was expressed in other areas of her life also. You seem incapable of wrapping your head around the fact that an Asian or Black person can hate whites in the same way a white person can hate Asians or Blacks. Had this been a white journalist that was saying these vile things about Asians or Blacks, you would not be on here making excuses for them. Not a hope.

Malayalam

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Now that's lazy and laughable, as sure even your friends use that term.



Yeah, I noticed and you should have stopped there as everything after that was just excuses for her racism. This wasn't a handful of tweets over a few months. This was many hundreds over several years and it was expressed in other areas of her life also. You seem incapable of wrapping your head around the fact that an Asian or Black person can hate whites in the same way a white person can hate Asians or Blacks. Had this been a white journalist that was saying these vile things about Asians or Blacks, you would not be on here making excuses for them. Not a hope.

It's not just that an Asian or Black can hate Whites as much as vice versa - we all know the human capacity to be an arsehole - it is the almost feverish ideology that there is some perverse atonement to be extracted from people whose ancestry happens to be white skinned. A bizarre theatre of sado-masochistic intersectional pseudo politics. White people especially males to hang their heads in a submissive acting out that is supposed to correct a version of history. And it is a version. Someone earlier asked who benefited from slavery. It was initially the native Africans who sold their own to colonialists, in a well developed slave trade that had long existed on the continent, so they were the first beneficiaries. And the English enslaved the Irish also, sold to the Caribbean etc. The Vikings enslaved many north Europeans. The Arabs enslaved Mediterraneans. Feudal lords enslaved the peasantry. Native American tribes enslaved each other. Etc etc. There would have to be a great deal of complex global submission domination public theatre for history to be corrected and frankly I would find it all too exhausting. Can we just skip forward to the part where we are Star Trek mature please?

Omackeral

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

'Vile' lol. The Daily Mail called, they want their terminology back. I dunno, maybe she doesn't literally want to cut people. Maybe what she was doing there was using hyperbole to make an exaggerated point. Or maybe the staff at the New York Times will have to watch themselves.

She uses the language of the right ('PC lies'), so I'm guessing there's some element of piss-takery going on there, maybe? Certainly has the effect of some top notch trolling anyway (i.e. drawing out the kind of outraged responses that she's getting, from the kind of people who wouldn't ordinarily give two hoots about racism).

"Daily Mail, lol", "Serious Men of Boards", "She's just using hyperbole". Why don't you just say that she's s racist scumbag with a horrible view and stop trying to justify it or make allowances.

White people dont have the monopoly on being bigoted, racist scumbags. It's ok for you to admit that this wagon (and that's what she is, before you taking umbrage at that too) is way out of line for her public viewpoints. It's ok to just take it on its own without needing quantifiers and what-abouts. Scummy views being espoused by a scummy woman, regardless of ethnicity.

I'd have the exact same view if you substitute any other skin colour in. Racism is to be abhorred, no matter who is perpetuating it.

Just condemn her sh*te for the absolute muck it is. Try not to be swayed by how she looks, it's be a bit racist like...

Lash Into The Pints

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Please tell me you’re a parody account.

Nope; he's just a moron.

It's kind of interesting to watch him. First to downplay the racism, then justify it. He's probably white too, I wonder where the self hate comes from?

DickSwiveller Returns

20Cent wrote: »

Serious bang of gammon off this thread practicaly sizzling. Lol.

Is that an insult based on a person's skin complexion? Very interesting seeing the people who liked it, too.

Outlaw Pete

Malayalam wrote: »

It's not just that an Asian or Black can hate Whites as much as vice versa...

Of course, was just using those as examples.

With that particular user could easily have said Muslims, or Indian people, or basically any non-straight, non-white section of society. The social cache which these SJWs trade in, via virtual signalling, becomes almost worthless if white straight people can also be offended and maligned as a group.

As the saying goes: misery loves company but it hates competition.

Keepaneye

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Is that an insult based on someones skin complexion? Very interesting seeing the people who liked it, too.

I see they have deleted it.

Wonder what kind of reaction I would get if I said, "serious bang of raw fish in here" in the ladies lounge forum.

DickSwiveller Returns

Keepaneye wrote: »

I see they have deleted it.

Wonder what kind of reaction I would get if I said, "serious bang of raw fish in here" in the ladies lounge forum.

Still there on the third page, keepaneye. I'm particularly shocked at one of the people who liked it. He's usually very holier than thou.

Keepaneye

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Still there on the third page, keepaneye. I'm particularly shocked at one of the people who liked it. He's usually very holier than thou.

Must have missed it. I am not surprised.

pickarooney

What does 'bang of gammon' mean? Is it a reference to the police?

DickSwiveller Returns

pickarooney wrote: »

What does 'bang of gammon' mean? Is it a reference to the police?

I think it's an insult used by Remainers in Britain aimed at working class white people. Based on their skin complexion. Funny how certain posters can get away with certain forms of racism isn't it?

Niles Crane

Why is gammon ham being used by anybody as a form of insult.

there is nothing as nice as gammon ham, potatoes and butter and a slice of pineapple.

Omackeral

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

It's kind of interesting to watch him. First to downplay the racism, then justify it. He's probably white too, I wonder where the self hate comes from?

Live shot right here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tEiguYmgxA

Yer Da sells Avon

Omackeral wrote: »

"Daily Mail, lol", "Serious Men of Boards", "She's just using hyperbole". Why don't you just say that she's s racist scumbag with a horrible view and stop trying to justify it or make allowances.

White people dont have the monopoly on being bigoted, racist scumbags. It's ok for you to admit that this wagon (and that's what she is, before you taking umbrage at that too) is way out of line for her public viewpoints. It's ok to just take it on its own without needing quantifiers and what-abouts. Scummy views being espoused by a scummy woman, regardless of ethnicity.

I'd have the exact same view if you substitute any other skin colour in. Racism is to be abhorred, no matter who is perpetuating it.

Just condemn her sh*te for the absolute muck it is. Try not to be swayed by how she looks, it's be a bit racist like...

She was shitposting on Twitter. I've seen enough of that kind of stuff not to take it seriously, whoever is spouting it, and I don't see why it should prevent someone from getting a job with a newspaper.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote:

Is that an insult based on someones skin complexion?

I don't know about you, but it makes me red in the face. Anyway, enjoy the bank holiday and wear sunscreen. :mad:

Will I Am Not

Gammon is hardly racist. Sure the people using it are often gammony looking yokes anyway.
Even this fella is a bit...

Omackeral

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

She was shitposting on Twitter. I've seen enough of that kind of stuff not to take it seriously, whoever is spouting it, and I don't see why it should prevent someone from getting a job with a newspaper.

Ah she was only having the craic was she?! Ah that's ok so. Bollox, Ray.

You'd 100% take it seriously if it was anyone saying something similar about a minority or a person of colour. You'd be proclaiming racism from the high heavens. You've jumped the shark on this one but you're too stubborn to just admit you're wrong. If any editor or journo went on an anti black crusade you'd be top of the list calling for their head. You'd be right too, it's just you're a hypocrite when the shoe is on the other foot.

Will I Am Not

Katie Hopkins is just sh*tposting on Twitter I suppose? That Humphrey’s fella was just sh*tposting about Ibrahim Halawa?

Brian?

pickarooney wrote: »

What does 'bang of gammon' mean? Is it a reference to the police?

I thought it was a reference to outraged white people. I could be entirely wrong though.

Omackeral

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Katie Hopkins is just sh*tposting on Twitter I suppose?

So is Tommy Robinson. Although he's not even bringing up skin colour... you tell me who the racist is.

super_furry

Love the new alt-right tactic of concern trolling. Trawling back through near decade old tweets to weaponise them because they’re now saying something about Trump.

Omackeral

super_furry wrote: »

Love the new alt-right tactic of concern trolling. Trawling back through near decade old tweets to weaponise them because they’re now saying something about Trump.

Do you think what Sarah says is acceptable? Do you think it's racist.

Simple yes/no answer will do without ticking off buzzwords. No need for right or left or Trump.

Pkiernan

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

It's this type of thing that will lead Trump back into the White House in 2020

AWESOME!!!

TheValeyard

super_furry wrote: »

Love the new alt-right tactic of concern trolling. Trawling back through near decade old tweets to weaponise them because they’re now saying something about Trump.

A lot of people are playing that game. James Gunn was sacked from Guardians of the Galaxy for a tweet joke he made years ago

uncle_sam_ie

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

She was shitposting on Twitter. I've seen enough of that kind of stuff not to take it seriously, whoever is spouting it, and I don't see why it should prevent someone from getting a job with a newspaper.

It's the New York Times themselves who set this standard.
Quinn Norton, was fired from the NYT over tweets she made.

And, this is a Quote from The New York Times on Roseanne,

"The network's decision to cancel 'Roseanne' over a racist comment will cost it.
But when people decide to let racism slide, it costs the rest of us."

Will I Am Not

super_furry wrote: »

Love the new alt-right tactic of concern trolling. Trawling back through near decade old tweets to weaponise them because they’re now saying something about Trump.

Wonder where they got that idea from...

Malayalam

super_furry wrote: »

Love the new alt-right tactic of concern trolling. Trawling back through near decade old tweets to weaponise them because they’re now saying something about Trump.

''Concern trolling'', is it now? New phrase on me. How about character reference? Or by your deeds you will be known?

super_furry

Omackeral wrote: »

Do you think what Sarah says is acceptable? Do you think it's racist.

Simple yes/no answer will do without ticking off buzzwords. No need for right or left or Trump.

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.

Was actually thinking more of James Gunn when posting, who was targeted by the same people with the same tactics.

TomSweeney

pleas advice wrote: »

i = 868197

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

i++

20 GOTO 10

ewww ... GOTO .. such messy programming ...

Fr Tod Umptious

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

It's the New York Times themselves who set this standard.
Quinn Norton, was fired from the NYT over tweets she made.

And, this is a Quote from The New York Times on Roseanne,

"The network's decision to cancel 'Roseanne' over a racist comment will cost it.
But when people decide to let racism slide, it cost the rest of us."

This is it.

Outlets like the NYT are making such fools of themselves.
Sure the people who are drinking that flavour of Kool-aide are fully behind them and the folks that are drinking the other flavour are fully outraged.

But us in the middle just wonder what society is turning into.

Brian?

Omackeral wrote: »

Do you think what Sarah Jeong says is acceptable? Do you think it's racist.

On the surface those tweets are racist and moronic. I’d like some context though. She appears to be using the nomenclature of white nationalists/alt right to make a point about racism. I’d like to know more.

If she’s a journalist, I’m guessing she is since the NY times have hired her, shouldn’t she have plenty of online content that clarifies the issue?

Attacking anyone based on tweets seems a little reactionary. The medium doesn’t really lend itself to nuance. I genuinely dislike tweets. I only use Twitter to read links to full articles.

I suppose I’m saying, I’d like to know what she says and not what she tweets. They can be the same, they can be different.

Simple yes/no answer is enough without ticking off buzzwords.

If only life was so simple. I tried to avoid buzzwords though.

Fr Tod Umptious

Brian? wrote: »

On the surface those tweets are racist and moronic. I’d like some context though. She appears to be using the nomenclature of white nationalists/alt right to make a point about racism. I’d like to know more.

If she’s a journalist, I’m guessing she is since the NY times have hired her, shouldn’t she have plenty of online content that clarifies the issue?

Attacking anyone based on tweets seems a little reactionary. The medium doesn’t really lend itself to nuance. I genuinely dislike tweets. I only use Twitter to read links to full articles.

I suppose I’m saying, I’d like to know what she says and not what she tweets. They can be the same, they can be different.



If only life was so simple. I tried to avoid buzzwords though.

But looking at the tweets for context and nuance is totally subjective.

Can the same be rules of context and nuance applied to the Quinn Norton tweets or anything anyone else says that is percieved as racist ?

Or should they only be applied one way ?

uncle_sam_ie

Brian? wrote: »

On the surface those tweets are racist and moronic. I’d like some context though. She appears to be using the nomenclature of white nationalists/alt right to make a point about racism. I’d like to know more.

If she’s a journalist, I’m guessing she is since the NY times have hired her, shouldn’t she have plenty of online content that clarifies the issue?

Attacking anyone based on tweets seems a little reactionary. The medium doesn’t really lend itself to nuance. I genuinely dislike tweets. I only use Twitter to read links to full articles.

I suppose I’m saying, I’d like to know what she says and not what she tweets. They can be the same, they can be different.



If only life was so simple. I tried to avoid buzzwords though.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1025437806775226368.html

Malayalam

Brian? wrote: »

On the surface those tweets are racist and moronic. I’d like some context though. She appears to be using the nomenclature of white nationalists/alt right to make a point about racism. I’d like to know more.

If she’s a journalist, I’m guessing she is since the NY times have hired her, shouldn’t she have plenty of online content that clarifies the issue?

Attacking anyone based on tweets seems a little reactionary. The medium doesn’t really lend itself to nuance. I genuinely dislike tweets. I only use Twitter to read links to full articles.

I suppose I’m saying, I’d like to know what she says and not what she tweets. They can be the same, they can be different.



If only life was so simple. I tried to avoid buzzwords though.

Let Sarah provide you the context herself...

suicide_circus

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But looking at the tweets for context and nuance is totally subjective.

Can the same be rules of context and nuance applied to the Quinn Norton tweets or anything anyone else says that is percieved as racist ?

Or should they only be applied one way ?

give it up Father. this is like trying to argue theology. this is a matter of faith for these people, if they make any concessions their whole doctrine could crumble.

Will I Am Not

super_furry wrote: »

Love the new alt-right tactic of concern trolling. Trawling back through near decade old tweets to weaponise them because they’re now saying something about Trump.

Are the tweets from under 4 years ok though?