Two Can Play This Game: Conservative Mob Calls for New York Times Hire's Head

Comments

1

Oh for fuck sake. The tactic was not begun by the left. I guess I'm an old. But I remember four decades of Christian Right picket lines over movies, books (and book burnings), rightwing mobs at city council and PTA meetings. The Moral Majority. Phylis Schafly. Jerry Falwell. The Christian right getting teachers fired for daring to teach evolution or just wearing their skirts too long.

The right has always weaponized outrage.

3

Racism, not racism...whatever. Is it RIGHT to talk this way and put these thoughts out broadly?

4

Eventually people will realize that when you make granular rules for what viewpoints and speech are allowed, and that hiring/firing should be based on political leanings, what will be censored and attacked is not always going to be 100% up to you.

This is simply rule #4: "make the other side play by their own book of rules." I know it is only worthless, subhuman whites being attacked here, but anytime someone stands up and calls an entire race trash to be taken out, people aren't going to really like it. It makes people uncomfortable.

@1: Yeah, I too remember when it was crusty old christians telling people what they were allowed to think, and what media they could enjoy, instead of liberals. Time sure does make fools of us all.

5

True conservatives don't interject themselves in the hiring decisions made by private companies, even if they personally object to it.

6

Eh. I wish the lesson was "maybe we shouldn't bend over backwards to bad-faith interpret people's statements in the most serious way possible". Like, they're vaguely offensive-ish jokes. OK. But they're still fundamentally jokes, just like that director dude who got fired. Why not extend the same grace to others that you extend to yourselves? Why not decide on a principle and do your best to stick to it, rather than saying "oh it's ok for this person to make crude racial jokes because I agree with them politically, but it's not ok for this other person because I don't". Like, how fucking wack of an attitude is that? It's basically saying that you support a capital-R Racist worldview in which identities (Con/Lib, white/minority, male/female/cis/trans straight/queer etc) are paramount over content itself. I was born in the 80s, we were taught that treating people as equal humans was a possibility and it pisses me off that so called woke millennials have decided that racial equity is simply impossible and that separate-but-equal is the future.

7

Well she’s going to have to shut the fuck up and act with professionalism eventually.

Looks part white to me, to boot.

8

Poor white people - it's a wonder they've been able to survive at all for tens of thousands of years (well, technically only since the late 1500's when white people introduced the concept of "race" to distinguish themselves from the rest of homo sapiens sapiens) given the systemic racism they've suffered at the hands of POC that entire time...

10

No one hates Asians more than other Asians. And black people. And white people who can’t learn math.

COUNT, realities exist independent of perception.

12

The 'not racist' argument is purely semantic - no one is saying it's not possible to be prejudiced towards white people. It is self-evident that these tweets are prejudiced towards white people.

Anyway I can't believe it's taken until 2018 for people to figure out that using twitter is a terrible idea but i guess people have to learn the hard way. Anyone dumb enough to permanently etch their deepest darkest brainfarts into the digital archive has terrible judgement that should automatically disqualify them from a platform as big as the NYT editorial page to share their opinions.

At this stage any twitter-based reporting is little more than gawking at a dumpster fire while simultaneously fanning the flames. There are comment threads all over the internet where people say dumb things that no one cares about. What happens on twitter is only a story because people decided to make it one.

13

I wish I could find the medical paper (like I could parse it) associated with the video, but here's an enlightening look at how "moral outrage" stimulates the reward center in your brain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z3UoO8JdOo

Also, pretty funny they come down on a Tweet admonishing "dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet" but doing... guess what?

14

"These tweets are only racist if you believe that white people can be victims of racism" By definition it is racism. Hey, but we are in the era of alternative facts, so go crazy with it...Stupid White people.

15

@ GermanSausage

Bari Weiss is a she, not a he.

I could simply assume that you made an honest mistake, but it would be way more fun to accuse you of misogyny for deliberately using the wrong pronoun.

16

@10:

You actually can't know that for certain, since everything you consider "reality" is perceived through the senses, and cannot be independently perceived apart from them. From an ontological perspective, the process of perception entails interpreting information encoded in our brains via our sensory organs, which is, by definition, subjective. At best, all one can say is that their "reality" is shaped by their individual perceptions, but those may still differ from the "reality" of the person standing next to them.

17

Racist or not it still sounds like hate speech.

18

@14:

It's an expression of racial bias, to be sure. But most reasonably intelligent people understand there's a big difference between bias, which is perceptual/personal, and racism, which is systemic/structural.

19

@17:

Saying "white people are bullshit" isn't hate speech, at least as it's commonly defined under law; saying "bullshit white people should all be killed", however, would be.

20

I'm so tired of people trying to move the goalposts and redefine terms to fit their personal narratives. "Racism" and "institutional racism" are not the same thing. Though the latter contains the former, they are separate terms for a reason. All people, including minorities, can be racist. To claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest, and hinders real discussion about race relations.

21

No COUNT, when you cease to exist the universe plods on.

Your consciousness winks out of existence, not it.

To state otherwise effectively debases every advance mankind(intentional) has made.

“Science is real”, remember?

Demonstrable fact.

22

Fwiw there is more context to these tweets that wasn't included in this post that explain why the nyt is standing by her. These were in response to racist tweets directed at her -- not general pronouncements about white people but insults directed at racists who were attacking her. Still bad judgement, but categorically different from believing women should be hanged for getting an abortion #nevertweet

23

@22, What you say sounds a lot like some people who use the N word and when called on it say they were only referring to the "bad ones".

24

@23 it's not like that at all because that is a generalized statement and not a direct personal attack. It would be like if a black person used a racial slur and the person responded by calling the black person a racial slur because that is what happened here, only calling someone the n-word is way more offensive than saying you take pleasure in being mean to old white men. Not sure why anyone needs an analogy to make sense of this story because this is pretty straightforward stuff.

25

@21:

You can't know that, either, since you won't be around to perceive the universe once your consciousness shuts down.

As for the rest of us, well, there's an entire branch of quantum physics (summarized by Wheeler's "Participatory Anthropic Principle" and expanded on in Barrow and Tipler's 1988 book "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle") that postulates the universe "exists" ONLY because we perceive it to exist. For example: according to PAP, a wavefunction can collapse ONLY in the presence of an observer; no observer, no collapse, hence, no universe. So, in that sense the reality we perceive only exists due to our ability to reduce the infinite number of possible eigenstates down to a single one via the process of observation. Think of it in terms of the "Schrödinger’s cat" paradox: until you actually look inside the box, you can't know whether the cat is alive, dead, or not there in the first place; it could literally be both or neither simultaneously, that is, it's purely imaginary - until it's not - and it doesn't take on "reality" until it's seen.

Granted, this is highly controversial, as it represents essentially a complete reversal of the Copernican non-centrist perspective, but it has nudged many in the field to at least tacitly acknowledge the possibility that adopting the Anthropic Principle may represent the only viable means of making predictions from the vast array of string theory possibilities.

26

Not sure what the problem is. Its ok to be racist now, no need to hide anymore. Elections have consequences.

27

@24, You are cherry picking; what about dumb ass white people, white people are bullshit, and perhaps best of all, cancel white people. That last comment sounds like a vague suggestion to do in white people; just enough ambiguity to say "I never said that".

28

@27:

Or maybe it just means "cancel the Twitter accounts of white people"...

29

COUNT, I’m pretty goddamn certain my passing will not spur or coincide with the end of the(a) universe.

I’ve lost my shit a few times. Not going to walk down a path that includes subjective multiverses or ever-branching butterfly effect multiverse states impacted by every movement every living being makes.

I assume you’re still up in the air about the tree falling and sound?

30

@27 i just picked one at random and regardless nothing she said is anything like calling a black person a n* and your analogy is still terrible

31

When the "pitchforks come out" they'll be carried by you Leftist degenerates, which is fine because we're better armed. Can't wait for it all to kick off and settle this shit once and for all.

32

@28, Like I said, just enough vagueness.
@30, Yes, the N word is about as bad as you can get but it all really boils down to intent. Imagine someone saying black people are apes as compared to white people are bullshit. Perhaps you're just on a rant because you hate white people.

33

@29:

In other words, you don't know fuck-all about science, particularly quantum string theory, so you're just gonna run with whatever dismissive bullshit retort falls out of your empty skull.

34

Nah, I read about p-branes and the like from 18-21.

I’m a fucking computer scientist.

You are quite the sniveling cunt, however.

The tree made noise.

35

I think I'm OK with the idea that not all bigotry is racism.

Might come back to bite me one day, but I suppose I'll just reassess things if it does.

36

@33

If you know a lot about physics, then you know there's more than a few problems with what's left of String Theory (Lee Smolin is the little kid pointing at the bare butts, if you're interested).

The anthropic principle not only says something quite different from your summary of it, but is regarded as a feeble cop-out by working physicists, who steer well clear of it on account of it being at root a rejection of scientific principles.

The LHC did not find any sleptons or neutralinos. It's time to take a cold shower and move on.

37

As if a victim of systemic racism was racist for rightly thinking that almost all white people wouldn't lift a finger to oppose discrimination.

38

To make a statement that basically says, "Anything that causes an old white guy grief makes my fucking day," seems - if not racist, then very limited in scope. Be careful painting everyone with that brush, hon. You might have painted a decent person and friend.

39

"Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from consequences!"

Remember that talking point? REMEMBER?!!!

40

She seems a thoroughly unpleasant person; I'll leave the question of qualification for the scarlet R to the theologians.

41

Everyone's asking the wrong question. The definition of racism doesn't matter

Is Sarah Jeong a good person?

42

@41 my guess is no. You should look at her tweets about NYT writers, she's going to have some very awkward meetings.

43

It's not racism when WE do it: says the left. Look, it's a dialectic. A thing can be true in one case and false in another-- and then sublimated(aufheben). After WE(the abject subject) eliminate white people (in the literal, but not literal sense) then the contradiction(or non-contradiction) will be resolved in a synthesis.

The Irish aren't even white!

44

FYI, per https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown, most of the victims of political-speech-censorship-firings, at least on campus, are liberals.

If you rationalize this, you're fighting a war you cannot win and will only ruin countless lives, for no appreciable gain.

45

“As if a victim of systemic racism ”

Ah yes, a “victim” all the way from korea to Harvard to the NYT editorial page. Glad she’ll be able to lecture poor white trash from her new perch.