Adding To The (Fake) Harassment

New York Times I

Six months after giving the heave-ho to an opinion writer over her insensitive social media comments, The New York Times is standing by Sarah Jeong, its newly hired lead technology scribe on the editorial side, despite the racist skeletons in her Twitter feed.

So the N.Y.T. swapped one racist for another.  This is going to be an interesting post to unpack and examine.

In a statement, the newspaper chalked up her anti-white blasts, such as “white men are bull–-,” as a reaction to “frequent online harassment.”

Well N.Y.T. can you at least provide some examples of this “harassment” – and honestly, this is what right-wing news sites such as Dangerous and Daily Wire do so much better than center and left-of-center website, they provide evidence of claims that they make.  This is on you N.Y.T. – let’s what evidence you provide or can provide.

“Her journalism and the fact that she is a young Asian woman have made her a subject of frequent online harassment,” said The Times. “For a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers.”

More allegations that she was “reacting to the rhetoric” – where’s the proof?  I’m pretty sure – and I’ll check this after this first article is done being examined – that those old tweets have now been scrubbed, so it’s unlikely that they’re on her Twitter any more.

Her hiring was met Wednesday with a spate of criticism over more than a dozen hostile tweets, most from 2014, in which she referred to “[d]umbass f–ing white people” and declared, “oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”

That doesn’t sound like she’s “reacting” both of those things sound like the vomit that comes from a racist with an internet connection – you could find comparable things about Jews and other races on Stormfront – a Neo Nazi website too I’m sure.

Times officials acknowledged that they were aware of her social media history before they offered her the editorial board post, saying it came out during the vetting process.

“She sees now that this approach only served to feed the vitriol that we too often see on social media. She regrets it, and The Times does not condone it,” said the statement.

I believe that – that the N.Y.T. found all of this during a vetting process, but I don’t believe for a second that she “regrets” it – she’s just (now) better at hiding it I’m sure.  Give it a few months, no more than six or so, and she’s going to be right back at it when she’s comfortable and settled in with everything this new “job” brings.

The newspaper also posted a statement from Ms. Jeong, a former senior writer at The Verge, in which she described her behavior as “counter-trolling.”

“As a woman of color on the internet, I have faced torrents of online hate, often along this vein,” she said, and gave examples in which someone used a racial slur against her and another threatened to “sock you right in your lesbian face.”

Well there we have some “evidence” – I stand by the thought that it was manufactured hate that she came up with to justify her racism – most of the “hate crimes” from the last two years have been such – what would separate her from the crowd?  She doesn’t regret it, she’s just justifying her vitriol – a common tactic of Regressive Left racists who get caught in the act.

After “candid conversations,” The Times said, Ms. Jeong “understands that this type of rhetoric is not acceptable at The Times and we are confident that she will be an important voice for the editorial board moving forward.”

Ms. Jeong added: “These comments were not aimed at a general audience, because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns. I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context, and would not do it again.”

The first part: She understands sure, but that’s not going to stop her – she’s been justifying it in this N.Y.T. article the whole time.  “These comments weren’t aimed at a general audience” – then proceeds to make blanket statements about (old) white people (not all old white are “racist” you idiot).  The posts aren’t out of context – you clearly admit to being a racist…  I guess the Nazis hate for the Jews was out of context, or to make this a bit more Asian in comparison – I guess the Japanese hate for the Chinese is out of context too?

The statement was released after Twitchy ran a slew of her disparaging tweets along with comments from prominent conservatives.

“Creepy race obsessive,” said Townhall’s Guy Benson. Glenn Beck asked, “What will The New York Times do here? Are these jokes? Out of context? Does it matter?”

Of course conservatives were annoyed – if we said something slightly eye brow raising, we’re literally dox’ed and then chased off or banned outright from websites – see what happened to Milo because of a few racists and mouth-breathers, or Alex Jones recently in F.A.G.S. (Facebook, Apple, Google, Spotify).  As far as what Beck is asking about these remarks being “out of context” – No: Racism is it’s own context, anything less is just trying to normalize and justify it.

Conservative media outlet Prager University suggested that Ms. Jeong was able to keep her job because her comments were directed against white men.

“These days, you can get in a lot of trouble for saying dumb, ugly or offensive things on Twitter,” said Prager. “Unless they’re against white men of course, then you get a gig at the @NYTimes.”

And PragerU would be absolutely right – it’s proven time and time again with various Leftists who said or done some despicable shit – if you’re a Leftist, it’s OK to be a racist – as long are you’re a racist targeting white people.  At which point, you’ll get a job as an editor or an editorial board.

The newspaper faced a similar situation in February after announcing the hiring of Wired’s Quinn Norton as its lead opinion writer on technology, which prompted a social media backlash over her description of white nationalist internet troll Andrew Auernheimer as “a terrible person & an old friend.”

Ms. Norton had also “used slurs against gay people” and “retweeted a racial slur,” according to the newspaper.

Hours later, she announced that she would no longer join the newspaper, and editorial page editor James Bennet said they had decided “to go our separate ways.”

Like I said up at the top of the post – swapped one racist with racist friends – for another racist.  Probably for that non-white quota that all organizations seem to masturbate and with.

The New York Times article.


CNN commentator Symone Sanders defended Jeong by insisting that that her tweets weren’t racist and that they were just “taken out of context” by “right-wingers” who dug them up.  While she argued Jeoug wasn’t being racist because being racist is “prejudice plus power,” Sanders conceded that she may have a “prejudice perhaps against white men.”

It’s not that she MIGHT have a prejudice – it’s that she DOES – but then again the definition of “racism” given here isn’t the dictionary definition, and that’s the only book I take seriously in these kinds of matters.  According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary – which is the same, if not one of the dictionaries which was called racist or biased against “people of color” – racism means:


This is lifted right from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary – none of those definitions say it’s “Prejudice plus power” – nowhere in any established dictionary does it say that, that’s just the definition given to the word by Leftists who are easily triggered by things that they don’t like.

“Does it make her a bigot?” Lemon asked.

“No, I don’t think this makes her a bigot either,” Sanders responded.

Racist tweets make you a bigot, clearly CNN has no problem defending racists – which doesn’t surprise me in the least any more, since they need to manufacture their (out)rage and fake hate crimes some how.

Matt Lewis of The Daily Beast insisted that had he written such tweets about another race he “wouldn’t have a job on Monday” and tied Jeong’s shaming people for being white to the animosity many Trump supporters feel about the media.

“We wonder why Donald Trump is able to turn all of these folks against us in the media. Well, guess what. If you’re a White Republican living in Ohio or Michigan and you have the idea that the media doesn’t like you, isn’t this proof that, in fact, that is the case?” Lewis asked. “I think it kind of reenforces Donald Trump’s message.”

Daily Beast dude here gets it right – if you fall into the demographic, you’re absolutely right for thinking you’re hated by the media – especially when on SOCIAL MEDIA #whitepeople is a perfectly acceptable hashtag to use with demeaning but overall teasing content about white people.

“I agree with you,” Sanders responded. “All I’m saying is, for instance, the assertion that because Sarah referred to white people in her tweets, she is now somehow against all white people when we all know that-”

“But Symone, I don’t think that’s the point,” Lemon shot back. “That’s not the point that she’s against all people. It sounds like you’re making an excuse for someone who actually did something that is bigoted.”

Don Lemon, you dense doofus, she is against all white people – even saying so in a tweet “Fucking bullshit white people” – not to mention that she gets her jollies by being cruel to (old) white people.  So she’s not a racist, according to Lemon (who was so triggered by Trump I might add, that he said “shithole” on live TV 36+ times).

This is the Mediaite link.

The Blaze

Oh god this is going to be one hell of an article to break down – I’m pretty sure it’s a Far Left website – I don’t know much about The Blaze as a publication, I think I’ve only read maybe like 3 posts of theirs that were remotely interesting.

“No, I don’t think Sarah’s tweets are racist. Look, first of all, I think it’s important to note that these tweets were dug up by a right-wing — it’s not even conservative. It was a right-wingers, people that identify with the white supremacist ideology and they were taken out of context,” she said on “CNN Tonight with Don Lemon.”

“…  right-wingers, people that identify with the white supremacist ideology and they were taken out of context…”  There we go with that rhetoric again – Since when were “right wingers” considered racists and bigots?  I’m a right-winger, but not specifically a conservative.  Actually according to one (confirmed) Leftist, I am a “racist motherfucker” – so there’s that.

“It’s not racist for this reason: One, Don, racism, being racist is not just prejudice, it’s prejudice plus power. So one could argue that some of her tweets, even within context, note that she has a prejudice, perhaps, against white men. But that, in fact, does not make her racist. I don’t think she’s a racist.”

“Could she be prejudiced, could she have some…not just implicit, but negative bias toward white men in America due to perhaps what she’s experienced throughout her life? Probably, absolutely. Does that mean, though, that she is, in fact, racist? No, because race is prejudice plus power.”

Refer back to the Merriam-Webster screenshot – dumbasses.

This is The Blaze article.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s