RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
I’m glad she didn’t get fired. She’s allowed to voice her opinion, even if it is stupid.
James Gunn
- Thread starter Archie Moses
- Start date
I’m glad she didn’t get fired. She’s allowed to voice her opinion, even if it is stupid.
Is it? Is that because she was more open with her disdain, while David Brooks has to hide his behind code words and vague references?
Goblins gotta grumble.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
What about Roseanne though? Plus, NYTs just fired Quinn Norton for similar tweets.
I don't want her fired, but how people are defending her and making it seem like she's being attacked by the "alt right trolls" is ****ing pathetic.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Yeah, people do and should grumble about racists tweets. I mean, can you imagine being an older white dude that works with her?
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
She didn’t do anything illegal, the **** she says is kind of a known deal for her, and her employer doesn’t have to fire her because people on the internet are fake mad.
Now is there a double standard? It would certainly appear so, but Internet lynch mobs are stupid. You look at Kevin Williamson who got fired from The Atlantic because people went crazy online. It’s stupid. Are those same people demanding this lady get fired? Are the people who were mad Williamson got fired demanding this lady get fired? Double standard on both sides. And Williamson was just because he said abortion was murder. But the internet lynch mob spoke, and stupid decisions were made.
Now I don’t know this lady, think her name is Sarah Jeong, but cannot remember how to spell it for the life of me...based on her tweets I probably wouldn’t agree with very much of what she said, and I don’t care for CNN that much, but good for them on not firing her. They knew her body of work going in, and they’re going to stick by that. I applaud that.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I made this thread because I think it's lame internet mobs are calling for people's jobs from tweets they made in the past so I agree with you on her not getting fired. It's amazing how many people have gone under fire in the last month or so. Both the left and the right are at each other's throats.
I'm more bugged by the NYTs (and other leftists media) defending her and making her seem like she's the victim of her racists tweets. Granted, I'm sure she's been the victim of racists assholes too, but fighting racism with racism, hate and stereotypes is counterintuitive and wrong. It's simple really. Her tweets are embarrassing for her.
It's people like her that are responsible for dividing the country just as much as Trump and the media.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Not just as much. Maybe her words/actions are similar or worse, but she doesn’t have the same power as the Trumpster.
She’ll never persuade anybody to switch parties though.
She’ll never persuade anybody to switch parties though.
An older white dude that works with people of oppressed populations and who are displeased with said oppression? Gosh, I can't even imagine that.
Are there any key differences in the situation you may be overlooking? Such as the notion of "punch up, not down"?
She'll be fired if the NYT editorial board sees her presences as a hindrance or a business-loser. "Lame internet mobs" only have the power to get someone fired as is compared to the degree they affect people's pocketbooks. By contrast, they are also able to drive minority presences off the web (e.g., Anna Diop) in a fashion in a manner that does not happen to white people.
I will agree that over the past 10 years or so, being a jerk to women, racial minorities, etc. has become more likely to give companies pause and make them think it will affect their bottom line.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I doubt you've read her tweets people are upset about. If you have, your attitude certainly condones racist behaviors.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Yes, there are. One is mental the other went to UC Berkeley and Harvard.
Your notion of punch up not down is a thoughtless cliche.
You shouldn't be a racist, regardless of *insert anything.*
Last edited:
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Wrong. In February the NYTs just fired a white journalist for posting edgy tweets because of internet mobs.
Also, please see the title of the thread too, guy...
Here's a summary from RealClearPolitics:
I see a lot of anger and hate toward white people. Since white people are not an oppressed group, that's quite possibly prejudice and bigotry, but it's not racism.
So, your claim is that Jeong is being protected by privileges Norton did not receive? Possibly, but I think the target is the more relevant factor.
You shouldn't be white, either. Yet, whiteness exists and racism exists. I wonder if you'll understand this is not referring to skin color.
I see you did not even bother to look up what happened to Anna Diop.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
If you’re not an oppressed group, people can’t be racist towards you?
That’s really stupid guys.
That’s really stupid guys.
Do you understand the difference between being racist and being racially prejudiced?
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
They are one in the same. Racism is prejudice directed at someone of a different race.
It's not like these concepts are written into the fabric of the universe. Just tell us the definitions you have for them.
Racism is used (at least more formally in the literature I have read) as the application of racial prejudice/stereotypes/structures towards those disadvantaged by the culture/society/laws. You can be prejudiced and/or bigoted regarding any specific group, but you can only be racist to disfavored/oppressed groups.