Roseanne fired but Sarah Jeong hired?

Brian?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

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

Yep. It is. But then after posting this, I google the author of the tweets. She clarified that the tweets were meant as satire. She was satirising the attacks she’d faced online. I don’t agree that she was right to do it, but it does cast a new light on he the tweets. They are a poor attempt at humour and overall they undermined her point. They weren’t racist thought if they were satire.

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 ?

Same rules apply to all tweets, for me. Others probably don’t agree and will attack all in sundry on them.

Tweets feed the outrage machine. I don’t think I’ve ever been outraged by one though.

Brian?

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

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

That’s just more tweets. What’s the point?

Will I Am Not

Malayalam wrote: »

Let Sarah provide you the context herself...

Christ, she’s got the stereotypical man hater hairstyle and all.

Malayalam

Brian? wrote: »

Yep. It is. But then after posting this, I google the author of the tweets. She clarified that the tweets were meant as satire. She was satirising the attacks she’d faced online. I don’t agree that she was right to do it, but it does cast a new light on he the tweets. They are a poor attempt at humour and overall they undermined her point. They weren’t racist thought if they were satire.



Same rules apply to all tweets, for me. Others probably don’t agree and will attack all in sundry on them.

Tweets feed the outrage machine. I don’t think I’ve ever been outraged by one though.

I think that's what's variously called ''spin'' or ''back-pedalling''.

Brian?

Malayalam wrote: »

Let Sarah provide you the context herself...

Ah here. A 19 second, poorly edited excerpt of a talk?

Brian?

Malayalam wrote: »

I think that's what's variously called ''spin'' or ''back-pedalling''.

What is? Her clarification. It could be spin. But it could be the truth.

Omackeral

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.

Well you're in the bloody thread so either you've read what she's said or you just jumped to the end of the discussion to ignorantly add your two cents regardless.

So if you've read the thread. Are her viewpoints, at the crux of this thread, racist yes or or no? Simple.

Or

Have you jumped to the end and just defended "your side".

Malayalam

Brian? wrote: »

Ah here. A 19 second, poorly edited excerpt of a talk?

Wherein she stated that because of white men everything sucks. Grand, so. I just thought it gave some context to 6 years of repeated anti-white tweeting.

Brian?

suicide_circus wrote: »

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.

Is that aimed at me? What doctrine?

RocketRaccoon

Why the hell are people trying to say this woman isn't racist?? Open your eyes ffs.

Taytoland

Maybe Trump has a point on the New York Times. They accuse him of racism and yet happily employ someone who tweeted stuff that can only be described as racism. They look like hypocrites.

You had a million white Europeans in slavery in the Barbary states in the 18th century. Does that allow whites to be racist because they suffered oppression 300 years ago? Of course not.

Slavery happened, it was a fact of life. What happened can never be reversed. Some people in America need to just move on and stop using what happened to justify what is basic racism against white people.

Brian?

Malayalam wrote: »

Wherein she stated that because of white men everything sucks. Grand, so. I just thought it gave some context to 6 years of repeated anti-white tweeting.

I’d like to hear more. That’s all I’m saying. The video is clearly edited to make her look bad. If she is what you say she is, a racist man hater, why the poorly edited video? It strips the statement of any context or nuance.

Malayalam

Brian? wrote: »

What is? Her clarification. It could be spin. But it could be the truth.

Yes I imagine people sat down and worked out what explanation would wash best. Anyway, even if it was satire - which I doubt - God love her, it does not display an exemplary level of either brilliance or wit. Although it does display uncommon persistence - maybe that's the quality they wanted for the NY Times editorial board.

Omackeral

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Why the hell are people trying to say this woman isn't racist?? Open your eyes ffs.

No, it's satire!!!!! Like blackface is satire. It's just beneath our comprehension levels as we're troglodytes obviously.

Knex*

xtal191 wrote: »

Have a scroll through these tweets

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

Well that has made me highly uncomfortable. Jeong appears to be somewhat psychotic.

What on earth are the NYT doing?

Malayalam

Brian? wrote: »

I’d like to hear more. That’s all I’m saying. The video is clearly edited to make her look bad. If she is what you say she is, a racist man hater, why the poorly edited video? It strips the statement of any context or nuance.

At the end of said clip you will see the reference to the lecture it was taken from .... I don't have time/ interest to watch it all, but I am sure you will find the whole video if you want.

Lash Into The Pints

Brian? wrote: »

Malayalam wrote: »

Wherein she stated that because of white men everything sucks. Grand, so. I just thought it gave some context to 6 years of repeated anti-white tweeting.

I’d like to hear more. That’s all I’m saying. The video is clearly edited to make her look bad. If she is what you say she is, a racist man hater, why the poorly edited video? It strips the statement of any context or nuance.

So much damage control.

Omackeral

The excuses are next level stuff. It's satire, it's sh*tposting, it's self deprecating, it's nuanced, we can't read the tone, you need to acknowledge white people's wrong doing, it was years ago etc etc etc.

Keepaneye

Omackeral wrote: »

Have you jumped to the end and just defended "your side".

That's the crux of it. These sjws will defend the indefensible when somebody from their side is exposed for what they truly are.

Lash Into The Pints

Omackeral wrote: »

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Why the hell are people trying to say this woman isn't racist?? Open your eyes ffs.

No, it's satire!!!!! Like blackface is satire. It's just beneath our comprehension levels as we're troglodytes obviously.

It's ok to dehumanize vast numbers of people as long as you're being satirical

Omackeral

The whole "angry men" and "serious men of boards" narrative is brutal also. Where has anyone mentioned gender outside of this Sarah one and her defenders in here. Another swing and a miss.

Ulysses Gaze

Perhaps Sarah Jeong is being satirical, who knows?

But you've a lot of her defenders on here who went through the most obvious troll out there, Milo Yiannapolous, for a short cut when he spouted his "satire" and trolling.

Taytoland

Its actually hilarious at how transparent they are about it. Its basically "yeah she was racist what of it". Everyone and his dog knows if it was reversed they would have been fired quicker than you can say racist.

Its probably the first time I've seen a news outlet keep someone on with such provable racist comments. What do they teach at these awareness classes we hear about.

Ulysses Gaze

Taytoland wrote: »

Its actually hilarious at how transparent they are about it. Its basically "yeah she was racist what of it". Everyone and his dog knows if it was reversed they would have been fired quicker than you can say racist.

Its probably the first time I've seen a news outlet keep someone on with such provable racist comments. What do they teach at these awareness classes we hear about.

All it shows is that the elements of the Left have learned NOTHING from Trump's election in 2016.

But sure they have two handy scapegoats when they lose the election again in 2020.

1. It'll be another Whitelash against Minorities.
2. The Russkies meddling in the campaign again.

Yer Da sells Avon

Omackeral wrote: »

You've jumped the shark on this one but you're too stubborn to just admit you're wrong.

What you're doing here is assuming that other people take themselves and their e-cocks as seriously as you appear to take yourself and yours. I don't think I'm completely right (hatrickpatrick's post gave me food for thought) or that my thoughts on this are somehow perfect, but if I felt I was wrong, I'd happily acknowledge that. Incidentally, I used the word 'acknowledge' there, rather than 'admit' because the latter implies that being wrong is sort of shameful.

Will I Am Not wrote: »

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

Katie Hopkins does most of her shitposting in whatever newspapers she writes for. I think LBC sacked her for tweeting something about a 'Final Solution' for Muslims, in the wake of the Manchester bombing. Which struck me as inconsistent, considering it was only a logical extension of the opinions that they, and others, were happily paying her, and many others, to express.

And Mark Humphrys might post a lot of shit (or not, if you happen to share his views), but there's a huge difference between that and gratuitous shitposting. He's so humourless and serious, he almost (almost, mind) makes the Serious Men of Boards look like a barrel of laughs altogether.

eagle eye

Ulysses Gaze wrote:

All it shows is that the elements of the Left have learned NOTHING from Trump's election in 2016.
But sure they have two handy scapegoats when they lose the election again in 2020.
1. It'll be another Whitelash against Minorities. 2. The Russkies meddling in the campaign again.

Nice jump to the American Presidency, like wtf?!!!!!

Ulysses Gaze

eagle eye wrote: »

Nice jump to the American Presidency, like wtf?!!!!!

Given this thread is talking about an American journalist writing for a Major American newspaper.......

professore

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.

Sigh. You really you can't see how harmful this stuff is? Particularly to young men? This is the very definition of hate speech.

super_furry

Omackeral wrote: »

Well you're in the bloody thread so either you've read what she's said or you just jumped to the end of the discussion to ignorantly add your two cents regardless.

So if you've read the thread. Are her viewpoints, at the crux of this thread, racist yes or or no? Simple.

Or

Have you jumped to the end and just defended "your side".

I’m not defending any side. I’m talking about the tactics used to target people and deliberately attempt to get them fired from their jobs via huge mail campaigns because they dare to have once said something you don’t like. On either ‘side’.

Lash Into The Pints

professore wrote: »

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.

Sigh. You really you can't see how harmful this stuff is? Particularly to young men? This is the very definition of hate speech.

He is just a hypocrite.

Sofiztikated

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

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

Jesus, that woman is septic.

I've no clue who she is, what her ideology is, or what she writes about, but I'm going to go ahead and put her in the same bin as people that rant about Muslims, antivaxxers, and people that don't know how to use Lanes on the motorway.

DickSwiveller Returns

[Brian} 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.

Just imagine it was a right winger who wrote those tweets, substituting 'black' instead of 'white'. I'm sure you would be pondering the nuance of said tweets. The level of hypocrisy here is off the wall.

Omackeral

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

What you're doing here is assuming that other people take themselves and their e-cocks as seriously as you appear to take yourself and yours.

Weird. Genuinely odd.

Fr Tod Umptious

eagle eye wrote: »

Nice jump to the American Presidency, like wtf?!!!!!

I posted about this on the Trump thread in politics.

It's actions like this from the NYT that alienate many voters.
They are not going to endear themselves to the demographic majority in the US when they defend people like Jeong.

So when election time comes around and the NYT are advocating a certain candidate/party they are not going to get the desired traction because of this.

Will it make people vote for Trump in the next election, maybe maybe not.

But what it is more likely to do is make people not vote for a candadite that the NYT is endorsing/supporting.

If you cannot see that then more the fool you.

Omackeral

super_furry wrote: »

I’m not defending any side. I’m talking about the tactics used to target people and deliberately attempt to get them fired from their jobs via huge mail campaigns because they dare to have once said something you don’t like. On either ‘side’.

Question avoided for the second time l see.

Yer Da sells Avon

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

He is just a hypocrite.

Rude.

Lash Into The Pints

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

He is just a hypocrite.

Rude.

You are a hypocrite.

How come you won't answer Wibb's question?

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Just imagine it was a right winger who wrote those tweets, substituting 'black' instead of 'white'. I'm sure you would be pondering the nuance of said tweets. The level of hypocrisy here is off the wall.

I would. Did you read what I said about Twitter? I don’t make judgements based on tweets. It I read a tweet from a right winger that appears racist, I go off and read whatever else that person has to say. If it’s consistent with the tweet, then I make a judgement.

That’s all I’m doing here.

hatrickpatrick

keffiyeh wrote: »

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

No, but they did fire Quinn Norton:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinn_Norton#The_New_York_Times

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Just imagine it was a right winger who wrote those tweets, substituting 'black' instead of 'white'. I'm sure you would be pondering the nuance of said tweets. The level of hypocrisy here is off the wall.

I’m actually disgusted by this accusation or hypocrisy and how many people thanked it.

Find me one example of a post where I call someone out for a tweet or a sequence of tweets. If I was constantly jumping all over right wing twitterers I’d be a hypocrite. Find me one example of actually hypocrisy or apologise.

Taytoland

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Its actually hilarious at how transparent they are about it. Its basically "yeah she was racist what of it". Everyone and his dog knows if it was reversed they would have been fired quicker than you can say racist.

Its probably the first time I've seen a news outlet keep someone on with such provable racist comments. What do they teach at these awareness classes we hear about.

All it shows is that the elements of the Left have learned NOTHING from Trump's election in 2016.

But sure they have two handy scapegoats when they lose the election again in 2020.

1. It'll be another Whitelash against Minorities.
2. The Russkies meddling in the campaign again.

The Russian excuse is the best of the lot. Mainstream media pulling the hair out about it every day from what I see.

SnazzyPig

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

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

That's China.

Yer Da sells Avon

Brian? wrote: »

I’m actually disgusted by this accusation or hypocrisy and how many people thanked it.

Just looking through the list of people who thanked it and... yup, yup, yup... they're nearly all there. Three more and it'll be the full set.

givyjoe

Brian? wrote: »

I’m actually disgusted by this accusation or hypocrisy and how many people thanked it.

Find me one example of a post where I call someone out for a tweet or a sequence of tweets. If I was constantly jumping all over right wing twitterers I’d be a hypocrite. Find me one example of actually hypocrisy or apologise.

Oh give over. You're disgusted by being called a hypocrite.. but don't seem to have a problem with this loopers long standing pattern of racist tweets.

Tell me, do you think trumps tweets are representative of his racist tendencies?

If it quacks like a duck...

You're presented with overwhelming evidence of racist views and your answer is to stick your head in the sand because.. twitter doesn't really count?

givyjoe

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Just looking through the list of people who thanked it and... yup, yup, yup... they're nearly all there. Three more and it'll be the full set.

The full set of what? Racists is it, as you seemed to be implying earlier in the thread. You're part of a small clique of super ironic posters yourself.

Lone Stone

jeee guys dont you know only white people are racist gawddd

Malayalam

It is true that the alt-right is jumping all over this with glee - a chance to get the boot in to the alt left. That's unpleasant. I also see reflexive hard-left position taking - that's also unpleasant. The unfortunate problem is that centrist or non-aligned observers - regular people, if you will, people who swing to neither extreme, but decide case by case - who read the tweets and may personally decide there is something of a problem are being immediately tarred as right wing or conservatives or Trump fans or such. If people are constantly abused they will eventually stay quiet - they will either become more extreme in their opinions as a result of hurt or they will become completely indifferent. Both are bad. The juvenile level ordinary civil discourse has descended to as a result of rampant identity politics is quite worrying. People should be allowed to make simple self-evident observations without being accused of engrained ideological taint.

dav3

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No, but they did fire Quinn Norton:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinn_Norton#The_New_York_Times

Which makes the title of the thread even more bizarre.

Should it not read 'Norton fired but Sarah Jeong hired'? At least most Irish people can then agree that they have no idea who those people are, or care what they do, for a newspaper they never read.

Adding the name of some irrelevant loudmouth from the 80s to the title just confuses people.

hatrickpatrick

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

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.

None of that is acceptable, though. And it shouldn't be just brushed off as "yeah, but" - no, hate speech is hate speech, end of. Sincere or not.

And as I said in my post, children do take stuff literally. All the time. The constant barrage of "it's ok to say 'men are trash' because reasons, but say a word about women in general and your life will be ruined" is hugely damaging psychologically because the natural conclusion you reach with a young, straightforward logic is "this group is regarded as more important and deserving of happiness than mine is".

There's no way that doesn't f*ck people up, which is why I'm saying that "blowing off steam" and using generalisations as shorthand for specific assholes is not ok, and the people who do it should be subjected to the same level of shame and criticism as people who do it from the other side of the aisle.

Nothing f*cks you up more as a kid than to see double standards in action. The resentment which results can take years to fix.

Here's a collage showing just how endemic this crap is in the mainstream at the moment:

https://i.imgur.com/zNbKDv3.jpg

Some highlights include:

"White men must be stopped - the future of mankind depends on it"

"White guys are killing us: Toxic, cowardly masculinity, our unhealable national illness"

"Why everyone including white people hates white people"

"Do all white people literally suck?"

Now, imagine that not only are you encountering this sh!t on a daily basis as a young person, but you're also being told that those headlines would be unacceptable if said about any demographic other than "white" or "male". Are you seriously going to argue that seeing this stuff over and over again during one's formative years isn't going to screw people up psychologically?

I can only speak from personal experience, but I know that all the "boys are fair game" crap really messed with my head as a child who got into current affairs younger than most and started listening to the news, reading the paper etc. I didn't understand why girls were treated as a "protected class" and boys weren't, and it warped my perceptions of life for years (I'm grand about it all now but it has turned me into a diehard opponent of mainstream double standards for sure), and logically speaking it makes more sense that this will cause problems for people's psychological development than that it won't.

Again, it's not really about the anti-white or anti-male sentiment itself, it's the fact that you're not allowed to retaliate using the same weaponry or you're in big trouble. But the person who did it to you isn't, because unlike them, you're not regarded as worth protecting.

hatrickpatrick

dav3 wrote: »

Which makes the title of the thread even more bizarre.

Should it not read 'Norton fired but Sarah Jeong hired'? At least most Irish people can then agree that they have no idea who those people are, or care what they do, for a newspaper they never read.

Adding the name of some irrelevant loudmouth from the 80s to the title just confuses people.

Yeah that makes sense. Personally I do know Quinn Norton's writing very well as someone who's interested in hacktivism culture, which is obviously relevant here since Jeong is being hired as technology editor, but obviously not everyone is interested in the technology / infoSec world.