Roseanne fired but Sarah Jeong hired?

Brian?

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Would you be so generous to a figure on the right working for Breitbart or Fox News?

If I knew nothing about them beyond their Twitter feed? I hope so. Otherwise I would be a hypocrite.

SnakePlissken

Brian? wrote: »

You’re doing the usual, attacking me directly rather than debating the subject at hand.

Highly ironic who thanked this post.

A poster known for doing little else.

Galwayguy35

It's funny seeing the usual suspects twisting themselves in knots trying to downplay what she said.

As others have said if it was a white person said those things the posts from those same people would be a lot different.

keffiyeh

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

He’s talking about anti white rhetoric in us colleges.

Obviously. Except it isn't happening in any significant amount and is massively overblown by the radicalized right.

WinnyThePoo

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Highly ironic who thanked this post.

A poster known for doing little else.

I'm delighted you take such a interest in me:D

Sal Butamol

Brian? wrote: »

If I knew nothing about them beyond their Twitter feed? I hope so. Otherwise I would be a hypocrite.

You're a gas man Brian? Gas.

Call Me Jimmy

Brian? wrote: »

If I knew nothing about them beyond their Twitter feed? I hope so. Otherwise I would be a hypocrite.

Brian I'm very interested in your opinion of hate speech laws (or policies on social media). Given your take on this, I assume you strongly disagree with them?

professore

Brian? What would someone have to say or do to be considered a racist in your view?

Sal Butamol

Brian? in this thread...lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raVFzZZLp3A

P_1

Has too much stock been put on what people wrote online I wonder? Have to say I'm not a fan at all of this latest trend of digging into people's social media history and that goes for people on all sides of the political spectrum

Sal Butamol

P_1 wrote: »

Has too much stock been put on what people wrote online I wonder? Have to say I'm not a fan at all of this latest trend of digging into people's social media history and that goes for people on all sides of the political spectrum

It seems the liberal left's tactic of organising witch hunts on social media is coming back to bite them on the ass because their opponents have decided to give them a taste of their own medicine. Can't say I have too much sympathy for them. They've destroyed so many peoples careers because of their hysterical carry on.

DickSwiveller Returns

P_1 wrote: »

Has too much stock been put on what people wrote online I wonder? Have to say I'm not a fan at all of this latest trend of digging into people's social media history and that goes for people on all sides of the political spectrum

Completely agree. I don't like it either. A stupid few tweets does not a person make. I think those on the right have started doing it in response to a number of their fellow travelers being subjected to this kind of hounding by liberals. I wish they wouldn't though.

P_1

Sal Butamol wrote: »

It seems the liberal left's tactic of organising witch hunts on social media is coming back to bite them on the ass because their opponents have decided to give them a taste of their own medicine. Can't say I have too much sympathy for them. They've destroyed so many peoples careers because of their hysterical carry on.

True, it's just nasty behavior all round really

professore

P_1 wrote: »

Has too much stock been put on what people wrote online I wonder? Have to say I'm not a fan at all of this latest trend of digging into people's social media history and that goes for people on all sides of the political spectrum

The irony is that left wingers have destroyed people's careers - look at Roseanne, she made a joke about someone being ugly, being the love child of an ape and the Muslim brotherhood , and claims she didn't t know she was black. She doesn't look black to be fair. This was on the basis of a single tweet that was wide open to interpretation. In this case there are hundreds of unprovoked tweets that are aimed at a whole race, and that's OK. Apparently.

Here she is : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Valerie_Jarrett_official_portrait_small.jpg/220px-Valerie_Jarrett_official_portrait_small.jpg

DickSwiveller Returns

Sal Butamol wrote: »

It seems the liberal left's tactic of organising witch hunts on social media is coming back to bite them on the ass because their opponents have decided to give them a taste of their own medicine. Can't say I have too much sympathy for them. They've destroyed so many peoples careers because of their hysterical carry on.

It's a difficult one. While it's no doubt enjoyable seeing them getting a taste of their own medicine, I think these kinds of tactics are pretty nasty.

Call Me Jimmy

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Completely agree. I don't like it either. A stupid few tweets does not a person make. I think those on the right have started doing it in response to a number of their fellow travelers being subjected to this kind of hounding by liberals. I wish they wouldn't though.

If no fuss is made then there's more chance that hate speech laws and policies will continue unopposed. I want them to agree, by seeing it happen to people of their own ideological dint that they have to wake up and fight against them. It seems to be the only hope.

Alex Jones in the memory hole. I think he is a retard but what needs to be understood by everyone is that hate speech laws / fake news banning means you are asking the government and tech companies to drip feed you your 'truth' and decide what is and is not humour.

DickSwiveller Returns

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

If no fuss is made then there's more chance that hate speech laws and policies will continue unopposed. I want them to agree, by seeing it happen to people of their own ideological dint that they have to wake up and fight against them. It seems to be the only hope.

Alex Jones in the memory hole. I think he is a retard but what needs to be understood by everyone is that hate speech laws / fake news banning means you are asking the government and tech companies to drip feed you your 'truth' and decide what is and is not humour.

I agree. I can't see it changing though. Twitter etc are private companies so can do whatever they want Re hate speech etc. Plus there is no reasoning with twitter liberals. They are off the wall. If those on the right engage in this sort of stuff they will just get nastier.

Omackeral

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It's funny seeing the usual suspects twisting themselves in knots trying to downplay what she said.

As others have said if it was a white person said those things the posts from those same people would be a lot different.

Have to say, fair play to ancapailldorcha, the only one that I'd consider staunchly on that side of the divide to simply just come out and call a spade a spade. Everyone else from Hapax Legomenon to Brian? to Winny The Poo tripping up over themselves to makes excuses for an out and out racist sexist just because they're from an ethnic minority... a racist act in itself ironically.

professore

Omackeral wrote: »

Have to say, fair play to ancapailldorcha, the only one that I'd consider staunchly on that side of the divide to simply just come out and call a spade a spade. Everyone else from Hapax Legomenon to Brian? to Winny The Poo tripping up over themselves to makes excuses for an out and out racist sexist just because they're from an ethnic minority... a racist act in itself ironically.

There does seem to be a case of Hank Scorpio syndrome...

Edit: Links not working properly

WinnyThePoo

Omackeral wrote: »

Have to say, fair play to ancapailldorcha, the only one that I'd consider staunchly on that side of the divide to simply just come out and call a spade a spade. Everyone else from Hapax Legomenon to Brian? to Winny The Poo tripping up over themselves to makes excuses for an out and out racist sexist just because they're from an ethnic minority... a racist act in itself ironically.

Where was I tripping myself up?

Care to elaborate ?

edit: Where was I making excuses as well?.

Call Me Jimmy

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I agree. I can't see it changing though. Twitter etc are private companies so can do whatever they want Re hate speech etc. Plus there is no reasoning with twitter liberals. They are off the wall. If those on the right engage in this sort of stuff they will just get nastier.

Yes of course, but these companies will reverse as soon as the public realises it's unacceptable. In this case, by talking about them being jokes, satire - thank you, you've just accepted hate speech polices on these platforms need to change.

keffiyeh

Sal Butamol wrote: »

P_1 wrote: »

Has too much stock been put on what people wrote online I wonder? Have to say I'm not a fan at all of this latest trend of digging into people's social media history and that goes for people on all sides of the political spectrum

It seems the liberal left's tactic of organising witch hunts on social media is coming back to bite them on the ass because their opponents have decided to give them a taste of their own medicine. Can't say I have too much sympathy for them. They've destroyed so many peoples careers because of their hysterical carry on.

The boogiemen you see around every corner are hilarious. Are you a yank? Is this Reddit? Then why are you using idiotic terms like 'the liberal left'? Also, I love the irony of your witch hunt comment, when it's actually your team (the radicalized right) that are known for that, including the recent firing of James Gunn from directing Guardians of the Galaxy (not that I think he should be working for Disney with a Twitter history like that, but still, your assertion is both ironic and very disingenuous).

Venom

P_1 wrote: »

True, it's just nasty behavior all round really

Sadly it's only going to get worse now that the outrage mobs have seen they can effect multimillion dollar tv shows and movies by doing nothing more than tapping away on keyboards and phones. This nonsense really needs to be stopped in its tracks but until the perceived loss from firing an individual from a project outweighs ignoring the mob, I don't see this stopping anytime soon.

keffiyeh

Venom wrote: »

P_1 wrote: »

True, it's just nasty behavior all round really

Sadly it's only going to get worse now that the outrage mobs have seen they can effect multimillion dollar tv shows and movies by doing nothing more than tapping away on keyboards and phones. This nonsense really needs to be stopped in its tracks but until the perceived loss from firing an individual from a project outweighs ignoring the mob, I don't see this stopping anytime soon.

I like how there is not even a hint of what she actually did to get fired in this post. It's frothing 'outrage mobs' who have nothing better to do apparently. It definitely has nothing to do with her saying black people look like apes and being an incredibly anti-Semitic edgelord (while being Jewish herself). Nope.

I love how there's a bunch of Irish lads heartbroken over Roseanne's plight, a Z Lister who hasn't been popular in 20+ years. I love all this genuine concern for the poor woman, there's clearly no other agendas at play here. Nope. Just loads of Roseanne fans on here. Haha.

Yer Da sells Avon

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Where was I tripping myself up?

Care to elaborate ?

edit: Where was I making excuses as well?.

According to the Serious Men of Boards, in addition to tripping myself up and making excuses, I'm tiresome, insufferable, brainwashed, an absolute hypocrite, a moron, lazy, laughable, stubborn, weird, genuinely odd and, worst of all, a progressive liberal.

Bawling here.

professore

keffiyeh wrote: »

I like how there is not even a hint of what she actually did to get fired in this post. It's frothing 'outrage mobs' who have nothing better to do apparently. It definitely has nothing to do with her saying black people look like apes and being an incredibly anti-Semitic edgelord (while being Jewish herself). Nope.

I have a post on it. She was fired for a very ambiguous single tweet.

professore

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

According to the Serious Men of Boards, in addition to tripping myself up and making excuses, I'm tiresome, insufferable, brainwashed, an absolute hypocrite, a moron, lazy, laughable, stubborn, weird, genuinely odd and, worst of all, a progressive liberal.

Bawling here.

I don't think all of us men on boards think that deeply about you. Or are that serious

WinnyThePoo

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

According to the Serious Men of Boards, in addition to tripping myself up and making excuses, I'm tiresome, insufferable, brainwashed, an absolute hypocrite, a moron, lazy, laughable, stubborn, weird, genuinely odd and, worst of all, a progressive liberal.

Bawling here.

Omg a progressive liberal. Your the worst:D

There is a serious amount of bile there to be fair.

Sal Butamol

keffiyeh wrote: »

The boogiemen you see around every corner are hilarious. Are you a yank? Is this Reddit? Then why are you using idiotic terms like 'the liberal left'? Also, I love the irony of your witch hunt comment, when it's actually your team (the radicalized right) that are known for that, including the recent firing of James Gunn from directing Guardians of the Galaxy (not that I think he should be working for Disney with a Twitter history like that, but still, your assertion is both ironic and very disingenuous).

Lol this account cracks me up.

keffiyeh

professore wrote: »

keffiyeh wrote: »

I like how there is not even a hint of what she actually did to get fired in this post. It's frothing 'outrage mobs' who have nothing better to do apparently. It definitely has nothing to do with her saying black people look like apes and being an incredibly anti-Semitic edgelord (while being Jewish herself). Nope.

I have a post on it. She was fired for a very ambiguous single tweet.

No she wasn't. She has had a history for years and years, including a rather interesting photoshoot of her dressed up as Hitler putting little Jewish gingerbread men in an oven. Hence the edgelord comment. And there was nothing 'ambiguous' about the tweet. She made an inference that a person of African descent looked like an ape. You're showing your racist card too early by calling it ambiguous.

Sal glad you've got nothing to say except 'lol'. Reality is a bitch when you have an agenda innit.

dark crystal

What Jeong wrote was undeniably racist and I cannot abhor this rabid divisiveness that seems to have risen to crazy proportions between the 'left' and 'right', men and women, natives and immigrants, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Divide and conquer never leads to anything good imo. Look what it's done to politics in The States.

Sure, everyone has a right to their point of view, but the name calling thing has gotten so juvenile and ridiculous, it's beyond parody at this stage. You can't on one hand deride the POTUS for his insanely juvenile tweets and then justify hiring a person who tweets childish inflammatory garbage like Sarah Jeong. Yes, that is hypocrisy at it's finest.

Social ****in' media doesn't create monsters, it does however let the cuckoos fly over their nests in full view of the public and it can lead to a poisonous kind of group think that infects the more gullible or vulnerable sections of society. Now more than ever, the poison cannot be allowed to get any more out of control. The politics of division have gone too far at this stage and that's precisely why the NY Times should be taking a stand on this issue.

JohnMc1

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.

If it wasn't for Double Standards the Left wouldn't have any.

Venom

keffiyeh wrote: »

The boogiemen you see around every corner are hilarious. Are you a yank? Is this Reddit? Then why are you using idiotic terms like 'the liberal left'? Also, I love the irony of your witch hunt comment, when it's actually your team (the radicalized right) that are known for that, including the recent firing of James Gunn from directing Guardians of the Galaxy (not that I think he should be working for Disney with a Twitter history like that, but still, your assertion is both ironic and very disingenuous).

I wonder if it's more down to an agenda or ignorance on the subject in question, that result in such false statements from you.


Roseanne was not fired by the actions of people on the right.


James Damore was not fired by the actions of people on the right.


Justine Sacco was not fired by the actions of people on the right.


Aziz Ansari did not almost lose his career over the actions of people on the right.


So apart from Gunn who's firing I disagree with, who exactly have "the radicalized right" gotten fired?

keffiyeh wrote: »

I like how there is not even a hint of what she actually did to get fired in this post. It's frothing 'outrage mobs' who have nothing better to do apparently. It definitely has nothing to do with her saying black people look like apes and being an incredibly anti-Semitic edgelord (while being Jewish herself). Nope.

I love how there's a bunch of Irish lads heartbroken over Roseanne's plight, a Z Lister who hasn't been popular in 20+ years. I love all this genuine concern for the poor woman, there's clearly no other agendas at play here. Nope. Just loads of Roseanne fans on here. Haha.

I didn't mention what Roseanne did as it's pretty well know at this point, except it seems to you. She (Roseanne)







claimed Valerie Jarrett







(but not all black people as you claim or black people in general) looked like one of the stars of the Planet of the Apes movie in full makeup.

professore

keffiyeh wrote: »

No she wasn't. She has had a history for years and years, including a rather interesting photoshoot of her dressed up as Hitler putting little Jewish gingerbread men in an oven. Hence the edgelord comment. And there was nothing 'ambiguous' about the tweet. She made an inference that a person of African descent looked like an ape. You're showing your racist card too early by calling it ambiguous.

Sal glad you've got nothing to say except 'lol'. Reality is a bitch when you have an agenda innit.

If she had such a history, why did they hire her in the first place? And that woman doesn't look black. Aha 5 minutes online and it turns out the nazi photoshoot was a satirical piece for a JEWISH magazine. Facts my ass.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-roseanne-pose-as-adolf-hitler-photo-shoot/

[image]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Jarrett#/media/File:Valerie_Jarrett_official_portrait_small.jpg[/image]

Sal Butamol

keffiyeh wrote: »

Sal glad you've got nothing to say except 'lol'. Reality is a bitch when you have an agenda innit.

Your grasp on reality is tenuous, at best. I really have better things to be doing than arguing with someone who thinks up is down and left is right.

professore

Venom wrote: »

I wonder if it's more down to an agenda or ignorance on the subject in question, that result in such false statements from you.


Roseanne was not fired by the actions of people on the right.


James Damore was not fired by the actions of people on the right.


Justine Sacco was not fired by the actions of people on the right.


Aziz Ansari did not almost lose his career over the actions of people on the right.


So apart from Gunn who's firing I disagree with, who exactly have "the radicalized right" gotten fired?





I didn't mention what Roseanne did as it's pretty well know at this point, except it seems to you. She (Roseanne)







claimed Valerie Jarrett







(but not all black people as you claim or black people in general) looked like one of the stars of the Planet of the Apes movie in full makeup.

To be honest she does look like one of the Planet of the Apes stars. She also doesn't look black. I would have said Italian.

deco nate

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

According to the Serious Men of Boards, in addition to tripping myself up and making excuses, I'm tiresome, insufferable, brainwashed, an absolute hypocrite, a moron, lazy, laughable, stubborn, weird, genuinely odd and, worst of all, a progressive liberal.

Bawling here.

No, you are just predictable in your postings. Adding nothing, but trying hard to look like, em what are your posts about? Please explain.( besides you watching a certain UK movie franchise, that you have took to heart and taking it to the next level and post them BS on here) # kinsman.... Care to add? Or just keep posting bs?

WinnyThePoo

deco nate wrote: »

No, you are just predictable in your postings. Adding nothing, but trying hard to look like, em what are your posts about? Please explain.

Well that's not true. He's adding content to the site. Just like you.

Yer Da sells Avon

deco nate wrote: »

No, you are just predictable in your postings. Adding nothing, but trying hard to look like, em what are your posts about? Please explain.

I'll add that to the list, thanks.

deco nate

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Well that's not true. He's adding content to the site. Just like you.

I have added my view on this thread, that poster does not add anything to any thread he/she posts on.
All of the posts are... angry man. And that is all that they post! So, Yea.
That is not adding to a thread.

WinnyThePoo

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I'll add that to the list, thanks.

I like how he edited his/her post to also critic you on your movie going choice. This thread is lolz

deco nate

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I'll add that to the list, thanks.

No worries, sure all have have seen your posts too.

deco nate

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I like how he edited his/her post to also critic you on your movie going choice. This thread is lolz

LOL, great add to a thread.
You do this a lot. Pmsl




*am I doing this right.?*


Good to see the "crew"
Backing each other up.

It's a shame that so called news papers/media is now a left vs right.




Fox nor cnn cannot be believed anymore.


(I never believed anything from one source)

So we're can one get the real news now?

News, just like lot lot of bs posters on boards.
Is to be avoided.

WinnyThePoo

deco nate wrote: »

LOL, great add to a thread.
You do this a lot. Pmsl




*am I doing this right.?*


Good to see the "crew"
Backing each other up.

It's a shame that so called news papers/media is now a left vs right.




Fox nor cnn cannot be believed anymore.


(I never believed anything from one source)

So we're can one get the real news now?

News, just like lot lot of bs posters on boards.
Is to be avoided.

Well I am glad you've chosen ignorance over knowledge. Very brave indeed.
# kinsmen ....

Am I doing this right???:D

deco nate

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Well I am glad you've chosen ignorance over knowledge. Very brave indeed.
# kinsmen ....

Am I doing this right???:D

Well how about newspapers/media hire people that will report the news.
And not just there views.
That was the original reason behind news but now it's all about sides.
It's getting ridiculous to be honest

RabbleRouser2k

Her claims 'these are years old tweets' wouldn't be so hilarious if not for the many times she bashed the NYT, one as recently as last year.

She's like an Asian Roseanne, but dumber.

WinnyThePoo

deco nate wrote: »

Well how about newspapers/media hire people that will report the news.
And not just there views.
That was the original reason behind news but now it's all about sides.
It's getting ridiculous to be honest

Read from a variety of sources. Don't rely on a few.

dark crystal

deco nate wrote: »

Well how about newspapers/media hire people that will report the news.
And not just there views.
That was the original reason behind news but now it's all about sides.
It's getting ridiculous to be honest

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Read from a variety of sources. Don't rely on a few.

Newspapers have almost always leaned one way or another politically, depending on the owner.

Just in terms of US news, this chart spans news sources from 'left' to 'right' leaning. Maybe stick with the more neutral, less biased ones.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-source-you-probably-wont-agree-with-this-chart-2018-02-28

deco nate

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Read from a variety of sources. Don't rely on a few.

I do, didn't you see my point about hiring someone with her views?
So how can she be a reliable and trustworthy journalist with her views on many different news articles?
Crazy ****e in this thread.

But I'm sure your man will be back to post yet again that posters on here are angry men. While yet again adding nothing else to this thread. Just like he/she does on all threads he/she posts on. But hey, putting a smiley at the end of the post means you won't get a ban.



How?

WinnyThePoo

deco nate wrote: »

I do, didn't you see my point about hiring someone with her views?
So how can she be a reliable and trustworthy journalist with her views on many different news articles?
Crazy ****e in this thread.

But I'm sure your man will be back to post yet again that posters on here are angry men. While yet again adding nothing else to this thread. Just like he/she does on all threads he/she posts on. But hey, putting a smiley at the end of the post means you won't get a ban.



How?

She was hired as I.T / Technology journalist. She is an idiot and a racist. I wouldn't judge an entire paper on one idiot.

There are a lot of angry men on this thread. Angry that everyone's not as outraged as they are.