Home / General / Sullying American Political Discourse

Sullying American Political Discourse

/
/
/
2847 Views

The New York Times editorial board recently hired the very well-respected tech journalist Sarah Jeong to its editorial board. Joeng responded to online harassment campaigns with some sarcastic tweets that could be willfully misconstrued as being racist if taken out of context. The Times has made it clear that it’s not going to capitulate to the bad faith attack campaign against her, which has caused one columnist to completely lose his shit:

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

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

[…]

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

Yes, the New York Times rejects claims that Sarah Joeng has engaged in “eliminationist rhetoric” like observing that it’s bad that a majority of white women supported Donald Trump because it is dominated by a “neo-Marxist” worldview. Sure, I see no flaws in that theory.

By the way, who is this columnist?

Andrew Sullivan

Wait, what?

Andrew Sullivan

The guy who proudly promoted Charles Murray’s racist junk science? The guy who recently wrote about how immigration was destroying England? That guy? I think we can never start taking this seriously now.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar
Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views :