# New York Times standing with writer after her racist tweets come up



## Viri (Aug 3, 2018)

Spoiler











https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534
https://www.dailywire.com/news/33976/irony-social-media-mob-comes-sarah-jeong-who-ben-shapiro

So, thoughts? Does she deserve to lose her job? Do you buy her excuse? Do you think she's racist, lol?


----------



## Xzi (Aug 3, 2018)

Viri said:


> So, thoughts? Does she deserve to lose her job? Do you buy her excuse? Do you think she's racist, lol?


Based on the fact that they had already vetted her social media history, she doesn't deserve to lose her job.  It is believable that she was being satirical of racism directed at her from white people, though that's still not a good excuse for perpetuating what can be read as hate.  No, I don't think she's racist at heart.  If she is, the behaviors always repeat themselves eventually.


----------



## Quantumcat (Aug 3, 2018)

Before you post anything on Twitter, it is a good idea to think about how it will sound in absence of the tweet you reply to (if any) and without any context and without knowledge of current news - as that's exactly how it will sound in a year or two's time.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 3, 2018)

Some of these are worse than others, but none of them are "Roseanne" bad in my eyes.

Plus, again, these aren't recent, they're all at least 5 years old. If it were a tweet made yesterday and were along the lines of the "I get joy from being cruel to old white women" one, I'd be a bit more sympathetic to the outrage. But... They weren't


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It is believable that she was being satirical of racism directed at her from white people


Do any of the white supremacist type people do that cultural appropriation bollocks or the equivalent thereof? Much of the others I could possibly read* as "what if we did a word replacement" or a slightly more advanced version thereof but the only time I have seen it brought up by said people that rather enjoy their whiteness is to laugh at its existence.

*it would be being generous but fair enough.


----------



## ChaosEternal (Aug 3, 2018)

Well, now that they've decided that firing people over years old tweets is overkill, when are they planning to rehire Quinn Norton?


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Aug 3, 2018)

I think people need to quit crying..


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 3, 2018)

Did the mean ol Asian hurt your poor wittle feefees, I swear I'm so ashamed to be white when I hear whites literally soaking their diapers with their own piss (maybe tears as well?)


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Aug 3, 2018)

yuyuyup said:


> Did the mean ol Asian hurt your poor wittle feefees, I swear I'm so ashamed to be white when I hear whites literally soaking their diapers with their own piss (maybe tears as well?)


I wouldn't go THAT far, but I agree with the general statement. If we spent as much time on REAL ISSUES like we do worrying over petty bullshit, we'd be a better world... But, no... We're worried about someone saying mean things, like that has anything to do with the real world.


----------



## ChaosEternal (Aug 3, 2018)

yuyuyup said:


> Did the mean ol Asian hurt your poor wittle feefees, I swear I'm so ashamed to be white when I hear whites literally soaking their diapers with their own piss (maybe tears as well?)


Well, given that they fired someone else a few months back for offensive tweets, I guess we must be in good company with LGBT and disabled people. And anyone else who was offended by that person I suppose.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Aug 3, 2018)

ChaosEternal said:


> Well, given that they fired someone else a few months back for offensive tweets, I guess we must be in good company with LGBT and disabled people. And anyone else who was offended by that person I suppose.


First world problems..


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 3, 2018)

ChaosEternal said:


> Well, given that they fired someone else a few months back for offensive tweets, I guess we must be in good company with LGBT and disabled people. And anyone else who was offended by that person I suppose.


I'll say it again, there's a difference between someone doing something in the present, and digging up their past to find skeletons from before they got their shit together. People (or at least most people) are in a constant state of evaluating and changing their behavior based on feedback. If they're not doing something anymore that clearly in hindsight was either harmful or distasteful, it's pretty safe to say they've seen the error in their ways


----------



## sarkwalvein (Aug 3, 2018)

I don't like the NYT,  but I'm happy at least them are putting some stop to this fad where supposedly 4chan style trolls are some kind of SJW crusaders. Yeah, hope they lose their "power" already.


----------



## ChaosEternal (Aug 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'll say it again, there's a difference between someone doing something in the present, and digging up their past to find skeletons from before they got their shit together. People (or at least most people) are in a constant state of evaluating and changing their behavior based on feedback. If they're not doing something anymore that clearly in hindsight was either harmful or distasteful, it's pretty safe to say they've seen the error in their ways


That person's posts were from the same time period as this person's posts. In both the current and the past case the tweets were several years old.


----------



## the_randomizer (Aug 3, 2018)

NY Times is defending her? What a surprise  Glad I don't read that shit.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Aug 3, 2018)

aaaand the twitter inquisition continues...

Seriously...


----------



## gnmmarechal (Aug 3, 2018)

Erm... those are some... questionable tweets...


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 3, 2018)

Memoir said:


> I wouldn't go THAT far, but I agree with the general statement. If we spent as much time on REAL ISSUES like we do worrying over petty bullshit, we'd be a better world... But, no... We're worried about someone saying mean things, like that has anything to do with the real world.


Is editorial staff at a major news publication, in a time when said publications frequently wander through activist territory (this one in particular endorses presidential candidates) as well as doing the whole partisan bit, rather than being conveyancers of happenings and relevant background for it, potentially holding what would appear to be abhorrent world views and willing and able to espouse them further not a cause for concern?

*while here it appears as though she has denounced them and/or considers them satirical in nature there are unarguably those making the same sorts of comments as a genuine belief.



sarkwalvein said:


> I don't like the NYT,  but I'm happy at least them are putting some stop to this fad where supposedly 4chan style trolls are some kind of SJW crusaders. Yeah, hope they lose their "power" already.


Given that such things necessarily also mean a stop to the opposite then I would have to agree. I don't know how long it would have taken for "be the bigger man" to have worked and still oppose the means but I will take a good end anyway. That said compared to the other story under discussion then where that would clearly have been able to be considered a joke this is harder to see as one without what was apparently a hidden context.


----------



## JellyPerson (Aug 3, 2018)

I guess we aren't allowed to have opinions anymore. Even if some of them could be racist or bigoted, it's still an opinion, not fact. Get over it.


----------



## dAVID_ (Aug 3, 2018)

I wouldn't make her lose her job just because of some tweets.
Though ironically James Gunn got fired for making jokes about pedophilia 10 years ago.


----------



## Eastonator12 (Aug 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Based on the fact that they had already vetted her social media history, she doesn't deserve to lose her job.  It is believable that she was being satirical of racism directed at her from white people, though that's still not a good excuse for perpetuating what can be read as hate.  No, I don't think she's racist at heart.  If she is, the behaviors always repeat themselves eventually.


I can guarantee you if she said she hates black people, even as satire, she'd be completely fucked. I hate the whole "theres no such thing as racism against white people". It exists.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 3, 2018)

JellyPerson said:


> I guess we aren't allowed to have opinions anymore. Even if some of them could be racist or bigoted, it's still an opinion, not fact. Get over it.


Was that ever how it worked?

If you have egregious notions of how the world works it could always trouble you, even more so if it is likely to have a bearing on your job (and editing news would count there).

"Just an opinion" has a very specific range of applicability and is not free reign to do whatever you like.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 3, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Was that ever how it worked?
> 
> If you have egregious notions of how the world works it could always trouble you, even more so if it is likely to have a bearing on your job (and editing news would count there).
> 
> "Just an opinion" has a very specific range of applicability and is not free reign to do whatever you like.


_Thank you
_
"Freedom of speech/expression is not freedom from repercussions"


----------



## Kingy (Aug 3, 2018)

Although I believe anybody can say whatever they want, no matter how fucked up this is, it's funny that the people defending her are probably the ones to get offended once "white" is replaced with "black".


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Aug 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> _Thank you
> _
> "Freedom of speech/expression is not freedom from repercussions"


You're right, it's not. Doesn't change the fact that people are throwing their lives away to dig around on social media for little to no real benefit. We've got actual issues that the people need to tend to. However, it's just not happening because we're too busy crying about what people say.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Kingy_ said:


> Although I believe anybody can say whatever they want, no matter how fucked up this is, it's funny that the people defending her are probably the ones to get offended once "white" is replaced with "black".


That's a "no" from me.


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 3, 2018)

People aren't just easily offended anymore, they look for ways to be offended. Of course I live in a country where freedom of speech is a foundation (or at least used to be). In order to take advantage of free speech, you have to respect the free speech of others. You don't have to like what people say, but you have to deal with it. This 'destroying people's careers' over tweets is absolutely bonkers to me. The only way I could see justifying this would be like, say a nurse that brags about stealing meds. But to ruin a career over opinions, albeit hateful and disgusting.. Fuck those people so hard. I'd rather live in a world with freedom of expression and deal with some assholes than live in an Orwellian world of thought police and pc automatons.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 3, 2018)

Memoir said:


> You're right, it's not. Doesn't change the fact that people are throwing their lives away to dig around on social media for little to no real benefit. We've got actual issues that the people need to tend to. However, it's just not happening because we're too busy crying about what people say.


And I agree with that as well


----------



## Viri (Aug 3, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> I wouldn't make her lose her job just because of some tweets.
> Though ironically James Gunn got fired for making jokes about pedophilia 10 years ago.


Well, that's because it's Disney, who cares about their image more than anything. Remember the whole Star Wars Battlefront micro transactions fiasco? When people started mentioning Disney, that's when EA had a change of tune. The news started saying that Disney was supporting gambling in kid's games, lol.


----------



## Eastonator12 (Aug 3, 2018)

Viri said:


> Well, that's because it's Disney, who cares about their image more than anything. Remember the whole Star Wars Battlefront micro transactions fiasco? When people started mentioning Disney, that's when EA had a change of tune. The news started saying that Disney was supporting gambling in kid's games, lol.


people are mad at donald trump because of some locker room talk he had a while ago, but are upset other people are held at the same standards, like James Gunn.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 3, 2018)

Eastonator12 said:


> people are mad at donald trump because of some locker room talk he had a while ago, but are upset other people are held at the same standards, like James Gunn.


The difference there is that Trump's rhetoric hasn't changed whatsoever, so anything he's said in the past that still fits his viewpoints today is fair game


----------



## Subtle Demise (Aug 3, 2018)

I wonder if the result would have been different if it wasn't white people as the target. Imagine if she had said similar things against black people, or god forbid used that dreaded word. You know the one.


----------



## Eastonator12 (Aug 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The difference there is that Trump's rhetoric hasn't changed whatsoever, so anything he's said in the past that still fits his viewpoints today is fair game


im pretty sure he doesn't walk down the street and grab women by their private areas, and im pretty sure he never did. He's just an egomaniac, just like everyone who runs for the presidency has to have. you need to have a yuge ego to run for prez


----------



## Viri (Aug 3, 2018)

Eastonator12 said:


> people are mad at donald trump because of some locker room talk he had a while ago, but are upset other people are held at the same standards, like James Gunn.


Eh, he's the President, the opposite side will get mad at him for anything. 4 years ago, the right was doing the same to Obama. I also personally found the recording to be funny as shit.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Subtle Demise said:


> I wonder if the result would have been different if it wasn't white people as the target. Imagine if she had said similar things against black people, or god forbid used that dreaded word. You know the one.





Spoiler



https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/398/055/dc0.jpg_large


Heh, it's okay if she says it about white people, you should know that. Now, if she said this, they'd give her the boot so fast!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 3, 2018)

Eastonator12 said:


> im pretty sure he doesn't walk down the street and grab women by their private areas, and im pretty sure he never did. He's just an egomaniac, just like everyone who runs for the presidency has to have. you need to have a yuge ego to run for prez


Um


----------



## Eastonator12 (Aug 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Um


"allegations" don't mean anything. They were never proven.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 3, 2018)

Eastonator12 said:


> "allegations" don't mean anything. They were never proven.


I'd encourage you to read through the Wikipedia article and notice that the case that was settled was settled outside of court for an "undisclosed" amount of money, and there are multiple cases that have not yet gone to trial. The other Miss America pageant victims had virtually nothing to gain by falsely claiming that he assaulted them, so I don't exactly think it's a stretch to assume they're telling the truth, either.


----------



## Eastonator12 (Aug 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'd encourage you to read through the Wikipedia article and notice that the case that was settled was settled outside of court for an "undisclosed" amount of money, and there are multiple cases that have not yet gone to trial. The other Miss America pageant victims had virtually nothing to gain by falsely claiming that he assaulted them, so I don't exactly think it's a stretch to assume they're telling the truth, either.


i mean, he's a rich guy who doesn't want his name ruined. Anyone could start claiming that he groped them, and he'd probably pay them some hush money to get out of his (glorious) hair. I could say anyone groped me and it'd classify as an "allegation".


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 3, 2018)

Eastonator12 said:


> i mean, he's a rich guy who doesn't want his name ruined. Anyone could start claiming that he groped them, and he'd probably pay them some hush money to get out of his (glorious) hair. I could say anyone groped me and it'd classify as an "allegation".


And you'd gain what?

And if he really didn't want his name ruined and had nothing to hide in that regard, why wouldn't he let the cases go to trial?


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 3, 2018)

This seems to be getting complicated and messy, possibly in part due the points of comparison not necessarily being directly comparable and things being messy out there in the world.



WeedZ said:


> People aren't just easily offended anymore, they look for ways to be offended. Of course I live in a country where freedom of speech is a foundation (or at least used to be). In order to take advantage of free speech, you have to respect the free speech of others. You don't have to like what people say, but you have to deal with it. This 'destroying people's careers' over tweets is absolutely bonkers to me. The only way I could see justifying this would be like, say a nurse that brags about stealing meds. But to ruin a career over opinions, albeit hateful and disgusting.. Fuck those people so hard. I'd rather live in a world with freedom of expression and deal with some assholes than live in an Orwellian world of thought police and pc automatons.



While I can certainly agree to a statement of "I may not agree with what you have to say but I will seriously defend your right to say it" I don't think some of what you have there is in line with the ideas behind it all.
The "classical" things of US style free speech in IP law, fire in a crowded theatre, incitement and direct threats being a good baseline here. Humour will doubtless feature prominently in further considerations there.
Going further some tell me that free speech is just a government thing and that would be true in a legal sense. The principles/ideals it stems from are something that can be adopted outside that context though.

Taking things out of context/attempting to not understand context, jokes that hurt nobody (telling a joke that intentionally or through serious negligence hurts somebody is no mean feat either in my book), and all that other disingenuous crap. Those that encourage reaction without consideration. Fuck those people with the proverbial rusty spork.

Uncovering that someone was publicly a hateful and disgusting arsehole and/or espousing said same. Tell me more. It may or may not affect what I do next; I imagine I can possibly live with a button pusher in my factory that has some odd ideas about the world, however in an editor level modern journalist then while you may ultimately not be above reproach it is something aspire to and if the stuff from the OP was a position still held it could quite rightly spell trouble for them if it is still current. If it is not then OK, I might also enjoy a "I was once" type article. This also means the Peter Gunn James Gunn stuff is not directly comparable at first (though if both are ultimately accepted as jokes they become so).

"I'm offended, fear me" is not cool at all and I want it to be over. We had a glorious few years after religion faded (you get the occasional thing from the likes of the "american family association" but I mostly take their things as suggestions for what I watch next or go look at) and before the "everything is always sexist, racist, homophobic..." crowd* found the concept, pumped it to 11 and ran with it. While I can't say I did not find it partially amusing to see the chickens coming home to roost on those that promulgated all that in the first place, or at least the people they like and in turn support them, I would still have to say "stop it, you have to rise above it".

*one I have huge huge issues with, mainly as they seem to have abandoned all pretence of actually going for equal opportunities in favour of representational/outcomes/identity facets driven nonsense. Even worse if they cry *ism and *ist at every opportunity, treat accusations like court convictions and generally act the fool.

Similarly "say whatever you like, however you had better be prepared to defend it", or "if you put your thoughts out there then be prepared to be judged on them" works for me. The idea that things are essentially uttered into a vacuum is also untenable as it makes things almost meaningless. That your drunken witterings at 3am from effectively any point in your life (or 13 and above if we believe everybody that joins a site is 13) could essentially be there forever more in the modern world is quite scary a notion, and I can see having some ability to delete things be very desirable (or at least something to consider when registering for somewhere) as a result -- while I might give you an opportunity to explain yourself/your position I know not all will. Kudos in this case to the NYT for attempting to delve deeper.
On the other hand I seem to manage OK with the new york times rule (heh) which runs "be comfortable with anything you say being printed on the front page of the new york times" (though I would say you get an allowance for context as well, even if others would not do that and thus if you care you may want to consider that as well).


----------



## Xzi (Aug 3, 2018)

Eastonator12 said:


> I can guarantee you if she said she hates black people, even as satire, she'd be completely fucked. I hate the whole "theres no such thing as racism against white people". It exists.


Maybe.  Dan Harmon (Rick and Morty co-creator) said a lot of seemingly racist things directed toward black people in his blog from '06 - '08.  It doesn't look like he'll be fired since Adult Swim probably knew about his history when he was hired, and crude humor is a lot of their business model anyway.  Plus it was over ten years ago now.

Recent brigades like this one don't seem to be genuine.  James Gunn, Dan Harmon, and this NYT writer all have a common thread: they are critical or have been critical of Trump.  Right-wing groups are feigning outrage to try and get people fired.  The people who bill themselves as "anti-SJW" have become the SJWs they supposedly hate.


----------



## DKB (Aug 3, 2018)

Shit like this makes be glad I never really got into posting shit online. Not on FB, Twitter, or anything that lasts. Hell, I don't even have a twitter. But, personally, I found it really fucking stupid that people need to get bitched at for shit they said years ago. Not even directed at them most of the time. Glad people are finally going against this type of shit.


----------



## Eastonator12 (Aug 3, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> And you'd gain what?
> 
> And if he really didn't want his name ruined and had nothing to hide in that regard, why wouldn't he let the cases go to trial?


i'd gain money, if i got enough attention. thats what the people want, attention. Financially it's cheaper for him to do things out of court, which is why he paid them off.


----------



## JoeyMacCheese (Aug 3, 2018)

Huge double standard. A worker at NYT had a white friend who made racist comments and she was fired immediatel. But it's okay because she's Asian


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 3, 2018)

Eastonator12 said:


> i'd gain money, if i got enough attention. thats what the people want, attention. Financially it's cheaper for him to do things out of court, which is why he paid them off.


Why would you be getting money from the attention if you weren't actually a victim? You get money from the lawsuit if the judge rules in your favor, or you get money from a settlement from Trump's lawyers, but both are contingent on there being enough truth to your story for Trump to not want it to go to court


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It is believable that she was being satirical of racism directed at her from white people ...




Wow, that's one helluva presumption in her favor. Does everyone getting the twitter version of mob justice get that presumption from you, or just the militant liberal ones? If someone could show me where she copied/pasted 'white' over tweets she had received with 'asian' in them and then sent them in retaliation, I'd accept that explanation. But neither her or NYT have produced such stuff. 




dAVID_ said:


> I wouldn't make her lose her job just because of some tweets.



She didn't have a problem with it when it happened to other people.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/33976/irony-social-media-mob-comes-sarah-jeong-who-ben-shapiro



Anyway it's none of my/our business really. The NYT is entitled to stand behind her and keep her on board if they like, and accept the consequences to their bottom line whether good or bad. I'm just wondering whether she'll remain consistent in her opinion of them now, or fall in line with the hand that feeds her ...


----------



## Viri (Aug 3, 2018)

DKB said:


> Shit like this makes be glad I never really got into posting shit online. Not on FB, Twitter, or anything that lasts. Hell, I don't even have a twitter. But, personally, I found it really fucking stupid that people need to get bitched at for shit they said years ago. Not even directed at them most of the time. Glad people are finally going against this type of shit.


Pretty much this. If I ever make a Twitter(I doubt I would ever), I would never put any personal info on it. I would not want my future employers looking up stuff I said 10 years ago, and denying me a job over it. I don't even have a Facebook really, because of my family taking it way too srs, and me not wanting to open that can of worms, lol. I wanna stay out of family Facebook drama.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 3, 2018)

Viri said:


> Pretty much this. If I ever make a Twitter(I doubt I would ever), I would never put any personal info on it. I would not want my future employers looking up stuff I said 10 years ago, and denying me a job over it. I don't even have a Facebook really, because of my family taking it way too srs, and me not wanting to open that can of worms, lol. I wanna stay out of family Facebook drama.


In before said job is denied to you because you are clearly not computer savvy.

Sadly I think that is likely to happen at some point. Whether it is a variation on the "we need a hardcore unix greybeard [HR edit] that also knows Microsoft Office" (naturally also with 10 years experience in a 5 year old tech) or more of a cognitively dissonant thing* I do not know.

*I already experienced something like this. Place I had done stuff for years for -- everything from replacing laptop screens to graphics design to mains electrical wiring to plumbing to building to security to circuit debugging to websites (HTML on down through PHP and mysql) to cctv to building game servers to woodwork gets a marketing wonk in and starts looking at me like I have faked it all this time because I was doing the whole https://xkcd.com/627/ routine for their social meeja accounts one afternoon. Granted that was probably more the fault of the marketing wonk being a charismatic type (helps when you are a con artist) but that it happened at all speaks volumes about the future to me.
I had a few job agencies try to go there as well but these were also the sorts of places that "you are hiring me with some kind of skill in IT security and you want me to give your atrociously coded setup a full ID theft kit for me? Is this some kind of test?" applied for.

Similarly I am told an awful lot of recruiters basically only exist on linkedin, even their own websites being an afterthought. Going further an account on spiceworks or stackexchange has been seen to do wonders for IT peeps looking for a job. I have never quite managed to swallow my distaste for long enough to properly investigate how common such things really are.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 3, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Does everyone getting the twitter version of mob justice get that presumption from you, or just the militant liberal ones?


I don't think anyone should get fired when people dig up 5-10 year old tweets over a personal vendetta.  If you're tweeting racist shit about black people while working for a black woman, as was the case with Roseanne, there are obviously going to be consequences.  As there should be.

That said, the assumption that she had been a victim of racism in the past does not excuse her remarks, as I already stated.  That part wasn't convenient to the narrative you were trying to paint, so you edited it out.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 3, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I don't think anyone should get fired when people dig up 5-10 year old tweets over a personal vendetta.  If you're tweeting racist shit about black people while working for a black woman, as was the case with Roseanne, there are obviously going to be consequences.  As there should be.
> 
> That said, the assumption that she had been a victim of racism in the past does not excuse her remarks, as I already stated.  That part wasn't convenient to the narrative you were trying to paint, so you edited it out.




Well, what you said is your presumption in her favor "was no excuse for what can be read as hate." Meaning, subjectively, her message could only be considered hate speech if you presume against her, rather than with her as you do. But since you're assuming facts in her favor, out of 'belief' rather than evidence, you still do excuse her racist tweets anyway. That's why it was pointless to include that concession language from your post - because it's just air. Read objectively, her tweets are hate speech and racist. And I've seen no evidence to justify the presumption in her favor that you give, and said I'd change my tune if such evidence were produced. She has had no problem dropping the twitter mob hammer on other people due to inappropriate humor tweets - Tim Hunt, Justin Sacco, Bari Weiss, Brendan Eich -  so if she gets a little dose of her own medicine here, so be it.


----------



## Viri (Aug 4, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I don't think anyone should get fired when people dig up 5-10 year old tweets over a personal vendetta


Did you read the dates on them? They're not from 5 to 10 years ago, they're more from 3 to 5 years ago. Most recent being Dec 2014.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 4, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Well, what you said is your presumption in her favor "was no excuse for what can be read as hate." Meaning, subjectively, her message could only be considered hate speech if you presume against her, rather than with her as you do. But since you're assuming facts in her favor, out of 'belief' rather than evidence, you still do excuse her racist tweets anyway. That's why it was pointless to include that concession language from your post - because it's just air. Read objectively, her tweets are hate speech and racist. And I've seen no evidence to justify the presumption in her favor that you give, and said I'd change my tune if such evidence were produced. She has had no problem dropping the twitter mob hammer on other people due to inappropriate humor tweets - Tim Hunt, Justin Sacco, Bari Weiss, Brendan Eich -  so if she gets a little dose of her own medicine here, so be it.


Just a misunderstanding, then.  I meant she shouldn't have written anything that _could_ be interpreted as hate, regardless of whether it _is_ interpreted as hate or not.  Better to err on the side of caution.

I don't read all of those tweets as objectively hateful, and I am white.  The Breaking Bad/Battlestar Galactica one I even thought was pretty funny.  You're free to have your own opinion, of course.



Viri said:


> Did you read the dates on them? They're not from 5 to 10 years ago, they're more from 3 to 5 years ago. Most recent being Dec 2014.


Point still stands.  They were tweets made well before she started work at NYT, and they vetted them when she was hired.  Digging up dirt only works when it's information that wasn't out there already.


----------



## fixingmytoys (Aug 4, 2018)

Easy very easy she is a woman end of.
She is not a white rich straight male so she will not lose her Job, no matter what she has said or done on the past on Twitter not like other white rich white men have said on Twitter even through they do not do what they said in the stupid joke they made 10 years a go, you can say anything you like do anything you like on Twitter as long are you are not white rich straight male, no one will go on a  social justice campaign. Did you not know social justice campaigns only apply to white straight males


----------



## Xzi (Aug 4, 2018)

fixingmytoys said:


> Easy very easy she is a woman end of.
> She is not a white rich straight male so she will not lose her Job, no matter what she has said or done on the past on Twitter not like other white rich white men have said on Twitter even through they do not do what they said in the stupid joke they made 10 years a go, you can say anything you like do anything you like on Twitter as long are you are not white rich straight male, no one will go on a  social justice campaign. Did you not know social justice campaigns only apply to white straight males


The campaign against Dan Harmon (straight white male) didn't work either.  Also this isn't a social justice campaign.  It's a concern trolling campaign from right-wingers triggered by any little bit of criticism of their "god emperor."  Expect a lot more non-white and/or non-male targets for this type of thing going forward.  If internet "dirt" can be found on them, anyway.


----------



## Song of storms (Aug 4, 2018)

Y'all seem to be missing one, crucial point.

What does the former director of Guardians of the Galaxy do? He used to be the director of Guardians of the Galaxy.

What does this person whom I told to see next Thursday do? She writes for a *newspaper*.

Maybe James Gunn could've been serious about the awful stuff he posted, who knows. Maybe he would've put those jokes between the lines of the next movie. Maybe he wouldn't have. But regardless, it's just movies. This woman, on the other hand, is supposedly a journalist. A journalist requires a lot more credibility than a movie director. Would you let a well-known white supremacist journalist to write news for a newspaper read by millions of people daily? Hell no.

As I wrote in the other thread, James Gunn deserves to be made fun of for what he wrote. People have the right to feel offended for what he wrote. But firing him over something like this? No way.

Firing a journalist for posting stuff that's almost as bad as his? You bet. Not because she's a woman, not because she's Asian (as she claimed multiple times), but because she's supposed to be a journalist. Journalism integrity. That's why I see NYT's position absolutely ridiculous. Whoever is calling the protests as "sexist" is a moron.


----------



## fixingmytoys (Aug 4, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The campaign against Dan Harmon (straight white male) didn't work either.  Also this isn't a social justice campaign.  It's a concern trolling campaign from right-wingers triggered by any little bit of criticism of their "god emperor."  Expect a lot more non-white and/or non-male targets for this type of thing going forward.  If internet "dirt" can be found on them, anyway.


 The world is changed the white man in the past has done wrong The world is turning  no more with the sins of the father be excepted their day is over the  sons of the father are now paying for the sins of the father This now the way of the world,  even though the sons have been brought up correctly and told everyone is equal even though they walk that path. The  sins of the father have condemn them that is the way of the world. The Father’s Day is over and the sones shell pay, the world has changed. As it always dose, all I can say I am  screwed I don’t even have Twitter.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> Y'all seem to be missing one, crucial point.
> 
> What does the former director of Guardians of the Galaxy do? He used to be the director of Guardians of the Galaxy.
> 
> ...



Like i said on this before in this  politically correct charged world, corporations moneymakers do not want to be seen to be doing the wrong thing is very simple she’s not white straight rich male, She can do no wrong.  Can you imagine what would happen if somebody like the New York Times dismissed some one of non-white descent for something they  said five years ago or 10 years ago before they got the job.  imagine the social warrior justice campaign against the New York Times that would  evolve potentially lose them billions of dollars on advertising revenue subscriptions.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 4, 2018)

She rallied against people who committed the same "crime" that she herself is now being found guilty of. It's only now that she finds herself on the receiving end of that same backlash, that she sees it as excessive and unfair.

Regardless anyone's opinions on the situation, those people lost their jobs and suffered irreparable damage to their reputations.
Demanding that Jeong be given a slap on the wrist and nothing more sets a disturbing precedent for this type of behavior.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 4, 2018)

_Chaz_ said:


> Regardless anyone's opinions on the situation, those people lost their jobs and suffered irreparable damage to their reputations.
> Demanding that Jeong be given a slap on the wrist and nothing more sets a disturbing precedent for this type of behavior.


This is assuming they wouldn't fire her if she wrote something similar today.  I'd bet that they would.  Like I said previously, true racists always repeat their racist behavior eventually, so fate will play out as it does.


----------



## blahblah (Aug 4, 2018)

Racial. Not racist. Racism = power + prejudice. It is not possible to be racist to whites.


----------



## Song of storms (Aug 4, 2018)

blahblah said:


> Racial. Not racist. Racism = power + prejudice. It is not possible to be racist to whites.


racism/ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/
noun

    prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.


----------



## kingfrost (Aug 4, 2018)

I am white and thought the tweets were funny. It doesn't matter though. Just like none of our opinions matter. We aren't her boss and if you feel that strongly about it don't read the New York Times. Use your money power as that is what speaks to businesses.

Of course that won't matter because if these tweets upset you I'm guessing you don't read the NYT.


----------



## fixingmytoys (Aug 4, 2018)

blahblah said:


> Racial. Not racist. Racism = power + prejudice. It is not possible to be racist to whites.



Omg you are a fool not to white people that dumb, so what you are saying is that you can  say for example you will not hire anyone that’s white because of the colour of there skin  which is white and that  not racist but yeah if you refused to hire anyone because they areblack because of the colour of their skin that is racist,sorry both ways are  racist, to refused to hire someone based on the colour of the skin regardless of the colour it is  racist, racist things don’t just happen to coloured people happens to all people


----------



## kingfrost (Aug 4, 2018)

fixingmytoys said:


> Omg you are a fool not to white people that dumb, so what you are saying is that you can  say for example you will not hire anyone that’s white because of the colour of there skin  which is white and that  not racist but yeah if you refused to hire anyone because they areblack because of the colour of their skin that is racist,sorry both ways are  racist, to refused to hire someone based on the colour of the skin regardless of the colour it is  racist, racist things don’t just happen to coloured people happens to all people



Yes and I'm sure that white people aren't getting hired somewhere because of the color of their skin? Or being turned down for something because of it? I've never been turned down for anything in my life because I'm white.

I have been chosen for things over other people because I was white and they were not. It wasn't even a conscious decision sometimes. What he is saying that white power have more power in the United States then other ethnicities and therefore it is hard to actually oppress a white person. 

In the word, it's hard to find a place oppressing my race. This whole racism against white people is the new war on Christmas. I'll wait for you to find some third world country beheading white people and use it as proof that white everywhere are being massacred because of this tweet. 

In fact the whole war on Christmas pretty much shows that white people were able to create fake oppression for themselves as it was perpetrated mainly by white Christians.

Nobody is perfect but really what would being racist against the people who hold all the power achieve?


----------



## Song of storms (Aug 4, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Yes and I'm sure that white people aren't getting hired somewhere because of the color of their skin? Or being turned down for something because of it? I've never been turned down for anything in my life because I'm white.
> 
> I have been chosen for things over other people because I was white and they were not. It wasn't even a conscious decision sometimes. What he is saying that white power have more power in the United States then other ethnicities and therefore it is hard to actually oppress a white person.
> 
> ...


Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean that doesn't happen. It's like me saying that I was never raped in my life therefore rape doesn't happen.


----------



## FGFlann (Aug 4, 2018)

I'm starting the underground goblin colony in preparation for the rise of the Korean-American ehtnostate. Other races are welcome to join, too. We have openings for Kobolds, Illithids, and Fomorians. You don't want to be on the surface when it goes down.


----------



## Song of storms (Aug 4, 2018)

FGFlann said:


> I'm starting the underground goblin colony in preparation for the rise of the Korean-American ehtnostate. Other races are welcome to join, too. We have openings for Kobolds, Illithids, and Fomorians. You don't want to be on the surface when it goes down.


Asian kobolds? So doggos?


----------



## FGFlann (Aug 4, 2018)

I would never presume to tell asians that they must identify as kobolds. The underdark is a progressive society where all creatures are free to express their own racial identity and get eaten by giant spiders.


----------



## kingfrost (Aug 4, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean that doesn't happen. It's like me saying that I was never raped in my life therefore rape doesn't happen.



It's an alleged accusation in a lawsuit.

You do know in the US you can sue for anything right? Until the case is settled that link proves nothing but that The Post needs your clicks.

And that's ignoring the facts of what he supposedly said as a teacher because yet again the case isn't settled.

Edit: Just noticed your other links. Yes you have a list. Everyone has a list don't they? I don't see how Twitter racism factors into this and I was explaining someone else's opinion anyway.

And yet I don't really care how many links or lawsuits there are. You are missing the forest for the trees. Playing the victim is ridiculous for either side and yet here we are with everyone wanting to do it.

Also lawsuits don't always mean that that is what happened. People are pretty sure OJ killed a woman and they found him innocent.

Also in this age of fake news who are you tell me which stories I have to believe? I thought we all just get to ignore what doesn't fit our narrative nowadays.


----------



## Song of storms (Aug 4, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> It's an alleged accusation in a lawsuit.
> 
> You do know in the US you can sue for anything right? Until the case is settled that link proves nothing but that The Post needs your clicks.
> 
> And that's ignoring the facts of what he supposedly said as a teacher because yet again the case isn't settled.


Feel free to check out the 11 other links I posted in that message, as there weren't just one.

There are two reasons why someone wouldn't want to hire a white person: racism and the company has enough white people and they want to "look diverse". None of these reasons are fair and you should be ashamed for belittling such a serious problem just because you haven't experienced it.


----------



## kingfrost (Aug 4, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> Feel free to check out the 11 other links I posted in that message, as there weren't just one.
> 
> There are two reasons why someone wouldn't want to hire a white person: racism and the company has enough white people and they want to "look diverse". None of these reasons are fair and you should be ashamed for belittling such a serious problem just because you haven't experienced it.



There are far more than two reasons to not hire a white person. The fact that you think there only two reasons not to hire a person based on their race alone demonstrates your way of thinking. 

Sometimes white people just aren't good at something. 

As for the links please read my edit above. I am allowed to express my opinion about societal issues despite your SJW Attitude. Sad!!!!!


----------



## fixingmytoys (Aug 4, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Yes and I'm sure that white people aren't getting hired somewhere because of the color of their skin? Or being turned down for something because of it? I've never been turned down for anything in my life because I'm white.
> 
> I have been chosen for things over other people because I was white and they were not. It wasn't even a conscious decision sometimes. What he is saying that white power have more power in the United States then other ethnicities and therefore it is hard to actually oppress a white person.
> 
> ...




Now look here I am not saying that the “white man” has not have had  privilege of been the position of superiority over other races I’m not saying that at all no far from it yes it  has happened fathers have done that not the sons  I have lost positions due to the fact of being male  because it was better for the company in the eyes of the media have more women in management so even after I signed the paperwork position was taken away given to a female just so they could look good with the media. Now  yes they have been a sense of privilege white,  that does not mean that racism does not apply to white people racism still racism regardless of colour yes white people in the past the powerbrokers moneymakers politicians have had their way not justifying it but with all animal species and humans are of an animal species there is always a leader of the Pack and now the leader has been knocked off the perch, a new leader will emerge but at this stage everybody is fighting with everybody and of course the most hated is gonna be the old leader ,discriminating against anyone on the basis of colour regardless of there colour black or white is still racism, yes in the past the white man has done at the most of that, just  the way nature worked there always have to be a top dog of the pack. Not  my fault not your fault some dickheads fault 300 years ago  come in trenched in culture and life is the way it always has been now that is changing changing for the good but before the change gets there there will be ups and downs just the way it works so yes there will be anger against the old guard the old  guard will get angry against the new upcoming  contenders, sins of the fathers are given to the sons even if the sons have done nothing, but you will most likely have your  righteous point of view to come back with and you k ow what that is fine  absolutely fine just keep in mind that not all sons turn out like there fathers just because they are of the same colour to think that’s is.  That’s racist.  Every generation gonna have its good and bad and idiots  it’s just that nine out of ten times the idiots and the bad are the loudest


----------



## Song of storms (Aug 4, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Sometimes white people just aren't good at something.


I'm posting this just to prove you wrong, once again.


----------



## kingfrost (Aug 4, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> I'm posting this just to prove you wrong, once again.



Copyright 1998.

Your source is almost as old as me.


----------



## FGFlann (Aug 4, 2018)

Averages shouldn't be used to justify individual cases of discrimination in any case. This entire exchange is silly. I shouldn't have to point out the irony of supporting an assertion by implying other assertions aren't good enough.


----------



## Song of storms (Aug 4, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> Copyright 1998.
> 
> Your source is almost as old as me.


Better than your racist comments and your obliviousness about sources lol


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 4, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> I'm posting this just to prove you wrong, once again.


That is probably the dumbest source you could have used to prove a point, especially if you're not trying to come across as racist yourself. While that may be a general rule, hiring takes place on a case-by-case basis, and even if we assume that the score gap is valid there will always be white people at the bottom end and black people at the top end for any given open position. Trying to assert that "a black person stole a job that I, a white person, was more qualified for due to my whiteness" (not what you said, granted, but definitely what you're implying) is not only asinine but the pinnacle of non-violent racism


----------



## Song of storms (Aug 4, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That is probably the dumbest source you could have used to prove a point, especially if you're not trying to come across as racist yourself. While that may be a general rule, hiring takes place on a case-by-case basis, and even if we assume that the score gap is valid there will always be white people at the bottom end and black people at the top end for any given open position. Trying to assert that "a black person stole a job that I, a white person, was more qualified for due to my whiteness" (not what you said, granted, but definitely what you're implying) is not only asinine but the pinnacle of non-violent racism


That was posted in reply to "Sometimes white people just aren't good at something.". All I did was proving that the other way around is true. And somehow this is racist. Ok. Nevermind that I'm the only one posting sources.


----------



## FGFlann (Aug 4, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> That was posted in reply to "Sometimes white people just aren't good at something.". All I did was proving that the other way around is true. And somehow this is racist. Ok. Nevermind that I'm the only one posting sources.


It's not actually proof of that though, what you're posting is an average of scores across a range, and TotalInsanity4 is correct when he says that people of different races will exist at both the top and bottom end of the curve, regardless of the overall average. A top end person from race a is obviously going to be preferential to a middle to low end person from race b. Regardless of race b's overall average score being higher.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 4, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> That was posted in reply to "Sometimes white people just aren't good at something.". All I did was proving that the other way around is true. And somehow this is racist. Ok. Nevermind that I'm the only one posting sources.


... You do realize, again, they were referring on an individual basis, correct? And you're not going to also say that every white person is unilaterally better at every job than any other ethnic group, right?


----------



## Song of storms (Aug 4, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> ... You do realize, again, they were referring on an individual basis, correct? And you're not going to also say that every white person is unilaterally better at every job than any other ethnic group, right?


And this makes companies discriminate on race OK because...?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 4, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> And this makes companies discriminate on race OK because...?


What???? That is so very clearly NOT what I'm saying, I'm literally saying the opposite


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 4, 2018)

blahblah said:


> Racial. Not racist. Racism = power + prejudice. It is not possible to be racist to whites.



Your definition is bullshit. If you can set the definition, you can have anything your way I guess. If you define "Mass shooting" as "an incident in which at least three persons die as a result of an intentional, violent act with pineapples," there'll be very, very few mass shootings. See how that works?





kingfrost said:


> I am white and thought the tweets were funny.



Oh really? Let's try a little thought experiment then. Let's put a few of those tweets on display here, and we'll just substitute black, or asian, or jewish, and mexican in place of the word "white", and let's see if they're still funny.

"Dumbass fucking _______ people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants."

"oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old _______ men"

"I dare you to get on Wikipedia and play 'Things ________ people can definitely take credit for,' it's really hard."

"#Cancel_______People"

"________ men are bullshit"

"________ people have stopped breeding. You'll all go extinct soon. This was my plan all along. "


Are these statements still funny when you use black, asian, jewish, or mexican instead of white? If your answer is yes, please let us know that.


----------



## blahblah (Aug 4, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Your definition is bullshit. If you can set the definition, you can have anything your way I guess. If you define "Mass shooting" as "an incident in which at least three persons die as a result of an intentional, violent act with pineapples," there'll be very, very few mass shootings. See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are super dumb. When you replace the people with power with those who lack it, the statement changes entirely. Try to understand what racism is - it's not the act of saying things that are racial. Power + Prejudice. You need both to form the whole.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 4, 2018)

blahblah said:


> You are, like, super dumb.



Superb rebuttal. Bravo.

Edit: Oh, I see you expounded on your myopic retort since I first replied. So I repeat: that definition and your perspective is bullshit. Any person of any race is capable of racist thought and action against people of other races. You've twisted your worldview to fit into a belief system that puts a linguistic shield up around the thoughts and actions of everyone but white people and can't see that this itself is racist. Try to take a straight look at that animus you're harboring, see who it is directed at, and think about what it makes you.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 4, 2018)

blahblah said:


> Racial. Not racist. Racism = power + prejudice. It is not possible to be racist to whites.
> 
> Try to understand what racism is - it's not the act of saying things that are racial. Power + Prejudice. You need both to form the whole.



Assuming I buy the need for a power model then is it potentially an aggravating factor in a given situation? Absolutely and would want to be addressed in the resolution of said situation, might even warrant a new word or phrase. Is it mandatory for a situation to be classified as such? I can't see it why, furthermore how does one quantify it?

A video I quite like on the matter and that mirrors my thoughts here


----------



## FGFlann (Aug 4, 2018)

The stipulative definition of power plus prejudice is total cowardice. Enabling one's self to act abhorrently and still claim to be innocent. There should be no doubt in anyone's minds that these tweets are racist by the traditional definition used by everyone else in the world.

It only demonstrates a complete lack of principle.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 4, 2018)

FGFlann said:


> It's not actually proof of that though, what you're posting is an average of scores across a range, and TotalInsanity4 is correct when he says that people of different races will exist at both the top and bottom end of the curve, regardless of the overall average. A top end person from race a is obviously going to be preferential to a middle to low end person from race b. Regardless of race b's overall average score being higher.


Those scores are more like a Bell Curve, which means half will be above the Average and Half will be below the Average. Which means you can find Blacks at a 130 IQ. Which is enough to go into STEM. But a lot less than Whites (100 IQ Average Whites), Asians (106 IQ) or Ashkenazi Jews (108-115 IQ), since Blacks have an Average IQ lower than these three groups (85 IQ Blacks). If you look at the bell curve, Blacks you would see only 16% of the population have an IQ above 100 (Average White IQ), but 50% of Whites have an IQ over 100.

And all 3 groups get hired at higher numbers then Blacks, especially in higher positions that requires greater intelligence. And Especially for Asians. Theres a huge complaint in the Asian community that they put discriminatory practices to hire other groups of people over Asians just because there's too many Asians in Engineering, and Asians are trying to fight for equality of opportunity rather then equality of outcome. Hiring should be a case by case basis, since even humans within their own ethnic groups can vary, but some ethnic groups will be hired over others because of biological differences, like Blacks in the NBA for example.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Aug 4, 2018)

150 million people being racist on twitter against blacks: racism is over, didn't you know we had a black president?!
1 woman feeding you your own shit: REVERSE RACISM IS THE TRUE PROBLEM!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> Those scores are more like a Bell Curve, which means half will be above the Average and Half will be below the Average. Which means you can find Blacks at a 130 IQ. Which is enough to go into STEM. But a lot less than Whites (100 IQ Average Whites), Asians (106 IQ) or Ashkenazi Jews (108-115 IQ), since Blacks have an Average IQ lower than these three groups (85 IQ Blacks). If you look at the bell curve, Blacks you would see only 21% of the population have an IQ above 100 (Average White IQ), but 50% of Whites have an IQ over 100.
> 
> And all 3 groups get hired at higher numbers then Blacks, especially in higher positions that requires greater intelligence. And Especially for Asians. Theres a huge complaint in the Asian community that they put discriminatory practices to hire other groups of people over Asians just because there's too many Asians in Engineering, and Asians are trying to fight for equality of opportunity rather then equality of outcome. Hiring should be a case by case basis, since even humans within their own ethnic groups can vary, but some ethnic groups will be hired over others because of biological differences, like Blacks in the NBA for example.



can i offer you some crackers with that racism?


----------



## SG854 (Aug 4, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> 150 million people being racist on twitter against blacks: racism is over, didn't you know we had a black president?!
> 1 woman feeding you your own shit: REVERSE RACISM IS THE TRUE PROBLEM!
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...


This is something that is well known in the psychological community. And these are test scores based on IQ tests like the Ravens Progressive Matrices. These numbers they didn't make up. Scientists are simply reporting what Blacks score. And Blacks score average 85 IQ. You can't say a person got an A if they scored an F. This is on the person and not scientist themselves. Hispanics scores an average of 91 IQ and i'm Hispanic myself. I only go for what the research says.


----------



## FGFlann (Aug 4, 2018)

Even if the rates of academic success are higher for one race over another, that still doesn't mean that a society that strives to not discriminate on arbitrary characteristics should use these averages as a guide for hiring practices rather than the actual measure of an individual's aptitude.

The averages simply don't matter in a case by case basis, and shouldn't affect the principle we're striving for; that those who excel should be rewarded for their excellence. If you don't measure up, try harder.



Clydefrosch said:


> 150 million people being racist on twitter against blacks: racism is over, didn't you know we had a black president?!
> 1 woman feeding you your own shit: REVERSE RACISM IS THE TRUE PROBLEM!


Reverse racism is a concept that requires a stipulative definition of racism like the one above. To everyone else it's just normal racism. Also I don't think we should be blanket accusing all the members of this forum who take issue with this as being "served their own shit". Unless you can prove every single one is.


----------



## dAVID_ (Aug 4, 2018)

People invented that definition of racism to justify their discrimination towards others. It's complete hypocrisy.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Aug 4, 2018)

SG854 said:


> This is something that is well known in the psychological community. And these are test scores based on IQ tests like the Ravens Progressive Matrices. These numbers they didn't make up. Scientists are simply reporting what Blacks score. And Blacks score average 85 IQ. You can't say a person got an A if they scored an F. This is on the person and not scientist themselves. Hispanics scores an average of 91 IQ and i'm Hispanic myself. I only go for what the research says.



you're also only cherrypicking what research supports your line of thought.

you know whats also well known by the scientific community regarding iq tests?
first,they're scaled yearly in a way that the average is 100. meaning the 100 iq person from 10 years ago performed worse than this years 100 iq person.
they're also kinda stupid since they don't really measure intelligence in any relatable way and that has been a point of criticism for these tests for decades now.
question design is also kinda skewed towards white middle and upper, more educated class, at times referencing vocabulary and sitationsyou'd not really find a lot among lower classes (which does include large parts of the black community) this allows scores to dip in the 'X relates to Y as Z relates to....' type of questions.
classic us sitcoms tackled that entire thing in the 70's already. and you know what that means? rearch was already aware of this 40 years ago to the point where the average tv writer could get wind of it to turn it into a plotpoint. some of the questions expect a specific answer that simply don't apply to certain groups of people as much as to others and others just happens to be the white majority.

there's also that thing were certain groups in society are much more likely to actively being prepared for these tests (like, taking a dozen tests in advance to get familiar with the design and type of question before taking an 'official' one that's added to every collage application).

the same is  true for these other important tests the us has... is it SAT? same problem by design.

here, more reasons why iq tests are nonsense for people with little time

there's also an episode and a podcast of adam ruins everything throwing out more problems with iq and similar tests. and they add all the sources so if you have a couple dozen hours, you can read even more about it in fancy science speak.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Aug 4, 2018)

FGFlann said:


> Reverse racism is a concept that requires a stipulative definition of racism like the one above. To everyone else it's just normal racism. Also I don't think we should be blanket accusing all the members of this forum who take issue with this as being "served their own shit". Unless you can prove every single one is.



yeah, reverse racism is a stupid argument made up by stupid racists in order to give themselves a new excuse to hate on other races. I'm not racist, I'm simply defending myself against these mean ni*****!
not really sure where you get i'm blanket accusing all members of this forum or that I need to police my hyperbole on a random online forum. I'm accusing anyone who thinks this is the same type and level of racism that people of color life with.
to be honest, i accuse anyone who doesn't see this is clearly more of a 'take your own medicine for once' kind of deal. insulting, certainly, rude, absolutely. racist? maybe on a technical level.

racism isn't just a certain vocabulary, racism is power to put people down. its a system that favors one kind of people over another and it works so much harder, is so much more effective, if wielded by a majority against a minority. even if the entire black community started to be actively insulting to whites based on skin color tomorrow, it'd still never be able to impact non pocs the way it does pocs. we literally have the choice to just say 'yeah so what' and get on with our life unaffected. they can't. for them, racism means that police might just choke them to death when they feel like it.


----------



## dAVID_ (Aug 4, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> yeah, reverse racism is a stupid argument made up by stupid racists in order to give themselves a new excuse to hate on other races. I'm not racist, I'm simply defending myself against these mean ni*****!
> not really sure where you get i'm blanket accusing all members of this forum or that I need to police my hyperbole on a random online forum. I'm accusing anyone who thinks this is the same type and level of racism that people of color life with.
> to be honest, i accuse anyone who doesn't see this is clearly more of a 'take your own medicine for once' kind of deal. insulting, certainly, rude, absolutely. racist? maybe on a technical level.
> 
> racism isn't just a certain vocabulary, racism is power to put people down. its a system that favors one kind of people over another and it works so much harder, is so much more effective, if wielded by a majority against a minority. even if the entire black community started to be actively insulting to whites based on skin color tomorrow, it'd still never be able to impact non pocs the way it does pocs. we literally have the choice to just say 'yeah so what' and get on with our life unaffected. they can't. for them, racism means that police might just choke them to death when they feel like it.


It's not racism on a technical level, it's just *plain* racism. The problem with people is that they invent their own defintions for words, then try to apply it to everybody else as if it were a real definition. *Some* black people feel that it's justified for them to discriminate against whites because that is what *some* white people have done to them in the past. Do you think I, born white, am responsible for the racism blacks suffered in the past?


----------



## FGFlann (Aug 4, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> yeah, reverse racism is a stupid argument made up by stupid racists in order to give themselves a new excuse to hate on other races. I'm not racist, I'm simply defending myself against these mean ni*****!
> not really sure where you get i'm blanket accusing all members of this forum or that I need to police my hyperbole on a random online forum. I'm accusing anyone who thinks this is the same type and level of racism that people of color life with.
> to be honest, i accuse anyone who doesn't see this is clearly more of a 'take your own medicine for once' kind of deal. insulting, certainly, rude, absolutely. racist? maybe on a technical level.
> 
> racism isn't just a certain vocabulary, racism is power to put people down. its a system that favors one kind of people over another and it works so much harder, is so much more effective, if wielded by a majority against a minority. even if the entire black community started to be actively insulting to whites based on skin color tomorrow, it'd still never be able to impact non pocs the way it does pocs. we literally have the choice to just say 'yeah so what' and get on with our life unaffected. they can't. for them, racism means that police might just choke them to death when they feel like it.


"reverse racism is a stupid argument made up by stupid racists in order to give themselves a new excuse to hate on other races"
This, but unironically. 

The way racism impacts a person varies from individual to individual, this need to collectivize is incredibly dubious. But how could anyone ever agree with a sentiment like "these people have it bad, therefore you should just take it"? Why should anyone have to simply accept being demeaned for a characteristic they cannot control? The attitude is selfish and self-defeating. Violence begets violence, hate begets hate, it's only creating the very things you're worried about. The only thing it accomplishes is alienating the people who already agree with you, let alone the actual racists.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 5, 2018)

Sarah Jeong said:
			
		

> "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men."


So, erm...is she still single? I'll dye my hair grey if that improves my chances. 


But on a serious answer (note: have at best skimmed over 5 pages of replies): even more so than the guardians of the galaxy director, it's clear that these tweets were part of a narrative that the (most likely anonymous) culprit didn't care for when he googled for Sarah Jeong tweets containing the word "white". Or worse: the culprit DID know about it and purposely ignored it when fabricating this stuff.

...and I just now read that I'm right on that. From the new york times:

_"For a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers."_

In other words: these tweets are a reaction to the stuff that white people do. Christ...turn on fox news or read tweets from that Trump guy, and within no time I want the freaking white race extinct. Assuming the white-skinned peopled wearing business suits and vampire on the rest of humanity have to be thrown in with my own skin color.

"b...but it's wacism!!!!!"

No, it's not racism, moron. Racism is the act of purposely and actively putting (or attempting to put) members of an ethnical group in a disadvantaged position, based on criteria that can't objectively be clarified. Words can be racist if their intention is to rally against the group. Without said intention, they aren't. Without PROVIDED intention, this shouldn't even be a discussion.

You wanna talk racism against white people? Look at South Africa. Now that Mandela's gone, the black people have systematically taken charge of most industries. The white people that are there are "being treated equally" in the same sense that black people (and I guess hispanics too?) are "being treated equally" in the USA and Europe: they have the same right as everyone to study, to apply for jobs and such. But alas...not to discriminate, but we've chosen a candidate that just totally accidentally happens to be our own skin color. That shit is racism. Digging up tweets from years ago from one person who has no anti-white agenda to begin with is just you wanting to cosplay as a victim. 



But hey...I guess you only think books like this one is okay if a white person writes it:





(on a totally unrelated note: I recently found this book in a 1$ book bin...not only is it hilarious, but it maintains its relevance even SEVENTEEN FREAKING YEARS after release)


----------



## FGFlann (Aug 5, 2018)

The imitating her harassers line is an obvious lie. It's an attempt at damage mitigation by a company placed on the back foot. But even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter, the only factor required is her own words.

The most fascinating part of this discussion is the effort to further qualify racism, away from its actual definition for some reason. It's okay if she said something racist, you know? It's not some indelible cardinal sin. She doesn't have to be out there lopping off the heads of old white men in a quest for ethnic cleansing to qualify. She can still live and learn from her mistakes like the rest of us who fuck up.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 5, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> "b...but it's wacism!!!!!"
> 
> No, it's not racism, moron. Racism is the act of purposely and actively putting (or attempting to put) members of an ethnical group in a disadvantaged position, based on criteria that can't objectively be clarified. Words can be racist if their intention is to rally against the group. Without said intention, they aren't. Without PROVIDED intention, this shouldn't even be a discussion.



That is not a definition of racism that I was either ever taught, ascribe to or that I dare say most people would follow. What you describe (assuming there is no other factor that might justify such things -- a group being 3 people and all) is certainly a thing to concern anybody that is aiming to be a rational and decent human being but does not fully define the term, not by a long shot. Similarly intention does want to be considered but one can be unintentionally troubling and may wish to in turn be made aware of that.

Similarly on the imitating thing then the utter nonsense that "cultural appropriation" is a concept I have never seen from any kind of white supremacist and they have no equivalent (occasionally you get parallel concepts) -- never seen a KKK member say a black man can't put on a rendition of Swan Lake and have other black people enjoy it, they may prefer it to happen "in their own country" whatever that might be or for them not to be around in the first place but the notion of them doing it at all is not something I see them bothered by. For it all then to be written off as a game of word replacement and a variation thereof that does rather throw a proverbial spanner in the works, one I was already seriously straining to keep going on with; the language and phrasing so mirrors that of the people that say such things "for real" (and it is a rather unique list) rather than acting as said game of word replacement... maybe the anonymous provocateur played word replacement first or something.

In any case she appears to have said such things were not a reflection of her current mindset and her employer in this case can see past it so I am happy enough to leave it at that. Should we get rid of all the people that made a mistake, much less in their youth, then there will be none left.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 5, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> In other words: these tweets are a reaction to the stuff that white people do. ..... Digging up tweets from years ago from one person _who has no anti-white agenda to begin with_ is just you wanting to cosplay as a victim.




oh, so she doesn't _really_ think that way, it was all just posing as a lesson to those who'd been mean to her. It's not like she was posting snarky, insulting tweets about 'white people' for any serious length of time -- only three or four years' worth. (if you've only seen one screenshot of Jeong's 'white people' tweets, you've only scratched the surface. See HERE) Like I said earlier in the thread, all NYT or Ms. Jeong need to do is provide examples of this unprovoked harassment she was allegedly receiving and I'll believe it. But I'm not gonna believe just cuz they say so.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 12, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> you're also only cherrypicking what research supports your line of thought.
> 
> you know whats also well known by the scientific community regarding iq tests?
> first,they're scaled yearly in a way that the average is 100. meaning the 100 iq person from 10 years ago performed worse than this years 100 iq person.
> ...



I've actually seen the Video made by Adam Ruins everything and he has so much wrong in that video.

The Scientific literature on IQ is well supported and Adam did little research on this topic. I've gotten my information from Jordan Peterson from a class lecture he has free online and I trust an Expert in the field more then Adam.

I've also read the literature myself.

Here's a link to one. https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
And yes I read all 50 pages. It also includes 9 pages of references to scientific research. Hardly little support for this.
Also consider that the gap between Black and White IQ has existed for decades since they first started IQ testing. And even though Blacks problems improved over time, the same 15 point gap still exists. Any interventions did little to improve it. There's hundred and hundreds of published papers on this over the span of 100 yrs.

For your first point what your talking about is the Flynn Effect. That IQ improves as we have better access to information than our grandparents. The problem with the Flynn effect is that its about Crystalized intelligence, not Fluid intelligence. Crystalized intelligence is knowledge you've acquired. Fluid intelligence is free from any learned knowledge, and is your brains raw processing power to problem solve, think abstractly, and identify patterns, which is free from previous acquired knowledge. The G factor (General Intelligence) is what is being measured by IQ tests, and this is the biggest gap between White and Blacks. More than culturally learned information. And you can't improve your G factor. They've tried many times and failed.

For your next point, you say that IQ tests, tests knowledge that only Rich Upper class people would know, like certain words, and the lower class will be at disadvantaged. This is not true. IQ tests like the Ravens Progressive Matrices is highly G loaded. Actually Culturally loaded tests Blacks do better on, which is what Adam was criticizing, which contradicts his point. And the Progressive Matrices is non verbal, and it gets rid of any cultural influence.

And for your other point, IQ tests are not useless. They know this because of their predictive validity to life success, income, and health. If IQ tests just tells you how well you do on an IQ test like Adam says, then it wouldn't have any predictive validity. But it does. IQ tests validity are also found world wide. They also test reaction times. The Higher IQ you have the fast your brain processes information and the faster you hit the button when signaled to. Asians had the fastest times, next whites, then blacks, which follows what IQ would predict. These are very easy to do IQ tests that a child can do, just hit a button when the light flashes.

IQ research also follows human evolution. East Asian's have the biggest brain sizes, next whites, then blacks. They measured it externally, with MRI's, and filling skulls with substance to measure its size. Humans evolved to give birth to less developed babies that takes longer to reach maturity. The reason is because its easier to push out a baby from a birth canal when they are less developed, then a more developed baby with a bigger brain. The bigger brains is the reason for the this. Even though Blacks on average give birth a week before whites, black babies are born more developed, reach maturity faster, learn to walk faster, and reach sexual maturity faster than whites. And whites faster than Asians. This follows what human evolution and IQ, and bigger brains would predict.

Here's is another link to IQ research that explains more on this. https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf
There's no denying this gap exists in the Scientific community. There's also a lot I haven't talked about like adoption studies and regression to the mean, but this comment is already going long enough.


----------



## Mark McDonut (Aug 12, 2018)

sarah jeong sad. sarah jeong too sad to do reporting. twitter criticize her and she just start crying.

https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/610135250845327360


----------



## Clydefrosch (Aug 12, 2018)

Jordan Peterson is a climate change denier, believes that masculinity is under attack, that environmentalism is a danger to the development of young minds and that political correctness is basically what's wrong with the world today.
He'd have to tattoo a swastika on his forehead to make it any clearer on what side of the political spectrum and ideology he's operating.
And I'd certainly be careful when someone so far on the right is arguing that its simply nature that the black man is inherently inferior to the white man.

And you make it sound like adam, the host of a tv show, is the sole source of all what's being presented on that show, when they go to experts to collect their points, consume literature, also written by experts and then convey that in laymans terms. Of course the show can't go as in-depth as a 200 page metastudy and obviously you can find a counterstudy to literally anything anyone ever found in any scientific study, but they're not making stuff up. the studies exist, they add the sources, they even go back to interview some of the experts lateron for a slightly more in-depth perspective than possible in a 20 minute show with comedy skits


----------



## FGFlann (Aug 12, 2018)

The Reichstag convenes in Berlin. (1939, colourized)


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 12, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> Jordan Peterson is a climate change denier, believes that masculinity is under attack, that environmentalism is a danger to the development of young minds and that political correctness is basically what's wrong with the world today.


Citation very much needed there.

I have my issues with the guy (a lot of his religious stuff for one, and the extent of his desired actions from governmental type bodies and those of similar potency for another) but I have yet to see the climate thing. I would like to believe it would have crossed my radar as well as I do seem to consume a fair amount of rebuttal and counter rebuttal material concerning him and that would trouble a lot of people that variously boost him or be a boon to those which try to take him down. I have been doing other things this last month so is it particularly new or something? Going further while it would be incredibly unfortunate it would not serve to terribly undermine some of his other points, and also there is a line of thought that says if they are not themselves in the field that they get to be ignored (nobody cares if a protein biologist is a flat earther sort of thing).
Masculinity is under attack by a significant group, how much threat they pose for that as a general concept I am unsure (individuals on the other hand may be considerably more troubled) but it is a big talking point of them (see also toxic masculinity) as well as something they seek to address in education, social pressure and other such means. Similarly I would say a lot of what falls under the banner of political correctness poses a considerable threat to the world today, right now seeing what I would term a broad assault on free speech from those that would claim political correctness as a core tenet of their approach to the world.

As far as genetic populations and intelligence goes. As far as we can tell there are massive genetic factors in intelligence (adoption studies being a good start) and if you provide a stable home life* then it starts to play an even greater role. Environmental pressures have seen any number of traits diminished, enhanced, selected and such (height, weight, musculature, distribution of fat, oxygenation of blood**, skin colour, tolerance of local flora and fauna, tolerance of local diseases, tolerance of food shortages (see something like you are what your grandma ate, or the studies from northern Norway for a slightly different twist) and this could go on for a while) and so it stands to reason that intelligence could be selected for or against.
*itself far from assured in various groups.
**there is a reason a lot of runners of various types, though particularly distance ones, come from a tribe that was shoved high up a mountain quite some time in the past.
None of that however precludes someone of any given genetic population from being intelligent (for all else there is involved individuals can randomly pop up). To that end my meeting a man on the street test and all that follows from that is still in play. To take it back to the Peterson fellow from what I have seen I would say he is staunchly individualist, one of his great bugbears being identitarianism and collectivism (and I would agree to a statement of fuck both those things), and it would also fit with what I have heard from him.


----------



## Viri (Aug 13, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> So, erm...is she still single? I'll dye my hair grey if that improves my chances.


Oh come on, you can get to South Korea right now, and the first female you see will look a lot better than her.


----------



## Glyptofane (Aug 13, 2018)

Shouldn't "reverse racism" be if you actually like another race that isn't your own more than others, kind of how I feel about Japanese people.


----------



## FGFlann (Aug 13, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> Shouldn't "reverse racism" be if you actually like another race that isn't your own more than others, kind of how I feel about Japanese people.


My first thought would be discriminating against one's own race on the grounds that one believes it is inherently inferior. Some kind of pathological self deprecation.


----------



## Olmectron (Aug 13, 2018)

I'm completely sure if those tweets attacked {{insert here other race name}} people other than white, she would be fired instantly.


----------



## the_randomizer (Aug 13, 2018)

People actually read NY Times? lol


----------



## JellyPerson (Aug 13, 2018)

why do people want to get offended to fuel their own agenda


----------



## Nevermore (Aug 13, 2018)

This is why you don't shitpost and say bad things with your real name and face on social media.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 14, 2018)

Viri said:


> Oh come on, you can get to South Korea right now, and the first female you see will look a lot better than her.


Since the joke went right over your head (you're only quoting half, which misses it), I'll repost the ACTUAL joke, and then let you in on a dirty little secret.

She: "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men."
Me: "So, erm...is she still single? I'll dye my hair grey if that improves my chances. "

As to the why:


Spoiler



I prefer sadistic women over regular ones. That's just my preference. 



I would've thought the latter was pretty clear by the context, but apparently not. 


/off-topic


----------

