The Media Industry

Already seeing the whole "the same people calling upset about conservative writers being fired are now calling for this woman to be fired." Of course, the plain difference is that conservatives are being fired for expressing a political viewpoint, while this woman is talking about how she hates everyone in an entire demographic and hopes they all die off. I feel like those are really not the same thing, particularly when you're picking someone for an editorial board who is going to serve as the voice of a credible news source which is attempting to reflect a segment of their readers' perspectives.

 

Yes, it is true that we're only getting part of the story, but her tweets don't seem to support the conclusion that she was responding to people or acting in "self-defense." Furthermore, let's just be honest. If she had said the same things about a racial or ethnic minority, there is no set of facts or context that would have enabled her to keep her job.

 

The NYT and others of their ilk just keep killing themselves.

[Clyde Torkle]I love it. Keep it up![/Clyde Torkle]

 

turns out Jeong also hates cops and men( she didn't . yea she was just responding to cops and men who triggered her.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/0...-guns-and-killing-all-men-660518differentiate race/ ethnicity for either group)

 

Goldberg explains why the "it's ok to be bigoted to white people" rule is bad and dangerous. Link.

As I've said before, this sort of thing encourages and, when taken to the extreme, justifies white nationalism and white identity politics. The Times is a much bigger enabler to guys like Richard Spencer and David Duke than Trump ever was. Every time moves like this are made and justified with rationalizations that essentially make it ok to attack white people as a group, guys like Spencer gain credibility and get proven right.

 

I am guessing not many here have taken the time to read her beyond her steaming pile of racist tweetstorms? But if you do, you will see she is not very bright. It's pretty disappointing she got into Harvard Law. And I guess the NYT was happy to be able fill ethnic and gender quotas with just one person, but they clearly did not do their full due diligence with this one.

 

[QUOTE="Joe Fan" And I guess the NYT was happy to be able fill ethnic and gender quotas with just one person"

What? Eliz. Warren wasn't available?

 

The intellectual fraud builds on the Jeong story. Link. It's baffling that a group of people who pride themselves on their Intelligence can say the most asinine things.

 

Liberal crackpottery has unfortunately taken over the left in this country.

 

Perhaps this has been posted before, but I found it interesting. Is she a true #WalkAway type ... or a plant? IDK ... but the outline of what’s happened among the media elites and the cultural/political left is SPOT ON accurate.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/03/spygate-turning-democrats-like-party/

 

I actually understand the point he's trying to make, and I'm sure that in many cases, it's true that they don't really mean that everyone who is white is evil/despicable/needs to be forced out of society. Problem is, there are plenty in academia who are saying - quite literally - that Western civilization has produced no value. That violence and racism is linked directly to skin color.

And of course, the other issue is that the people they claim they do NOT mean when they say "white people are garbage" are people who happen to agree with them on a laundry list of social justice issues and solutions. Your racism and bigotry is determined by whether you are willing to accept without question whatever they claim.

 

Yep. I was going to make that point myself. It all comes down to the idea that any white person who doesn't loathe themselves for being white, doesn't beg and grovel for forgiveness of all perceived sins ascribed to the racial collective - those are the people they demean.

Think like us, or be labeled a hateful, bigoted, mean-spirited, "fill-in-the-blank"-phobic.

 

I understand the point as well, but these are the same people who imply that Trump called all Hispanics rapists when he didn't say that. If you're going to give someone the benefit of the doubt that "all" doesn't mean all, then you have to give someone who doesn't say "all" the same benefit of the doubt.

 

That's where the beautiful double standard comes in. I suspect their response would be that it's not a double standard because conservatives really ARE hateful and racist, because dogwhistles. So they answer that "he claims that, but we all know he really means all hispanics." I'm not sure they really believe that, but they aren't giving up their favorite flogging tool.

 

I wonder if the NYT read any of Jeongs nasty posts about them?
"You know what IS good? That someone is FINALLY suing the New York Times for libel

— sarah jeong (@sarahjeong) May 12, 2017V

I feel really bad for the 95% of the New York Times that already seethes with resentment over their horrible columnists

— sarah jeong (@sarahjeong) April 30, 2017
more at
https://www.breitbart.com/big-journ...-jeong-repeatedly-trashed-the-new-york-times/

 

by Dan Hannan in the Washington Examiner today --

"Ifl’affaire Jeong has taught us one thing, it’s that the people who claim most vociferously to be anti-racist are nothing of the sort. On the contrary, they’re obsessed with race, seeing almost everything through the prism of ethnicity. They’re in favor of categorizing people according to racial criteria. What they object to is not racial discrimination, but racial discrimination against the wrong groups...."​

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-soft-bigotry-of-the-new-york-times

 

I actually think this article is too weak. It's not a soft bigotry. It's a very harsh, aggressive, and ugly bigotry. In addition, the Right needs to directly challenge some of the moronic "truths" that the Left presumes about race issues, which this writer doesn't really do. The Joachim tweet is full of horse crap that shouldn't go unchallenged.

"1. Racism is abt the powerful keeping down the powerless."

No, it isn't. That's Marxist ********. Racism is about advocating an inherent superiority of a race over another race or about treating people differently because of their race.

"2. We (generally) are the powerful."

No, we (white people) generally are not powerful. Just because most who are powerful are white doesn't mean that most who are white are powerful.

"3. "White ppl" isn't a slur"

This is true. Neither is "black ppl" or other similar terms. The problem with her comments is what came after "white ppl."

"4. "***" and the N word are slurs, because they subordinate"

No, they aren't, and they don't. They are slurs, because society has deemed to be slurs and assigned negative connotations to them. It's nothing more and nothing less than that.

"5. Your moral equivalence is nonsense."

Only if you accept the previously mentioned falsehoods.

"6. "Reverse racism" isn't a thing."

See answer to No. 5.

 

This gets back to letting the left redefine terms. The only reason... the ONLY reason... that this is a thing is because academics decided to redefine a concept. Academia is not universally empowered to redefine a social concept, particularly one that is in common use.

That's like going back and saying that "hate speech" is defined as speech that originates from a white person and inflicts emotional damage on a person of color. If someone wants to use that definition, then I guess they can, but that doesn't change the fact that speech that reflects hate is, in fact, hate speech, regardless of who says it.

I think we talked about this in another thread (or is it this one?) The left argues now that when people say "white people are garbage" they OBVIOUSLY don't mean that ALL white people are garbage. But when you've now made it acceptable to use the short term in a purely negative way, then haven't you by definition made it a slur? So yes, in today's culture, "White people" IS a slur, because it is used universally in a derogatory fashion.

 

The is the view on speech CNN is pushing right now
It's a nutty, crazy way to look at speech.
More amazing is that the people promoting this type of change never seem to realize that if they win the argument, the new principle they help establish can be, and probably will be, used against them in the future. History is full of examples of this. Their shortsightedness and lack of knowledge of history is astounding. It's child's view of the moment. Even worse is the failure to recognize and support principles forged by time and human evolution.



ps - sorry for the pic, but the new server does not seem to like jpgs

Here is the CNN article link https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/06/opinions/infowars-opinion-roundup/index.html

Rafia Zakaria:
"It's an important step in recognizing hate speech as a form of terrorism

The stripping of InfoWars from Facebook, Apple and other platforms is an important step in the recognition of nativist, nationalist and white supremacist hate speech as a form of terrorism. ..."​

 

It is amazing how little flack this is getting. If Farrakhan was pulled from these platforms for speech that's more hateful then anything Alex Jones has said, all we'd hear about is that free speech was under attack. Yet of the liberals commenting on that link, only LZ Granderson gets it. The others are totally ok with the latter-day book burning.

I am also very suspicious that nobody seems to indicate what the so-called "hate speech" that got him banned actually was. That's a bit chilling. It makes me want to download the InfoWars app - not to use but just to stick it to these people.

 

Even without flack, they should be able to think this through on their own. In this context, the memory that should still be fresh in their minds is how what Reid/Schumer did to the 60-vote rule has come back to bite them. But there are hundreds of other historical examples -- for example, they should have a look at what happened to the earliest Bolsheviks.

Again I say the lack of principles leaves these people directionless, only focussed on the short term, on what is immediately in front of them.

 

The second-hand account I heard was that the companies have stated that it's about his statements about muslims, transgenders, and abortion rights.

So yeah... conservatives should feel really good about this.

 

I thought this article from Oz Sultan was well stated. A portion is copied here.

Before, racial minorities (Black, Brown, Asian, and Indigenous people) would typically be the ones raising an issue when there was a case of discrimination or racial bias. But in 2016, we started to see a radical departure from the conversation around who had experienced racism to a wide range of white liberals who screamed about racism.

The strangeness about this screaming is that their battle cry became, “I declare that X person is racist, and if you support them you are a racist.”

So, in one fell swoop, they started to marginalize both racial minorities and dominate discussions with a false narrative that took away minority voices.

How you ask? Take me for example:

I’m an American Muslim Conservative, who happens to be both ethnically Indian (Mughal) and Arab (Saudi).

In the past year, I’ve been attacked, lambasted, and denounced; defriended and derided for not supporting Hillary. Apparently, according to them, I’m not allowed to think for myself, these days.

Black, Brown and Asian conservatives that I’m friends with have been called "Uncle Toms" and "racist" for voting Trump or "traitors" for supporting Gary Johnson.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In essence, this new Left “racism cry” is little more than crocodile tears at the collapse of the political strength behind their ideology.

It devalues racial conversations and infantilizes people in a flawed secular idea of “racial sin.” It’s hypocritical, self-demeaning and doesn’t help us understand how our differences across races are a strength when it comes to being American.

What’s worse is that this hypocritical line of thinking censures people’s voices and ideas — where minorities who disagree with the left have become as much their enemy as the white people they believe to have cost Hillary the election in 2016.

 

Errr ...

 

Also, there is a difference between "I, in a vacuum, think she should be fired" and "Since we have decided as a society that this is worth firing for, we ought to apply it consistently to everyone."

 

Yep. And to be clear, I wouldn't mind the double standard if the Times admitted that they were partisan hacks rather than claiming to be a serious news outlet.

 

Breaking news

 

Is that supposed to be a news story?