Another attempt on Sarah Jeong

[Rockfish1]

One of the most useful things I've seen written on Sarah Jeong came from David French at National Review. I have substantial disagreements with French about this, but he's admirably capable of drawing distinctions that utterly escape Jeong's more unhinged critics.

French gets interesting after he notes that, for some on the left, "racism" is intrinsically about power -- the powerless either can't be "racist" or their racism is functionally irrelevant:

But this argument confuses the gravity of an offense with the existence of the offense. A powerless person’s hate may not harm the powerful, but it is still hate. A powerless person’s hate may even be grounded in specific experiences, but it is still hate. The essence of bigotry is to look at the color of a person’s skin and, on that basis alone, make malignant judgments about his character or worth.

Moreover, it is simply false to excuse anti-white racism on the grounds that people of color lack power. There are certainly many millions of vulnerable and marginalized individuals in this nation, and they are disproportionately (though not entirely) black and brown. But when anti-white sentiment is embedded in the New York Times editorial board, it’s no longer “powerless” in any meaningful sense. Similarly, when it reaches the heights of government, the academy, or the bestseller lists, it’s no longer remotely “powerless.”

None of this should be taken as an argument that power doesn’t matter. Of course it does. Power matters. And so does purpose. That’s why no one should compare Jeong’s comments to the racism you see on Stormfront or to the racism we saw on display in Charlottesville last year. Racism married to violence or violent intent is categorically different from the anti-white racism you see in certain quarters of the elite identity-politics Left. Similarly, racism married to state policies — especially state policies of the relatively recent American past, which continue to have malignant effects on poor and disadvantaged Americans — is categorically different from the anti-white racism that exists in parts of the academy or in segments of American media.

. . . The threat of anti-white racism (except in rare cases) isn’t violence. It’s not systematic oppression. There’s no realistic scenario where “the tables are turned” and black Americans visit on white Americans a reverse version of the worst aspects of American history. The problem with anti-white racism is that it runs directly counter to efforts to unify in spite of that history. It runs counter to efforts to elevate American culture. And, yes, it can and does create individual injustice in those instances where anti-white racism manifests itself in more than just tweets and academic journals.

Finally, to indulge at all the notion that injustice, even systematic injustice, can excuse or legitimize hatred against a class or group of Americans is to open Pandora’s Box. I’ve seen it argued across the breadth of the Web that anti-white sentiment is a legitimate and understandable response to the actions of white people and “white” power structures. But think about this argument. Veterans of our Middle Eastern wars have seen jihadist horrors on a scale that most Americans can’t comprehend. Is it a legitimate response for a veteran to go on a Twitter screed about “canceling” Arabs or calling them “groveling goblins”? Should a white victim of a black criminal draw conclusions about black people more generally? Even if he can point to disproportionate levels of violent crime?

Of course not. A healthy society urges people to reject unhealthy temptations to generalize, and instead urges that we treat our fellow citizens with a degree of grace and to judge them based on their individual actions. Any categorical hatred or disgust stands directly against this virtue. So, yes, anti-white racism is real, and Americans can and should reject it while still keeping in mind matters of gravity and proportion.
​

So, French thinks anti-white racism is both real and wrong. He thinks what Sarah Jeong posted was racist and wrong. But he's able to discuss that in a context that draws distinctions that utterly escape so many conservatives, and he does it without losing his shit. He doesn't sound, even a little bit, like a butthurt white guy who's honked off that he can't sing along when the rapper says n!gger.

I very much doubt that Sarah Jeong actually hates white people. I think she lost her shit because she was besieged by racist assholes, and she gave them back some of their own. She was wrong to do that, and maybe the Times was wrong to hire someone who had done that. But as French illustrates, this can be discussed in an intelligent context if you aren't triggered and don't become unhinged.

 

[Lucy01]

One of the most useful things I've seen written on Sarah Jeong came from David French at National Review. I have substantial disagreements with French about this, but he's admirably capable of drawing distinctions that utterly escape Jeong's more unhinged critics.

French gets interesting after he notes that, for some on the left, "racism" is intrinsically about power -- the powerless either can't be "racist" or their racism is functionally irrelevant:

But this argument confuses the gravity of an offense with the existence of the offense. A powerless person’s hate may not harm the powerful, but it is still hate. A powerless person’s hate may even be grounded in specific experiences, but it is still hate. The essence of bigotry is to look at the color of a person’s skin and, on that basis alone, make malignant judgments about his character or worth.

Moreover, it is simply false to excuse anti-white racism on the grounds that people of color lack power. There are certainly many millions of vulnerable and marginalized individuals in this nation, and they are disproportionately (though not entirely) black and brown. But when anti-white sentiment is embedded in the New York Times editorial board, it’s no longer “powerless” in any meaningful sense. Similarly, when it reaches the heights of government, the academy, or the bestseller lists, it’s no longer remotely “powerless.”

None of this should be taken as an argument that power doesn’t matter. Of course it does. Power matters. And so does purpose. That’s why no one should compare Jeong’s comments to the racism you see on Stormfront or to the racism we saw on display in Charlottesville last year. Racism married to violence or violent intent is categorically different from the anti-white racism you see in certain quarters of the elite identity-politics Left. Similarly, racism married to state policies — especially state policies of the relatively recent American past, which continue to have malignant effects on poor and disadvantaged Americans — is categorically different from the anti-white racism that exists in parts of the academy or in segments of American media.

. . . The threat of anti-white racism (except in rare cases) isn’t violence. It’s not systematic oppression. There’s no realistic scenario where “the tables are turned” and black Americans visit on white Americans a reverse version of the worst aspects of American history. The problem with anti-white racism is that it runs directly counter to efforts to unify in spite of that history. It runs counter to efforts to elevate American culture. And, yes, it can and does create individual injustice in those instances where anti-white racism manifests itself in more than just tweets and academic journals.

Finally, to indulge at all the notion that injustice, even systematic injustice, can excuse or legitimize hatred against a class or group of Americans is to open Pandora’s Box. I’ve seen it argued across the breadth of the Web that anti-white sentiment is a legitimate and understandable response to the actions of white people and “white” power structures. But think about this argument. Veterans of our Middle Eastern wars have seen jihadist horrors on a scale that most Americans can’t comprehend. Is it a legitimate response for a veteran to go on a Twitter screed about “canceling” Arabs or calling them “groveling goblins”? Should a white victim of a black criminal draw conclusions about black people more generally? Even if he can point to disproportionate levels of violent crime?

Of course not. A healthy society urges people to reject unhealthy temptations to generalize, and instead urges that we treat our fellow citizens with a degree of grace and to judge them based on their individual actions. Any categorical hatred or disgust stands directly against this virtue. So, yes, anti-white racism is real, and Americans can and should reject it while still keeping in mind matters of gravity and proportion.
​

So, French thinks anti-white racism is both real and wrong. He thinks what Sarah Jeong posted was racist and wrong. But he's able to discuss that in a context that draws distinctions that utterly escape so many conservatives, and he does it without losing his shit. He doesn't sound, even a little bit, like a butthurt white guy who's honked off that he can't sing along when the rapper says n!gger.

I very much doubt that Sarah Jeong actually hates white people. I think she lost her shit because she was besieged by racist assholes, and she gave them back some of their own. She was wrong to do that, and maybe the Times was wrong to hire someone who had done that. But as French illustrates, this can be discussed in an intelligent context if you aren't triggered and don't become unhinged.

I hope VPM says a prayer for you.
#Q

 

[IUCrazy2]

I very much doubt that Sarah Jeong actually hates white people. I think she lost her shit because she was besieged by racist assholes, and she gave them back some of their own. She was wrong to do that, and maybe the Times was wrong to hire someone who had done that.

I had posted and quoted that article in the thread that got yanked. In an effort to reboot this conversation, I am going to say that I disagree with how you frame the argument and leave that part at that.

I do want to focus on this quote though. FWIW, I don't think Ms. Jeong "hates" white people either. However, she does hold some deep seated biases against them. You do not have a 2 year period where you make posts like she did and not have bigotry in your heart. You just don't.

I do not take umbrage with not being able to say the n word. Where I take umbrage is that, with white people, the same type of thought and latitude is not given to get behind why someone might let the veneer of civility slip and have that stuff come out. And the inclination to forgive and forget that was extended to Ms. Jeong is not extended to someone like a Roseanne Barr and that occurs simply because of her color. Instead it ruins careers.

I think back to the incident with Michael Richards (Kramer in Seinfeld) where he was being interrupted at a comedy club and he called someone the n word. His career tanked. If you go look up his TV and Film work, it becomes almost non existent after that 2006 event. Now I think he probably does hold some prejudices about blacks like Ms. Jeong holds about whites, the difference is that we accept her explanation that she was just reacting to heckling and she is allowed to continue her career. He is ostracized and his jobs dry up.

So white people who get irritated with this stuff are not asking permission to act badly, they are saying there should be a fair application of either punishment or forgiveness when someone who has not shown to be a supporter of racist movements messes up and gets racial in the heat of the moment.

We need to get back to trying to treat people fairly and equally. I think intersectionality wants to decide your treatment based on immutable characteristics. I find that philosophy not only wrong, but dangerous.

 

[Lucy01]

She wasn’t reacting to the heckling, She was the cause of the heckling,
With her hate and bias against the police and white people. But hey she
is the best campaign tool Trump can have.

 

[Rockfish1]

FWIW, I don't think Ms. Jeong "hates" white people either. However, she does hold some deep seated biases against them. You do not have a 2 year period where you make posts like she did and not have bigotry in your heart. You just don't.

There's no basis for your confidence in this (mis)judgment. Unless you possess superhuman self-knowledge, you don't even know yourself as well as you claim to know this complete stranger.

 

[IUCrazy2]

There's no basis for your confidence in this (mis)judgment. Unless you possess superhuman self-knowledge, you don't even know yourself as well as you claim to know this complete stranger.

Yeah and this is where I check out. You are not interested in a discussion, you want to give a sermon.

 

[Rockfish1]

Yeah and this is where I check out. You are not interested in a discussion, you want to give a sermon.

I'm telling you that you made a baseless claim. That's not a sermon. Nor is it a sermon when I tell you that you are making a fallacious argument. These are objective critiques that (at least theoretically) could be defeated on their merits.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I'm telling you that you made a baseless claim. That's not a sermon. Nor is it a sermon when I tell you that you are making a fallacious argument. These are objective critiques that (at least theoretically) could be defeated on their merits.

I disagree.

I will let Andrew Sullivan speak for me:

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: “**** white women lol.”​

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-anti-white-racism.html

Non bigoted and non prejudiced people do not react like Jeong did. So I am pretty comfortable with my description of her.

 

[Rockfish1]

I disagree.

I will let Andrew Sullivan speak for me:

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: “**** white women lol.”​

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-anti-white-racism.htm

Non bigoted and non prejudiced people do not react like Jeong did. So I am pretty comfortable with my description of her.

It doesn't help you to find another person who isn't thinking clearly either. There's no basis for Sullivan's claim that Jeong's two-year series of tweets were "one sudden exasperated vent at a harasser." Instead, they were reportedly a sustained "back at you" from an Asian-American woman responding to a plague of white racist assholes who persisted in besieging her online.

I wonder, do you and Sullivan think Jeong held these deep-seated anti-white biases before she was plagued with abuse by white racist assholes, or did the white racist assholes themselves engender deep seated anti-white biases in Jeong? In either case, where's the evidence? Where is anything outside of this internet dust-up to validate anyone's suppositions? Isn't it much more likely that you're just casting your own preconceptions onto this?

Don't let anyone speak for you. Speak for yourself. Where is the evidence for the claim I'm disputing?

 

[Lucy01]

It doesn't help you to find another person who isn't thinking clearly either. There's no basis for Sullivan's claim that Jeong's two-year series of tweets were "one sudden exasperated vent at a harasser." Instead, they were reportedly a sustained "back at you" from an Asian-American woman responding to a plague of white racist assholes who persisted in besieging her online.

I wonder, do you and Sullivan think Jeong held these deep-seated anti-white biases before she was plagued with abuse by white racist assholes, or did the white racist assholes themselves engender deep seated anti-white biases in Jeong? In either case, where's the evidence? Where is anything outside of this internet dust-up to validate anyone's suppositions? Isn't it much more likely that you're just casting your own preconceptions onto this?

Don't let anyone speak for you. Speak for yourself. Where is the evidence for the claim I'm disputing?

Boy Jim you are way off base on this one. Those white racist assholes were reacting to her racist tweets which she tweeted first. What about her tweets about the police?

 

[Ladoga]

There's no basis for your confidence in this (mis)judgment. Unless you possess superhuman self-knowledge, you don't even know yourself as well as you claim to know this complete stranger.

Who in the hell are you to write as if you know someone better than they know themselves from an internet chat board? Shame on you. The most arrogant person ever to write on this board has now pronounced that he knows other posters better than they know themselves. That is so pitiful.

 

[Ladoga]

It doesn't help you to find another person who isn't thinking clearly either. There's no basis for Sullivan's claim that Jeong's two-year series of tweets were "one sudden exasperated vent at a harasser." Instead, they were reportedly a sustained "back at you" from an Asian-American woman responding to a plague of white racist assholes who persisted in besieging her online.

I wonder, do you and Sullivan think Jeong held these deep-seated anti-white biases before she was plagued with abuse by white racist assholes, or did the white racist assholes themselves engender deep seated anti-white biases in Jeong? In either case, where's the evidence? Where is anything outside of this internet dust-up to validate anyone's suppositions? Isn't it much more likely that you're just casting your own preconceptions onto this?

Don't let anyone speak for you. Speak for yourself. Where is the evidence for the claim I'm disputing?

She is a raging racist, cop hater and spews hatred daily and you are on her side. Be proud. You're as bad as she is.

 

[IUCrazy2]

It doesn't help you to find another person who isn't thinking clearly either. There's no basis for Sullivan's claim that Jeong's two-year series of tweets were "one sudden exasperated vent at a harasser." Instead, they were reportedly a sustained "back at you" from an Asian-American woman responding to a plague of white racist assholes who persisted in besieging her online.

I wonder, do you and Sullivan think Jeong held these deep-seated anti-white biases before she was plagued with abuse by white racist assholes, or did the white racist assholes themselves engender deep seated anti-white biases in Jeong? In either case, where's the evidence? Where is anything outside of this internet dust-up to validate anyone's suppositions? Isn't it much more likely that you're just casting your own preconceptions onto this?

Don't let anyone speak for you. Speak for yourself. Where is the evidence for the claim I'm disputing?

Rock, when a black person treats you in a manner that is not kind, do you start ranting against all black people? Probably not, I assume this because of our interactions on this board. Conversely, what conclusions would you draw about me if, after I got the bird from a black guy on the way to work, I came to this forum and started a rant about black people in general?

I believe that Mr. Sullivan and myself draw our conclusions based on her behavior over a 2 year period.

 

[hoosboot]

I had posted and quoted that article in the thread that got yanked. In an effort to reboot this conversation, I am going to say that I disagree with how you frame the argument and leave that part at that.

I do want to focus on this quote though. FWIW, I don't think Ms. Jeong "hates" white people either. However, she does hold some deep seated biases against them. You do not have a 2 year period where you make posts like she did and not have bigotry in your heart. You just don't.

I do not take umbrage with not being able to say the n word. Where I take umbrage is that, with white people, the same type of thought and latitude is not given to get behind why someone might let the veneer of civility slip and have that stuff come out. And the inclination to forgive and forget that was extended to Ms. Jeong is not extended to someone like a Roseanne Barr and that occurs simply because of her color. Instead it ruins careers.

I think back to the incident with Michael Richards (Kramer in Seinfeld) where he was being interrupted at a comedy club and he called someone the n word. His career tanked. If you go look up his TV and Film work, it becomes almost non existent after that 2006 event. Now I think he probably does hold some prejudices about blacks like Ms. Jeong holds about whites, the difference is that we accept her explanation that she was just reacting to heckling and she is allowed to continue her career. He is ostracized and his jobs dry up.

So white people who get irritated with this stuff are not asking permission to act badly, they are saying there should be a fair application of either punishment or forgiveness when someone who has not shown to be a supporter of racist movements messes up and gets racial in the heat of the moment.

We need to get back to trying to treat people fairly and equally. I think intersectionality wants to decide your treatment based on immutable characteristics. I find that philosophy not only wrong, but dangerous.

As I'm sure you could guess, the details of why Michael Richards doesn't work much extend much further than that single incident. At the end of the day, the decisions for whether one is extended grace for their past transgressions needs to happen on an individual basis. The thing that is frustrating to me is I haven't seen much on how Jeong looks at her two-year period of ugly tweeting. If she owns it and rejects it, there's a path forward. That's an assessment for the people closest to he and the people hiring her to make. I have seen how Roseanne has reacted to her ugly tweets. The last thing she does is show much genuine contrition or take responsibility for the things she has said. I don't see a palatable path forward for her. Richards' career seems similar.

On top of that, I appreciate your attempting to meet the challenge of the original post. It's a distinct contrast to the responses the board gets from folks like ironlagodagreenbossierpromenade and commendable even if Rock finds it imperfect.

 

[Rockfish1]

Who in the hell are you to write as if you know someone better than they know themselves from an internet chat board? Shame on you. The most arrogant person ever to write on this board has now pronounced that he knows other posters better than they know themselves. That is so pitiful.

I often wonder if English is your first language.

 

[Rockfish1]

Rock, when a black person treats you in a manner that is not kind, do you start ranting against all black people? Probably not, I assume this because of our interactions on this board. Conversely, what conclusions would you draw about me if, after I got the bird from a black guy on the way to work, I came to this forum and started a rant about black people in general?

I believe that Mr. Sullivan and myself draw our conclusions based on her behavior over a 2 year period.

I'm looking for evidence to support your claim, and you keep not offering it.

You seem to think the thing speaks for itself, but the "thing" we have is just a few scattered bits of one side of a long-running internet brouhaha instigated by white racist assholes -- as to whose behavior you direct not only no outrage, but not even any curiosity. You seem almost unaware of it.

I'm saying you have no basis, as a matter of fact, to assert the claim I've challenged, and that's important, because that claim is the linchpin for everything else you say.

 

[alax2]

I'm looking for evidence to support your claim, and you keep not offering it.

You seem to think the thing speaks for itself, but the "thing" we have is just a few scattered bits of one side of a long-running internet brouhaha instigated by white racist assholes -- as to whose behavior you direct not only no outrage, but not even any curiosity. You seem almost unaware of it.

I'm saying you have no basis, as a matter of fact, to assert the claim I've challenged, and that's important, because that claim is the linchpin for everything else you say.

But aren't we getting lost from your original post? I thought whether she is a racist or not was not the point. It is a "given" that racism exists in many forms and has many colors, but the point to consider is the "power" of the people behind the racism. White racism is inherently more problematic right now because white racists hold the power and can move the government and society based on that power. Blacks racists do not have that ability at the moment. Maybe they will someday, but not today or in the past 200 years.

So, I don't get your defense of her in this discussion. I would stipulate that she is a racist for the purpose of this thread only and talk about the original thesis of the article you posted. Which, quite frankly, I kind of agree with.

 

[Rockfish1]

But aren't we getting lost from your original post? I thought whether she is a racist or not was not the point. It is a "given" that racism exists in many forms and has many colors, but the point to consider is the "power" of the people behind the racism. White racism is inherently more problematic right now because white racists hold the power and can move the government and society based on that power. Blacks racists do not have that ability at the moment. Maybe they will someday, but not today or in the past 200 years.
o
So, I don't get your defense of her in this discussion. I would stipulate that she is a racist for the purpose of this thread only and talk about the original thesis of the article you posted. Which, quite frankly, I kind of agree with.

I wouldn't say I'm defending Jeong in this thread. I'm trying to place what little we know in some context where it's possible to make judgments about what she did. And of course I've said what she did was wrong. That's a pretty modest "defense".

My point was to emphasize that there are all manner of distinctions to be drawn here. (We make distinctions even among people convicted of murder, after all.) My post was driven by my sense that we were having shitty discussions because people were being triggered and acting out irrationally, and I thought David French's piece admirably illustrated how not to do that.

Having said so, Crazy has tended to argue that, on the basis of what we know, we should all treat Jeong as a racist-in-fact. She didn't merely throw it back in the face of her racist tormentors (who, once again, are curiously absent from our discussion), but is instead someone who harbors deep-seated biases against white people. He's been arguing that hypocritical liberals are happy to endorse open racists, so long as they only hate white people. For his purposes, Jeong has to be David Duke. This, one might say, lacks nuance.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I'm looking for evidence to support your claim, and you keep not offering it.

You seem to think the thing speaks for itself, but the "thing" we have is just a few scattered bits of one side of a long-running internet brouhaha instigated by white racist assholes -- as to whose behavior you direct not only no outrage, but not even any curiosity. You seem almost unaware of it.

I'm saying you have no basis, as a matter of fact, to assert the claim I've challenged, and that's important, because that claim is the linchpin for everything else you say.

My evidence would be two years of racially insensitive tweets I suppose. You are willing to cut her slack because of why she reacted, I am not. I do not think there is any amount of evidence I am going to be capable of providing that is going to bring us to agreement on this. I think if a white person reacted in a manner similar to her, that we would all agree that person harbors some bigoted opinions about minorities. Does not mean they are racist but they definitely have some prejudices.

 

[IUCrazy2]

But aren't we getting lost from your original post? I thought whether she is a racist or not was not the point. It is a "given" that racism exists in many forms and has many colors, but the point to consider is the "power" of the people behind the racism. White racism is inherently more problematic right now because white racists hold the power and can move the government and society based on that power. Blacks racists do not have that ability at the moment. Maybe they will someday, but not today or in the past 200 years.

So, I don't get your defense of her in this discussion. I would stipulate that she is a racist for the purpose of this thread only and talk about the original thesis of the article you posted. Which, quite frankly, I kind of agree with.

I think the power thing is interesting as well. I think someone who sits on the NYT editorial board wields a great deal of power.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Having said so, Crazy has tended to argue that, on the basis of what we know, we should all treat Jeong as a racist-in-fact

That is not what I am arguing, which may be why we are having the disconnect. I am arguing that she drew some of her reaction to (wrong) behavior from internet trolls from some of her own prejudices. I stated up front I do not think she is a racist.

 

[Rockfish1]

I think if a white person reacted in a manner similar to her, that we would all agree that person harbors some bigoted opinions about minorities. Does not mean they are racist but they definitely have some prejudices.

What are the odds that a white person would be subjected to sustained racist abuse on the internet? In the counter-factual hypothetical where racist Asian-American women relentlessly dogged some poor white guy for a couple of years, I might be prepared to cut him a little slack too. But that's not reality.

You can't comprehend her reaction, because you disregard her reality. You're reacting on the basis of your experience -- which doesn't include being relentlessly trolled by racists. That's why I think you're getting this wrong.

 

[IUCrazy2]

What are the odds that a white person would be subjected to sustained racist abuse on the internet? In the counter-factual hypothetical where racist Asian-American women relentlessly dogged some poor white guy for a couple of years, I might be prepared to cut him a little slack too. But that's not reality.

You can't comprehend her reaction, because you disregard her reality. You're reacting on the basis of your experience -- which doesn't include being relentlessly trolled by racists. That's why I think you're getting this wrong.

White people may not be prone to being harassed by minorities on the internet, they are more likely to be victims of crimes committed by minorities.

http://www.fox5ny.com/news/man-attacked-on-bus-for-being-white-

By your logic the victim in this case would be justified in going on a racist rant against black people today. I just do not subscribe to that newsletter.

 

[Rockfish1]

White people may not be prone to being harassed by minorities on the internet, they are more likely to be victims of crimes committed by minorities.

http://www.fox5ny.com/news/man-attacked-on-bus-for-being-white-

By your logic the victim in this case would be justified in going on a racist rant against black people today. I just do not subscribe to that newsletter.

You're dodging, you should check your data, and no, that isn't the logic of my position -- nor is it my position that anyone is justified in going on a racist rant.

 

[IUCrazy2]

You're dodging, you should check your data, and no, that isn't the logic of my position -- nor is it my position that anyone is justified in going on a racist rant.

What am I dodging exactly?

You think that having a racist response to racial harassment is wrong but understandable given the circumstances. I think it is wrong and I guess somewhat understandable but I believe her rants, while maybe understandable to a degree, probably indicate some racial biases she holds because of her leap from specific white people being dicks to her to "f white women" or some of the other nonsense she spouted.

Furthermore, I am okay with whatever punishment or forgiveness is meted out to her as long as we are willing to also treat everyone the same. I do not think that is the case. As stated yesterday, she is granted "nuance" to her comments that she would not be given if she was Sarah Smith.

 

[Rockfish1]

To the extent that white people experience racism in this country, it's as Something We're Not Supposed To Do. We can't say or do racist stuff. This means that we have to be a little more careful when we're mean to nonwhite people, we sometimes can't say what we "really" think, and we sometimes can't tell jokes we think are funny. Mostly our racial "experience" is limited to the marginal advantage we generally enjoy as white people, twinged by the limitations of what we white people call political correctness. For us, "racism" can be a real annoyance.

I expect it's quite different for nonwhite people, who likely experience racism not as something they aren't supposed to do, but as something that is often done to them by white people. Perhaps they must suffer racist trolls on the internet. Perhaps they're not offered a job. Perhaps they're not sold a house. Perhaps they're slighted in a restaurant. Perhaps they're killed by police.

It's a common source of error to interpret others through the filter of your own experience. If you're to understand, then you must understand their experience -- or at least you must recognize that your own experience doesn't provide all the answers.

 

[Rockfish1]

I am okay with whatever punishment or forgiveness is meted out to her as long as we are willing to also treat everyone the same. I do not think that is the case. As stated yesterday, she is granted "nuance" to her comments that she would not be given if she was Sarah Smith.

Everyone isn't the same. People and circumstances are different. You won't allow that.

 

[MonroeCity]

I had posted and quoted that article in the thread that got yanked. In an effort to reboot this conversation, I am going to say that I disagree with how you frame the argument and leave that part at that.

I do want to focus on this quote though. FWIW, I don't think Ms. Jeong "hates" white people either. However, she does hold some deep seated biases against them. You do not have a 2 year period where you make posts like she did and not have bigotry in your heart. You just don't.

I do not take umbrage with not being able to say the n word. Where I take umbrage is that, with white people, the same type of thought and latitude is not given to get behind why someone might let the veneer of civility slip and have that stuff come out. And the inclination to forgive and forget that was extended to Ms. Jeong is not extended to someone like a Roseanne Barr and that occurs simply because of her color. Instead it ruins careers.

I think back to the incident with Michael Richards (Kramer in Seinfeld) where he was being interrupted at a comedy club and he called someone the n word. His career tanked. If you go look up his TV and Film work, it becomes almost non existent after that 2006 event. Now I think he probably does hold some prejudices about blacks like Ms. Jeong holds about whites, the difference is that we accept her explanation that she was just reacting to heckling and she is allowed to continue her career. He is ostracized and his jobs dry up.

So white people who get irritated with this stuff are not asking permission to act badly, they are saying there should be a fair application of either punishment or forgiveness when someone who has not shown to be a supporter of racist movements messes up and gets racial in the heat of the moment.

We need to get back to trying to treat people fairly and equally. I think intersectionality wants to decide your treatment based on immutable characteristics. I find that philosophy not only wrong, but dangerous.

Liberals have a never-ending tolerance for offensive "shock" comedians. Think Samantha Bee, Michele Wolf, Kathy Griffin, Sasha Baron Cohen. And the same applies to offensive liberal leaning celebrities in general. Think Madonna, Johnny Depp, Peter Fonda, Robert DeNiro. But one mistake from Roseanne, and I admit it was a doozy, and her career is over. Have we lost the capacity to forgive, even when someone admits fault and asks for forgiveness?
Surely, even the folks at the New York Times are aware of the double standard. They just dare anyone to raise the issue. Because anyone who would raise the issue is, of course, a racist.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

he does it without losing his shit.

You should take notes

 

[Quix0te]

She is a flat-out racist using any metrics that you wish to use.

 

[Ladoga]

You're a silly person.

View embedded media

You can call me whatever insulting names you prefer. What you cannot do, however, is change the fact that you are defending a raging, nasty racist. You so stridently defend her words and actions and attack her accusers that it seems you must be just like her. You are stuck with that, no matter the insults you hurl.

 

[MonroeCity]

It's okay to be outraged, angry, hurt, and indignant over something someone did. It absolutely is disgusting what Jeong said, and that conservatives raised hell over it isn't at all a bad thing.
That said, let's be careful before we make someone losing everything because of something they said a norm. It's not something we want in a society that is supposedly free thinking. I realize it's fun to teach people that if they live by the sword they will die by it, but the guy who used the sword second is still using a sword too. His time will come.

 

[IUCrazy2]

To the extent that white people experience racism in this country, it's as Something We're Not Supposed To Do.

That contradicts French's point that you originally linked to and is wrong.

The guy who got punched on the New York train experienced racism that was not a case of something he was not supposed to do. He experienced racism in a violent fashion. This is also the case of the mentally handicapped man in Chicago who had his torture live streamed to the internet.

You are expressing the same dismisiveness that French is saying we should not do. Much of the "white resentment" that gets brought up here is related to thought processes such as what you appear to be putting forth. Historically white people had power and were bad to minorities, ergo, minorities get kid glove treatment when they act in the same way...because there is no systemic power behind it. I say, at the individual level, who cares? A punch to the face and torture hurt just as bad no matter what kind of systemic power the perpetrator wields. That is the point French is making. You can be against systemic racism and even be of the belief that minorities get a raw deal sometimes without having to be so dismissive of a minority behaving badly or a caucasian taking umbrage at what we would all consider bigoted behavior.

 

[Thyrsis]

That contradicts French's point that you originally linked to.

How?

 

[IUCrazy2]

How?

Sorry, fleshed my point out a bit more on edit while you were responding.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I had posted and quoted that article in the thread that got yanked. In an effort to reboot this conversation, I am going to say that I disagree with how you frame the argument and leave that part at that.

I do want to focus on this quote though. FWIW, I don't think Ms. Jeong "hates" white people either. However, she does hold some deep seated biases against them. You do not have a 2 year period where you make posts like she did and not have bigotry in your heart. You just don't.

I do not take umbrage with not being able to say the n word. Where I take umbrage is that, with white people, the same type of thought and latitude is not given to get behind why someone might let the veneer of civility slip and have that stuff come out. And the inclination to forgive and forget that was extended to Ms. Jeong is not extended to someone like a Roseanne Barr and that occurs simply because of her color. Instead it ruins careers.

I think back to the incident with Michael Richards (Kramer in Seinfeld) where he was being interrupted at a comedy club and he called someone the n word. His career tanked. If you go look up his TV and Film work, it becomes almost non existent after that 2006 event. Now I think he probably does hold some prejudices about blacks like Ms. Jeong holds about whites, the difference is that we accept her explanation that she was just reacting to heckling and she is allowed to continue her career. He is ostracized and his jobs dry up.

So white people who get irritated with this stuff are not asking permission to act badly, they are saying there should be a fair application of either punishment or forgiveness when someone who has not shown to be a supporter of racist movements messes up and gets racial in the heat of the moment.

We need to get back to trying to treat people fairly and equally. I think intersectionality wants to decide your treatment based on immutable characteristics. I find that philosophy not only wrong, but dangerous.

very well said.

 

[iu_a_att]

My evidence would be two years of racially insensitive tweets I suppose. You are willing to cut her slack because of why she reacted, I am not. I do not think there is any amount of evidence I am going to be capable of providing that is going to bring us to agreement on this. I think if a white person reacted in a manner similar to her, that we would all agree that person harbors some bigoted opinions about minorities. Does not mean they are racist but they definitely have some prejudices.

Let's try this thought experiment. Let's suppose some hoards of non-white persons are attacking you relentlessly with verbal racist slurs posted on your social media accounts. If you were to respond by throwing out some racist slur in return what should we make of you? Seems to me that we should take account of the circumstances and cut you slack. So, I am saying that if a white person in similar circumstances reacted in a similar way we would not be so quick to say they harbored bigoted opinions about minorities. Indeed, had you been subjected to months or years of racial harassment I think we would be more tolerant of even some random emotional outburst misdirected at someone who was entirely innocent.

As a matter of fact you have often reported feeling routinely harassed by liberals who you think are continually and inappropriately implying that you are racist. You have told us on many occasions that you are so sick of the allegation that you routinely respond by telling such folks off in very crude language. Indeed, in my experience you are so sensitized that you often rudely tell off people whom you mistakenly think are accusing you. Should we infer that you are simply a hostile person inclined to abuse people with rude language or should we try to take account of the history and be more understanding? I say we should be more understanding of you. That is the same approach that Rock recommends you and others take with respect to Jeung.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Liberals have a never-ending tolerance for offensive "shock" comedians. Think Samantha Bee, Michele Wolf, Kathy Griffin, Sasha Baron Cohen. And the same applies to offensive liberal leaning celebrities in general. Think Madonna, Johnny Depp, Peter Fonda, Robert DeNiro. But one mistake from Roseanne, and I admit it was a doozy, and her career is over. Have we lost the capacity to forgive, even when someone admits fault and asks for forgiveness?
Surely, even the folks at the New York Times are aware of the double standard. They just dare anyone to raise the issue. Because anyone who would raise the issue is, of course, a racist.

there absolutely is a double standard, and minorities know it and do take advantage of it.

while it's human nature to take advantage of things we can take advantage of, i don't think the "gotcha" liberals speak for even a majority of liberals, but just yell the loudest.

that said, the gotcha liberals are doing liberalism in general and the Dem party in particular no political favors what so ever, and giving ground in the war for individual battle gains.

for all the "Russia Russia Russia" talk, something that hurt the Dems far more imo was all the blacks rioting in the streets last summer and the NFL player protests.

especially in St Louis, blacks weren't rioting in the streets for access to schools or political freedom, they were rioting over someone who behaved like a thug in the store video eventually being treated like a thug. (had it been in Cleveland over the kid in the park with a toy gun that looked more like a mob hit by police, that would have been different).

most swing voters want to stay away from the hood for good reason, as most in the hood would go elsewhere if they had the financial where with all as well.

to most swing voters, it was just the OJ riots all over again.

absent a more compelling reason than they had, blacks rioting in the streets anymore is just seen as blacks rioting in the streets.

as are liberals grossly over reacting to every misspeak doing liberalism no favors.

you think all that rioting and NFL protests didn't cost 70,000 votes over swing states.

at the time i posted here numerous times those riots were going to cost the Dems in the election.

now whether the Ruskies had a hand in instigating said riots i know not, but in the end it's irrelevant.

 

[Thyrsis]

I think back to the incident with Michael Richards (Kramer in Seinfeld) where he was being interrupted at a comedy club and he called someone the n word. His career tanked. If you go look up his TV and Film work, it becomes almost non existent after that 2006 event. Now I think he probably does hold some prejudices about blacks like Ms. Jeong holds about whites, the difference is that we accept her explanation that she was just reacting to heckling and she is allowed to continue her career. He is ostracized and his jobs dry up.

Not so sure that Michael Richards had much of a post-Seinfeld career in any event so I'm not sure I'd agree that the brouhaha ended his career. The comedy club thing happened 8 years after Seinfeld ended and Richards didn't do much at all in those years. Hard to transition from that kind of character.

At any rate, without knowing the facts with any certainty, I think you can arguably put his tirade in context too. Maybe he's a horrible bigot. Or maybe he's not, and instead had great anger, wanted to hurt the audience members who were interrupting him, and used the tools that he thought would be most effective to do so. That's not a defense of Richards, but it goes along with this thread.

Edit: By the way, his TV apology (which looked pretty genuine for what little it's worth) suggests the latter interpretation. But, consistent with his less than ideal or perfect wording in that apology, that latter interpretation obviously isn't a wholly innocent one.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Let's try this thought experiment. Let's suppose some hoards of non-white persons are attacking you relentlessly with verbal racist slurs posted on your social media accounts. If you were to respond by throwing out some racist slur in return what should we make of you? Seems to me that we should take account of the circumstances and cut you slack. So, I am saying that if a white person in similar circumstances reacted in a similar way we would not be so quick to say they harbored bigoted opinions about minorities. Indeed, had you been subjected to months or years of racial harassment I think we would be more tolerant of even some random emotional outburst misdirected at someone who was entirely innocent.

As a matter of fact you have often reported feeling routinely harassed by liberals who you think are continually and inappropriately implying that you are racist. You have told us on many occasions that you are so sick of the allegation that you routinely respond by telling such folks off in very crude language. Indeed, in my experience you are so sensitized that you often rudely tell off people whom you mistakenly think are accusing you. Should we infer that you are simply a hostile person inclined to abuse people with rude language or should we try to take account of the history and be more understanding? I say we should be more understanding of you. That is the same approach that Rock recommends you and others take with respect to Jeung.

We should pin this thread and see how "forgiving" y'all are the next time a white person does something this stupid and offensive.