New York Times writer Sarah Jeong won't be fired after making racist tweets
198 replies, posted
Then do it.
Meanwhile, 4 years of only ironically being racist isn't funny. Quinn Norton had like 4 tweets total of ironic racism/homophobia in which she was insulting someone who was upset that a black person was speaking in a school, and responding to someone she knew from 4chan. She was canned from NYT just 6 months earlier, this is 100% an acceptable to target one race but not the other issue.
I really don't care. If hitler himself told me we need food to live I wouldn't spite him and not eat just because. I see a pattern over 4 years of hateful tweets. I've noticed a lot of this "We can't really address the argument so we'll just go through his own history to vilify him instead" method of attack lately(Ironic given what you claim he did). It's a fallacy for a reason. Because it doesn't address the actual issue. He may be a terrible person, but that doesn't mean she isn't. Put your money where your mouth is and do the work. And complaining about him searching up white makes no sense. If you're searching for her instances of racism towards white people, that's probably the easiest term to find it. And I decided to check it too. She has an unhealthy obsession with everything white. Like it would be understandable if it went on for maybe a year or was just a handful of posts, but this is several hundred tweets worth over 4 years. Her entire twitter persona is "Haha fuck white people amiright? Oh no I'm not racist I have white friends." Here have some tweets so you can actually check the context behind them. AKA She brings up white people on her own not in response to others.
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/617646955628359680
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/428315680359063552
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/413892801944772609
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/534822442079109121
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/598550670287851520
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/538553252514525184
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/492434240827822081
Haha those white X(No offense).
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/617646955628359680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E617646955628359680&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fsarahjeong%2Fstatus%2F617646955628359680
This is a post that could be on facepunch. White feminists means feminists who are white (obviously) and care too much about small things (a music video that says bitch in this instance I guess?) and care a lot more about perceived slights than actual oppression.
On facepunch it would look like this instead: "You'd think that feminists would have bigger problems than a music video"
(On facepunch we don't have words for or distinctions for types of feminists apart from "TERFs/SJWs/the good ones")
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/428315680359063552?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E428315680359063552&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fsarahjeong%2Fstatus%2F428315680359063552
This one is about Amanda Palmer (no idea who she is) comparing some guy not winning a grammy to 12 years a slave I think. The term white tears should be held to the same standard as Jordan Peterson's use of the words "Enforced Monogamy", she is using a term that describes how white people get more attention from the media.
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/413892801944772609
This is a tweet about keeping some information private or secret when doing reporting and I have no context for this, I can only guess that there was a really bad article that maybe exposed an abuser or overstepped someone's privacy at the time. I'm not a wizard so I can't actually prove it but lower down she says
"But there are lots of reasons to refrain from reporting both private, public info. Like, the balance of not being a jerk / valuable news".
Once again the usage of the term "white feminist" is about lack of intersectionality and focus on white women without understanding black struggles or the poor or about feminism that excludes people.
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/534822442079109121
for this one I have actually no idea what's going on. This tweet with 0 context is pretty benign What's bad about this tweet on its own? Furthermore It's followed by like a story about ethics in discussing murders. It reads like she's defending a white man whose sister was murdered and her murder was discussed in detail on a podcast by black people and she's doing a callout on people who are piling onto the white guy and calling him racist because he did a callout on the podcast? Is this tweet you posted as evidence of her hating white people actually her defending a white guy? I can't really tell that well but it sort of looks like it.
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/598550670287851520
joke.
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/538553252514525184
1 bad tweet out of 7 (can't tell if it hurt anyone due to outrage mob burying original replies).
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/492434240827822081
joke.
See what I mean? It's kinda difficult and also her tweets live in a context and also there are a bunch of jokes and you're not the target audience for them so it can be really hard to tell.
Additionally, YES I can say that the guy who made the thread about her being a nazi is relevant because being all like "oh no racism is bad" one second and retweeting neo nazis the next means he's a liar.
Because it provides factual information instead of affirming your biases?
We don't give a pass to people making jokes about any other race. Much less hundreds of tweets. And do you really want that last part to become normal? So racists can just go "So what I'm just joking when I call blacks horrible people every day, you're not the target audience for my jokes."?
Thats hypocrisy, not lying. Being a hypocrite doesn't change the truth of what you said. Both people can be terrible people. Or is he not a racist because she is? Their tweets are still there for anyone to see.
Have you got any examples of their garbage journalism? A timeline of articles that establish a track record for garbage journalism? Something that undermines their track record for factual reporting?
I'm browsing through their site right at the moment and I'm not really seeing a whole lot of this garbage journalism. I do actually mean browsing, too. Not just skimming the front page
I'm seeing some opinion pieces that definitely aren't the kind of thing you're going to see in a further right leaning paper, but I am also seeing a whole lot of just pretty conventional reports of the news. Nothing especially bombastic or sensational, even on the articles about Tinyhands himself, which I am given to understand are supposed to be the big sticking point and golden example of how sensationalist journalism is supposed to have gotten across the board
Perhaps you could help me out? I feel the need for something more substantial than a number of 4-5 year old tweets couched between two from 2017, one of which I'm pretty sure I fond the context for, from a person who now works there and is apparently a valued enough employee for them to stake their entire name and reputation on
If not the NYT, how about just examples in general?
I feel my understanding is a bit lacking, because while I see lots of complaints about how bad journalism has gotten, I don't nearly as often get examples. At least, not examples that are not CNN or left to far-left tabloids
My knee jerk reaction is that the objection to the NYT comes largely from the fact that they are left-leaning(For the US, at least), and keep publishing unflattering articles about Tinyhands and the Republican party without also striking some faux centrist ideal of equal amounts of unflattering articles about the Democratic party. Knee jerk reactions are seldom accurate, though, and I find it's much better to question and confirm than to simply assume
Pretty much every tweet of hers is less bad than the average james gunn tweet that got shared around as evidence that he's a satanic hollywood pedophile.
Like, did you all genuinely get offended when she said white people can't cook rice?
Yeah, but James Gunn doesn't work for the New York Times
NYT garbage lives in the opinions section where they've hired a bunch of dumb centrists and dumb conservatives and racism enablers like bari weiss who spends all day crying about the left and how they're so mean to racists while standing up for dave rubin and saying he's oppressed with unintentionally hilarious photos. It's not quite the level of "Meet the White Nationalist Trying To Ride The Trump Train to Lasting Power" but it's the sort of place where they clap if you say "antifa are the real fascists".
If Sarah was a secret racist she'd be the first leftist they hired but definitely not the first racist.
Alright, I can see that. Some of these pieces are a little wild
That's helpful, because I think it could provide some extra context for that other 2017 tweet up there, as well as a few of the others
No I don’t care
I would imagine making that joke with swapped races
would garner a lot more hate though with plenty of people justifying that hate
I don’t think she should be fired either but I can’t help but feel there’s some dishonest arguments occurring here. What she did in other contexts wouldn’t fly with many of you who support this instance of it. It’s hard to personally understand
Ok this is officially too complicated for me now. 🏳️🏳️🏳️
I fail to see what this has to do with her racist tweets.
From my quick 2 second skimming it seems like she's endangered the subjects of features that take place in China, some where that isn;t really friendly with subversive elements. Could be wrong. But she just doesn't seem like a pleasant or good person all around.
https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5
This should be more context to that tweet.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/135/482/1b4.png
Two can play at this game
https://i.imgur.com/HcWWlDP.png
Except that's literally what people have been saying? Hes not flanderized like your comic is trying to point out. Shit, look at some news articles here about minorities getting treated unfairly and you see the same excuses.
So a less-than-upstanding person is being called out for unrelated bad behaviour that should not have been a big deal by people with ulterior motives.
I don't know what the NYT should have done here. They could justifiably let her go but to do so sends the message that the internet lynch mob can get whoever they don't like fired by digging deep enough. I would certainly feel better if my work or school had my back if I ever offended anyone with enough free time and hatred to go searching for skeletons in my closet.
I don't think the cartoonist called anyone idiot but okay, sorry you feel that way. I also think if you want to make this comic hobby into a career, you should have more brevity. you could have achieved your point in 4 panels, anything more is just restating that point again and again.
The cartoon you posted was about as poignant as a wet fart, though.
Come live in Finland, you only have to hide indoors for half the year. The other half, it's night of the living dead wot with all the pale as fuck people shambling about.
That comic you posted is about as barebones and cherrypicked as can be. Brevity is the soul of wit, but when tied together with a political nature it always seems to fall short. Especially when its paired with such a charged subject as this. Also I believe your critique of the comic is completely misguided and shows how you fail to understand the problem with your own posted image. also fucking lol you thought I drew it. I AM SILLY is at least 7 years old at this point.
But, here. I'll entertain you. Here, another one that gets the point across in 1 panel, just for you.
https://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/613/502/fdf.png
Not sure if this has been posted before, but good threads to read related to this.
https://twitter.com/nomadj1s/status/1026145187356188673
\\
https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/1026286610516594690
I haven't read the second thread yet, but the guy in the first thread seems to be acting like you can't simultaneously have a problem with racists generalizing white people and the white racists we have in our government + racial injustices at the same time. That's bullshit.
Hmmm, I don't interpret it that ( [simultaneous problem...etc ] way from reading his thread at all, and I'm not fully understanding your example either.
But I do see where you're coming from, and I'm going to try to look at that thread under a more critical eye.
I was talking about when he said that people should focus more on the racial injustices minorities face in the country than guys complaining about white people.
White racism is still a pretty big problem in America, and obviously we need to work on getting rid of it, but that's no reason that we can't also have a problem with shitty generalizations against white people, especially since there are some guys who make those kind of generalizations that really mean "all white people" and not just some.
white racism is not a big problem in america - for the most part, "white people" are the system and unless you're guilty of contributing to the generalizations, you shouldn't be affected by digs at white people, and non-white people won't have any problems with you.
it is okay to simultaneously address both issues, but the truth is, white people as not systematically disenfranchised, and working to eliminate the long ongoing discrimination against non-white people is definitely important - and it address what directly causes non-white people to make "white people" digs.
Somehow I doubt that if the geographic tag on a Twitter post saying 'fuck niggers' showed that it was coming from Zimbabwe, you'd excuse it and refuse to label that person a bigot. Feel free to correct me.
This whole 'but white people aren't disenfranchised!' thing has come up a lot, and it seems like either people grossly missing the point or deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue. Her being a shitty person isn't contingent upon whether or not her tweets are reinforcing an exploitative power structure. She's a shitty person because she thinks passing collective judgment over a group of people entirely on account of skin tone is okay.
Feel free to bring up issues of comparative sociopolitical privilege when someone uses the 'what if you substituted black for white' thought experiment, but it's not relevant here, nor is 'but black people have it worse' in any way a logical or legitimate reason to excuse overtly racially prejudiced statements.
I can acknowledge that she is not meaningfully contributing to any systematized repression and still think that she is a repulsive person punching down from a position of privilege, and not keeping with the standards of behavior I would expect from the NYT.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.