• New York Times writer Sarah Jeong won't be fired after making racist tweets
    198 replies, posted
Being asymmetrical on the issue of race out of a progressive need to balance for something will not work, it's even more foolhardy than income equality, and instead will end up causing degeneration of the left in a multicultural society especially since it has been in retreat from its old labor roots for decades. Unlike a class angle, it will be interpreted as tribalism and speaking to a lower level of human behavior. Unlike a class angle, it will be seen as part of a much older kind of social strife that predates class-based societies and is outside of the scope of the left or politics in general. Whereas the left could at least pitch socialism as uniting everyone on the basis of shared material interests as proles and give us an end of history, that doesn't apply here. Trying to compensate for an idea of historical context is a fool's errand, and will perpetuate a cycle of 'barbarism' in Luxemburg's famous quote about war. Jeong's harassment is no excuse for behavior like this since every other ethnic and racial antagonism in history has been a back-and-forth cycle, and anthropology suggests blaming other cultures for a group's problems is a constant in history simply because it works.
*100 thinking emojis* https://twitter.com/virgiltexas/status/1025081318693122048
'they started the racism!' makes no fucking sense. Having a reason for your racism doesn't mean it's not racism. It just means we can explain why you might be racist. Still makes you a shitty person. Racism is bad.
As a card carrying white person I'm not too fussed about this! I don't feel personally victimized by this person.
Good thing racism is bad even if Lambeth isn't insulted by it.
That's good. The issue is if roles were reversed you would be accused of having a false consciousness, internalizing oppressive social norms, etc. by the same justice-oriented ideology that I would guess led you to make this post. Which just gets back to the asymmetry I was talking about. It's a contradiction.
they admitted they were trolling and not genuinely serious about it but hey if you want to be upset about this more power to you.
Goalposts: moved
If it's okay when count dankula does it why is it a problem when this woman does it
Teaching a dog how to raise its paw is not the same thing as outright and blatantly saying "I enjoy being cruel to [race]."
I mean I made basically the same point hours ago so I don't think I moved anything, you just noticed my stance for the first time.
The funny thing is she basically agrees with you that her comments were toxic and that she regrets doing it in the first place https://twitter.com/NYTimesPR/status/1025048766825549830 And it doesn't look like she's going to do it again any time soon.
I'm trying to figure out how a joke video that literally starts with "I'm gonna turn my girlfriend's pug into the least cute thing I can think of - a nazi" is on the same level, here.
I give this a pass because it was 4 years ago. Same reasoning as with James Gunn applies. If someone has proof of her being racist in the past year, then I may see it differently. Otherwise I don't really have a problem with it.
i see those on the right using the playbook written by those on the left. i see yet another "controversy" that will pass into obscure memory when the next one rolls around. i see focus, energy, and anger squandered on a thousand things of no consequence while people continue to suffer. attention is a limited resource, and it is being squandered on forgettable issues.
It's hard to view things so positively when some asshole can be shoved and use that as a legal reason to murder a black person in florida. And the left does pitch those things. It usually just gets them murdered from government programs like COINTELPRO. People seriously need to understand just how malicious our government has been, and still is. This stuff didn't go away, the rise of technology has made it more efficient.
the left isn't to blame for this, but the tactics being used here i've seen being used by the left for some time now. call-out culture was pioneered by the left, and it isn't any wonder that the right has begun using it as well. framing it as "they're upset" is incorrect: they aren't upset, they're ferverous. they're relishing in having an opportunity to unleash these tweets, in having an opportunity to use people's defense of her as additional ammunition for their cause, yet another thing to point to and say "see? look what they're defending!" it isn't about attacking her, it is about baiting people into defending her.
if the right wants to use callout culture then that's fine, the left isn't immune to criticism, but a lot of it is misplaced attempts at "gotcha! libs owned epic style". Though I'm sure their intent is mostly trying to smear the left. No matter what happens, by nature, reactionaries will complain about being held to any sort of standard. They're trying to make a point here to stop people being held to account for bigotry, and the intent is awful, but if they bring up actual terrible stuff like Gunn's terrible joke, and Disney wants to fire them, then fair enough. Though they're also getting upset when private companies are exercising their freedom of speech to NOT fire people like this writer, so it's pretty funny then.
participating in callout culture, at the least in regards to callouts of minor figures with minor political and social clout, is participating in an endless cycle that serves to only perpetuate that cycle. we're spreading ourselves too thin, burning ourselves out, by constantly entertaining outrage from one side or the other. there is a lack of focus on the left, and it is weakened more every day because of that.
typically? i've never seen somebody stressesed out for "better", except the darkest dungeon.
outrage culture is just a dogwhistle term used to downplay legitimate misgivings people have with the status quo
Given this explanation from the NYT it doesn't seem quite as egregious. If she repeats that sort of behavior naturally I'm all for sacking her. But as long as she doesn't, water under the bridge.
Ironically there is this thing called eustress. As in, I got reprimanded in my job, I can work it better next time because of this stress. TBH I think everyone trying to paint a target on her back for the comments she made years ago are misguided. When your president wants to mock reporters for disability, call a potentially native woman pochahontus, calls for sexual aggression and submission for women, pays women hush money when he abuses them, refuses to sell real estate to black families, calls Mexican immigrants essentially a plague, makes a ban on Muslim countries that literally just don't have hotels he owns, manufactures literal concentration camps for children and allows the parents to be deported without their children, you might be complaining about the wrong thing. Also don't forget "Obama is a Muslim and wasn't born in the US" deal he manufactured in 2012. I mean to be entirely fair she could be meaning cruelty as in "I didn't give him creamer in his coffee!!" It's not like she's advocating concentration camps for white children, calling them "bad crackers" or manicuring a plan to perfect the denial of homes and real estate to them. Times did the right thing imo. Yeah she had those beliefs, but I've heard off hand comments worse on the street. For instance, "why do all you chinks do is eat dogs?" Or "why can't niggers learn to clean?" And last week I heard "why does Trump want to get rid of all the wetbacks? They do so good at landscaping, especially those illegals." All that's completely different than "why do white people feel so entitled to shove in their opinion everywhere" or "it's a sick joy to be cruel.." Let alone the fact that it's most often Asian women who are overexploited as being hard workers and timid, especially by white men who saw the Vietnam war growing up as a result of propaganda. You can't point at someone who is a minority and say "they're persecuting the majority!!" But they can hold racist belief, and often times high profile places like the times have ways of vetting those things, way before someone is outraged by them on Twitter. Most of the time they all ask during interviews for disclosure of racist belief, and will hire after a check. The nyt probably knew about it all well in advance and understood it might be a PR risk, but it's also free speech, not hate speech.
What are you talking about?
To be honest, after once being a fan of Zinn and Chomsky I really don't think America is that bad.
i was using outrage as a sort of synonym for controversy, the kind i'd been referring to in my posts. some celebrity or random asshole getting called out on something they said years ago and everybody throws their hat into the ring for yet another pointless fight that nobody will remember and will change absolutely nothing.
She's an upper-middle-class Harvard grad, living in a city where her race and gender are largely irrelevant, working for a secure and successful news company. She is absolutely in a position of power relative to a majority of white Americans, not someone whose shitty behavior can be excused as coming from a position of victimization.
How is continuing the trend running it into the ground.
So why is it that she can get away with saying this shit about white people, but if someone were to say this about any other race they would undoubtedly and rightfully fired.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.