I'm sure that you see it all as clueless nonsense (Among other things, this illustrates another example of the severely impaired vision that you posses) but I am equally sure that everybody will not see it as clueless nonsense - like you do.
Ceeboo wrote: I'm sure that you see it all as clueless nonsense (Among other things, this illustrates another example of the severely impaired vision that you posses) but I am equally sure that everybody will not see it as clueless nonsense - like you do.
I never once said there weren't plenty of people just as clueless as you are. The bigots on the board are sure to cheer you on.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Her are a few quotes by NY Times writer Sarah Jeong:....
ceeboo, what is the source of the 3 quotes you gave? Were they from pieces that were published in the NY Times? It sounds like you are arguing that the comments were condoned by the Times, is that correct?
The paper said it had “candid conversations” with Jeong during the interview process that included a “thorough vetting” and review of her social media history. The Times said it is “confident that she will be an important voice for the editorial board moving forward.”
So do you agree that Jeong will be an important voice for the editorial board moving forward?
Jeong: "I open my mouth to politely greet a Republican, but nothing but an unending cascade of vomit flows from my face."
Jeong: "Cancel white people."
I don't!
Last edited by Guest on Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
what do you think about these? Do you think they are bigoted and intolerant? And what is your opinion about the Ne York times' decision to stand by Sarah?
it sounded to me like you thought the Times condoned it.
Since you were quoting the Times, this is relevant also:
In its statement on Twitter, the Times said Jeong's "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. 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."
what do you think about these? Do you think they are bigoted and intolerant? And what is your opinion about the Ne York times' decision to stand by Sarah?
it sounded to me like you thought the Times condoned it.
No, I never said the Times condoned it. I said that they are standing by her (Her job is safe and she was not terminated)
Since you were quoting the Times, this is relevant also:
In its statement on Twitter, the Times said Jeong's "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. 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."
I am more than happy to give you the room for you to defend the comments - My personal opinion is that there is no defense for expressing such utter hate, bigotry and racism. Period.
what do you think about these? Do you think they are bigoted and intolerant? And what is your opinion about the Ne York times' decision to stand by Sarah?
it sounded to me like you thought the Times condoned it.
Since you were quoting the Times, this is relevant also:
In its statement on Twitter, the Times said Jeong's "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. 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."
Contextualizing this, she was a tech journalist at the time of Gamergate when misogynistic behavior targeted at women in tech and tech related journalism was reaching new levels of disgusting behavior and crossing boundaries into very real and dangerous threats against women tech journalists. And, keep in mind, it was just after this time that Breitbart made Milo Yiannolopoulos a senior editor with the explicit intent that his online outrage generating behavior was what made him the right candidate for the job.
It's not realistic to say that legitimate journalistic outlets like the NYT are on par with Breitbart, but even as a pseudo-news outlet Breitbart represents what the nihilistic aspects of American conservativism are willing to not just tolerate but actively feed.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Ceeboo wrote: My personal opinion is that there is no defense for expressing such utter hate, bigotry and racism. Period.
Soooo...does this also extend to the times when Rush called a woman a slut who was seeking to defend access to birth control? Or when he claimed Obama wasn't black but "Halfrican American"? When he constantly talked as if Obama's aim was to enact socialism as a form of reparations to steal from hard working white people and give it to black people? It's cool that he told a black woman who disagreed with him on air to take the bone out of her nose?
Or when Hannity explicitly repeated that Obama was raised Muslim, attended a Muslim school and had a Muslim background? Or supported the entire birth certificate outrage even after it was produced?
Are you sure that is your standard, ceebs?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa