August 3, 2018

USA: NYT's Sarah Jeong Also Sent Many Anti-Cop And Anti-Men Tweets, Including "Kill More Men" And "Fuck The Police." Plus, A Great Piece By Andrew Sullivan In NY Mag, When Racism Is Fit To Print.

Hi everybody, I created separate post for these new tweets I added to the original post I shared yesterday regarding NYT shrugging off Sarah Jeong's racist tweets. The original post was already long and I know many of you will not or can't click on the link to the articles I share to read them in full. So, knowing that, I felt these articles deserved your viewing. The link below is from the original post in case you missed it.

Look at the dates of Sarah's anti-police tweets 11/2014 above and 12/2017 below which was just seven months ago. (emphasis mine)
The Daily Caller
written by Amber Athey
Friday August 3, 2018

Sarah Jeong, the newest editorial board member of The New York Times, is also responsible for extensive anti-cop and anti-men tweets.

The New York Times stood by Jeong on Thursday after the internet surfaced her old racist tweets, however her full Twitter history reveals her ire was not only directed toward white people.

The NYT claimed that Jeong was “imitating” the behavior of people who harassed her online, but this does not explain why she was tweeting “fuck the police” and encouraging people to “kill all men.”

A search for “cops” and “police” on Jeong’s Twitter reveals an extensive history of anti-cop sentiment and a lack of sympathy for police who are injured on the job.

In one tweet from 2014 she wrote, “let me know when a cop gets killed by a rock or molotov cocktail or a stray shard of glass from a precious precious window.”

“Cops are assholes,” she said in 2015.

“If we’re talking big sweeping bans on shit that kills people, why don’t we ever ever ever ever talk about banning the police?” a tweet from 2016 asserts.
She also tweeted “fuck the police” on several occasions, including one with a gif of anime characters actually physically attacking a police officer.
In addition, Jeong repeatedly tweeted about killing men, and joked that, even if only “bad men” were killed, that would still include all men.

She tweeted in 2014, “kill more men,” and seemed to sadly state at one point, “I’m likely to actually kill zero men in my lifetime.”

White women were not spared from Jeong’s rage — during the 2016 election she eloquently tweeted “fuck white women lol.”
The New York Times said on Thursday that they had reviewed Jeong’s tweets prior to hiring her, but did not specify what they had found beyond the racist tweets.
New York Magazine
written by Andrew Sullivan
Friday August 3, 2018

Is the newest member of the New York Times editorial board, Sarah Jeong, a racist?

From one perspective — that commonly held by people outside the confines of the political left — she obviously is. A series of tweets from 2013 to 2015 reveal a vicious hatred of an entire group of people based only on their skin color. If that sounds harsh, let’s review a few, shall we? “White men are bullshit,” is one. A succinct vent, at least. But notice she’s not in any way attacking specific white men for some particular failing, just all white men for, well, existing. Or this series of ruminations: “have you ever tried to figure out all the things that white people are allowed to do that aren’t cultural appropriation. there’s literally nothing. like skiing, maybe, and also golf. white people aren’t even allowed to have polo. did you know that. like don’t you just feel bad? why can’t we give white people a break. lacrosse isn’t for white people either. it must be so boring to be white.” Or this: “basically i’m just imagining waking up white every morning with a terrible existential dread that i have no culture.” I can’t say I’m offended by this — it’s even mildly amusing, if a little bonkers. (Has she read, say, any Shakespeare or Emily Dickinson?) But it does reveal a worldview in which white people — all of them — are cultural parasites and contemptibly dull.

A little more disturbing is what you might call “eliminationist” rhetoric — language that wishes an entire race could be wiped off the face of the earth: “#cancelwhitepeople.” Or: “White people have stopped breeding. you’ll all go extinct soon. that was my plan all along.” One simple rule I have about describing groups of human beings is that I try not to use a term that equates them with animals. Jeong apparently has no problem doing so. Speaking of animals, here’s another gem: “Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.” Or you could describe an entire race as subhuman: “Are white people genetically disposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.” And then there’s this simple expression of the pleasure that comes with hatred: “oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” I love that completely meretricious “old” to demean them still further. And that actual feeling: joy at cruelty!

Another indicator that these statements might be racist comes from replacing the word “white” with any other racial group. #cancelblackpeople probably wouldn’t fly at the New York Times, would it? Or imagine someone tweeting that Jews were only “fit to live underground like groveling goblins” or that she enjoyed “being cruel to old Latina women,” and then being welcomed and celebrated by a liberal newsroom. Not exactly in the cards.

But the alternative view — that of today’s political left — is that Jeong definitionally cannot be racist, because she’s both a woman and a racial minority. Racism against whites, in this neo-Marxist view, just “isn’t a thing” — just as misandry literally cannot exist at all. And this is because, in this paradigm, racism has nothing to do with a person’s willingness to pre-judge people by the color of their skin, or to make broad, ugly generalizations about whole groups of people, based on hoary stereotypes. Rather, racism is entirely institutional and systemic, a function of power, and therefore it can only be expressed by the powerful — i.e., primarily white, straight men. For a nonwhite female, like Sarah Jeong, it is simply impossible. In the religion of social constructionism, Jeong, by virtue of being an Asian woman, is one of the elect, incapable of the sin of racism or group prejudice. All she is doing is resisting whiteness and maleness, which indeed require resistance every second of the day.

That’s why Jeong hasn’t apologized to the white people she denigrated or conceded that her tweets were racist. Nor has she taken responsibility for them. Her statement actually blames her ugly tweets on trolls whose online harassment of her prompted her to respond in turn. She was merely “counter-trolling.” She says her tweets, which were not responses to any individual, were also “not aimed at a general audience,” and now understands that these tweets were “hurtful” and won’t do them again. The New York Times also buys this argument: “her journalism and the fact that she is a young Asian woman have made her a subject of frequent online harassment. For a period of time, she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers.”

Let me explain why I think this is the purest of bullshit. If you want to respond to trolls by trolling them, you respond to them directly. You don’t post slurs about an entire race of people (the overwhelming majority of whom are not trolls) on an open-forum website like Twitter. And these racist tweets were not just a function of one sudden exasperated vent at a harasser; they continued for two years. Another tweet from 2016 has her exclaiming: “fuck white women lol.”

None of this excuses the behavior of the online hordes that are seeking her head. When media companies give in to those mobs, they are just feeding a voracious beast. It’s worth noting, however, that Jeong has a long record of cheering online mobs when they target people she dislikes. “Is there anything more tedious than media navel-gazing over ‘outrage mobs’?” she tweeted earlier this year.

And I don’t think the New York Times should fire her — in part because they largely share her views on race, gender, and oppression. Their entire hiring and editorial process is based on them. In their mind, Jeong was merely caught defending herself. As Vox writer Zack Beauchamp put it: “A lot of people on the internet today [are] confusing the expressive way antiracists and minorities talk about ‘white people’ with actual race-based hatred, for some unfathomable reason.” I have to say that word “expressive” made me chuckle out loud. (But would Beauchamp, I wonder, feel the same way if anti-racists talked about Jews in the same manner Jeong talks about whites? Aren’t Jews included in the category of whites?)

The editors of the Verge, where Jeong still works, described any assertion of racism in Jeong’s tweets as “dishonest and outrageous,” a function of bad faith and an attack on journalism itself. Scroll through left-Twitter and you find utter incredulity that demonizing white people could in any way be offensive. That’s the extent to which loathing of and contempt for “white people” is now background noise on the left. What many don’t seem to understand is that their view of racism isn’t shared by the public at large, and that the defense of it by institutions like the New York Times will only serve to deepen the kind of resentment that gave us Trump. Last night, for instance, Fox News made the most of the Times’ excuses for race-baiting.

Yes, we all live on campus now. The neo-Marxist analysis of society, in which we are all mere appendages of various groups of oppressors and oppressed, and in which the oppressed definitionally cannot be at fault, is now the governing philosophy of almost all liberal media. That’s how the Washington Post can provide a platform for raw misandry, and the New York Times can hire and defend someone who expresses racial hatred. The great thing about being in the social justice movement is how liberating it can feel to give voice to incendiary, satisfying bigotry — and know that you’re still on the right side of history.
CNET
written by Steven Musil
Tuesday February 13, 2018 ๐Ÿ‘ˆ๐Ÿ‘ˆ๐Ÿ‘ˆ just 6 months ago.

The New York Times fired Quinn Norton on Tuesday, a few hours after announcing the tech journalist as a new editorial board hire, amid a firestorm over her social media posts.

The Times announced at noon PT that Norton, known for her work at Wired, would be joining the paper as the editorial board's lead opinion writer on technology. But some six hours later, Norton had been dismissed from the paper after Twitter users immediately began highlighting her past tweets that used racial and homophobic slurs.

Many protesters seemed to seize upon a tweet from October in which she says she's friends with Andrew Auernheimer, a convicted hacker who goes by the name "weev" and is webmaster for The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website.

"Weev is a terrible person, & an old friend of mine. I've been very clear on this. Some of my friend are terrible people, & also my friends," she said in the tweet.
Along the way, a handful of other tweets, mostly years-old, surfaced in which she repeatedly used a pejorative term for gay people and retweeted a racial slur.

Her departure from the Times was announced in a statement attributed to James Bennet, the newspaper's editorial page editor.

"Despite our review of Quinn Norton's work and our conversations with her previous employers, this was new information to us. Based on it, we've decided to go our separate ways," Bennet said in a tweet posted by the newspaper's communications department.

Norton couldn't immediately be reached for comment, but said in a tweet: "I'm sorry I can't do the work I wanted to do with them. I wish there had been a way, but ultimately, they need to feel safe with how the net will react to their opinion writers."
In a later tweet, Norton said she didn't support Auernheimer.
Shortly after her hire was announced Tuesday, Norton wrote in a blog post that the Times employees she had interviewed with "made it clear that they weren't going to get put off by a little weird. As for how weird, well that's for them to discover."

In addition to writing about tech and racism, Norton wrote about and dated Aaron Swartz, the internet activist who took his own life in 2013 while being prosecuted for allegedly illegally downloading a large number of academic papers.

UPDATE 8/4/18 at 2:30pm: I added tweets below.

No comments: