The last word on the racism, misandry, and police-hating from Sarah Jeong

Well, the New York Times is standing by its hiring of Sarah Jeong as its head tech writer. Jeong’s repugnant character was revealed in a bunch of anti-white tweets—tweets ardently defended by Leftists (see also here) who pretended that they weren’t racist because, of course, privileged Asian women, even if they went to Harvard, can’t be racists no matter what bigotry they display. After all, their skin isn’t white.

This is a sad chapter in the history of American Leftism, and I feel that this is some kind of turning point. Either it will create a sea change in the Left by showing how ridiculous they look when holding double standards on racism, or it will become one more piton in mainstream media’s climb to full-blown identity politics. I hope it’s the former, but, given the Control-Leftward movement of progressive mainstream media like the Times, I think it’s the latter.

The defense of Jeong by Mushbrain Leftists has taken two forms: either she was responding in kind to trolls (no evidence for this has yet been presented), or she was merely making jokes and we don’t understand her humor. Both are pathetic excuses. There’s also the excuse proffered by Zack Beauchamp, a senior reporter for Vox, whose conflation of racism with “the expressive way anti-racists and minorities talk about ‘white people'” must be some kind of nadir in the modern history of left-wing doublespeak.

And none of these excuses hold water in light of the continuing revelations of Jeong’s bigotry and hatred, which now encompass not just white people, but the police, men, and Rolling Stone magazine for retracting its University of Virginia rape story about “Jackie” at the University of Virginia. You may remember that a student, Jackie Coakley, made up a tale that she was raped by fraternity members at a U. Va. party as part of their initiation ritual. The story, written by Sabrina Erdely, got front-page coverage in Rolling Stone, but the magazine could not verify the facts (other journalists and bloggers, particularly the Columbia University Journalism Review, called attention to the story’s problems). It turns out that Coakley made up the story. Rolling Stone issued a retraction, the police dropped the investigation, U. Va. apologized, and Erdely was found guilty in a defamation suit and ordered to cough up $2 million.

But Jeong didn’t like the retraction, and continued to insist that Coakley was raped, managing to get in a few more licks at white people along the way. Here are some of her tweets about that. Note that December 5, 2014, was the day Rolling Stone issued its retraction.

Note that Jeong was hired by the NYT as a journalist, but here she’s denying a journalistic investigation by Columbia and a journalistic retraction by Rolling Stone (as well as the U. Va. admission that the story was wrong) to buttress her own preconceptions, and once again demonize white people.

This cannot be satire, not does it appear to be countertrolling or “the expressive way minorities talk about racism”. This is just plain social justice pig-headedness in the face of the facts, mixed with toxic racism. Did the Times not know this? Isn’t it their responsibility to vet their reporters’ social media profiles before hiring them?

I’m somewhat amused by Matt Galanty’s take on Jeong’s heel-digging:

Here’s Jeong’s take on the police, with one including a gif that showed a cop being attacked by cartoon characters. Note that she says “cops are assholes”, “cops suck”, and shows her joyful hatred by imagining a cop killed by a rock or a molotov cocktail. She also broaches the idea of banning the police. Jokes? I don’t think so.

There are also plenty of sexist tweets against men, but you can find them yourselves by using Google. I’ll pass on to the following article in Areo by Iona Italia (click on screenshot) which is definitely worth a read. While Italia, like I, defends Jeong’s right to tweet what she wants and the Times‘s right to hire whom they want, she examines the reasons why the Left continues to defend Jeong:

I’ll examine two of the most common arguments presented by those who maintain that Jeong’s tweets were not racist. First, that racism towards white people is justified because of the historical and structural inequalities which have benefited white people in America and allowed them to oppress people of color. And, secondly, that this kind of speech cannot be considered racism, because its intent is simply to signal allegiance to the cause of social justice, and that “jokes” about white people are just an intrinsic part of the rhetoric of those who want to help bring about racial equality.

This is a measured but forceful piece. Italia notes that anti-white racism is in fact far less damaging than racism against minorities. But she still decries the former:

So why am I talking about racism against whites? For two reasons.

First, it is the one sticking point when I try to convince people that racism is wrong and that we must treat people as individuals and judge them, not by their skin color, but on a case-by-case basis. When I decry racism towards other groups, fellow leftists and liberals agree with me. If I tell them racism against whites is wrong, they demur. If there were a consensus that sentiments like Sarah Jeong’s are racist, I wouldn’t have written this article. I don’t consider the tweets, in themselves, of much importance. What worries me is how strongly people are defending this flavor of bigotry.

Secondly, the attempts to justify statements like Jeong’s as an exception to the general rule about racism, and to sneakily suggest that it’s OK in this case are damaging, for both strategic and moral reasons. If we want to combat racism, the only way to convince people to join us is to be clear, consistent, and honest. Blatant double standards will only alienate anyone who has a sense of fairness. But it’s OK when we do it simply won’t wash. And, more importantly, we will have abandoned one of our key principles: that every human being is of equal worth, no matter what the color of her skin. If the left’s slogan ever becomes We Hate White People, or It’s OK to be Racist Against Some People most white people will vote against the left or abstain from voting altogether. And so will I.

She goes on to debunk the redefinition of racism as “power plus prejudice.” As for the excuses that Jeong was just signaling membership in the social-justice Left and that statements like “Cancel white people” were just a joke, Italia says this:

A statement that someone sincerely racist would have been just as likely to make in exactly the same tone, manner and context is probably not a joke (jokes rely on comic hyperbole, irony, and incongruity). If you simply make repeated statements like “white people are scum,” you can reasonably expect people to take you at your word, just as you can if you assert that “Jews control the media.” Trying to wriggle out of responsibility afterwards by claiming you were actually joking is disingenuous and unpersuasive. This kind of trolling also muddies the issues, debases political discourse, and makes the left appear untrustworthy.

Excusing racist jokes when their butt is white people is not acceptable for the reasons Italia gives in the paragraph right after the screenshot.

She finally calls for a humanistic anti-racism that calls out all forms of bigotry:

I often hear that people who object to this kind of rhetoric are just “triggered white people” who have had their “feelings hurt.” This is the left-wing mirror image of the right’s tendency to say outrageous things simply to “trigger the libs.” It’s facile attention seeking and it’s a bogus rebuke anyway. People’s feelings are often hurt if you tell them you hate all their kind. That’s normal. Making racist statements in order simply to hurt people’s feelings is not something to be proud of: it’s the act of a bully. This argument is also a gross oversimplification. Many of those spouting anti-white rhetoric are white people themselves and many of those annoyed, frustrated, or offended by it are people of color. Anyone with integrity opposes racism—no matter whom that racism is directed against.

For the record, I am mixed race. [Italia is part white, part Parsi] I don’t fit into a neat white versus non-white dichotomy. I won’t join in with performative racism of any kind. I won’t endorse trolling. I won’t provide cover for bullies or spout racist slogans about any group. I will continue to speak out, loud and clear, in favor of a universal liberal humanist approach, in which a person’s worth is not determined by their skin color. I know I’m not alone in this. Join us.

Finally, in a demonstration of the hypocrisy of both the Left and Facebook, here’s a story (yes, it’s from Breitbart, but let’s not kill the messenger) of how twitter suspended an account of Candace Owens that simply took Jeong’s tweets and substituted the words “Jewish people” for “white people”. (They later restored Owens’s account.) The question remains, why, for Twitter and much of the Left, is it hate speech to demonize Jews but not white people? After all, Jeong’s account was never suspended, and as far as I know her tweets remain. Here’s an example of  Owens’s parody tweets and Twitter’s suspension of her account. Note that in the tweet she announces it’s a parody of Jeong’s tweets!



h/t: divalent, cesar, grania


  1. Posted August 7, 2018 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Of course, the ironic thing is that Asians really are discriminated against in America as we know from the recent revelations about Harvard admissions processes.

    And Asians are discriminated against basically because people have been told to favour other groups rather than them, and are only following orders.

  2. Ken Kukec
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    (other journalists and bloggers, particularly the Columbia University Journalism Review, called attention to the story’s problems)

    Because good journalism, like good science, is self-correcting.

    Much as the religious, the wingnuts, and the religious-wingnuts take glee in pointing out errors in both, it’s never they who correct them.

  3. Posted August 7, 2018 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    This is a good way to re-elect our current President.

  4. ploubere
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    Excellent article by Italia. I have been troubled by the Jeong affair, and she has cogently summarized the problems. My conclusion is that Jeong has no place in a respectable newsroom, and it’s disappointing that the NY Times didn’t see that.

  5. Randy Bessinger
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    I agree with Sam Harris. If identity politics and Socialist candidates become Democrats main focus, they are doomed.

    • Historian
      Posted August 7, 2018 at 10:17 am | Permalink

      In many cases polling suggests, the programs offered by self-proclaimed socialists such as Bernie Sanders are more popular than Republican ones. My suggestion is that Democrats should offer these programs that are popular with Americans, but just drop the word socialist. In terms of support for many programs, most Americans are “socialists” without even knowing it. The Republican attempt to defeat popular social programs goes back at least to FDR and the New Deal and then to LBJ’s Great Society. These efforts were largely unsuccessful and that can be the case now if the Democrats play their cards wisely.

      This article explains:

      • Randy Bessinger
        Posted August 7, 2018 at 10:36 am | Permalink

        I agree they are popular but most Americans do not want to pay for them. That is why Democrats pegged as tax and spend was so effective for Republicans for so many years. Of course Republicans are worse. They are nontax and spend.

        • Harrison
          Posted August 7, 2018 at 11:34 am | Permalink

          Republicans are having the same problem with “socialist” as regressives are have by with “misogynist” and other terms. After years of broadening the definition to cover anything and everything the word is close to meaningless. If everything is socialism, people just decide “well I guess that makes me a socialist then.”

      • Posted August 7, 2018 at 10:47 am | Permalink

        Bernie Sanders is smart. He realized that “socialist” would be wielded by his opponents against him so he owned it and effectively neutered it. He also stays away from identity politics. Sure, he’s for gay rights and womens’ rights but he defends them without using SJW language.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted August 7, 2018 at 10:58 am | Permalink

        I’m certainly no socialist myself, but I’d happily make common cause with someone who so labels themself against the nativist, white-nationalist know-nothings who’ve hijacked today’s Republican Party. It’s high time this nation got over its Red-Scare hangover fear of the scarlet “S” (especially since we’ve been living in a mixed capitalist/socialist economy ever since the New Deal).

        If it came down to it, I’d plant my flag alongside theirs and fight to the death on the hill of single-payer.

        • Randall Schenck
          Posted August 7, 2018 at 11:57 am | Permalink

          Believe single payer is the only answer for medical care. If in the end, we had to hire a private firm to properly manage the system, so be it. What we have now is pure garbage. We also have no idea how many people in the U.S. die each year because of our current system. We are enriching private insurance companies to maintain the most expensive medical system in the world and it sucks. If I needed to pay two or three times what I currently pay for medicare it would still be cheap. You must be 65 in the U.S. to afford good medical care. I am not saying you do not need a supplement either. However, if we truly went to single payer we would not need supplemental coverage.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted August 7, 2018 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

            I sure don’t see any of the other industrialized western democracies clamoring to abandon their public-health systems and to adopt the American model.

          • Randy Bessinger
            Posted August 7, 2018 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

            I agree. However, it will take thoughtful candidates but even more important thoughtful voters to ever get there.

            • AC Harper
              Posted August 8, 2018 at 2:47 am | Permalink

              But unfortunately they will be up against the Military-Medical Complex….

        • darrelle
          Posted August 7, 2018 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

          “It’s high time this nation got over its Red-Scare hangover fear of the scarlet “S”.

          It seems as if Trump’s loyal troops have gotten over their Red Scare. Pretty amazing given that many of them are of one of the same demographics that were traditionally very Scared of the Red back in the day.

          • Diane G
            Posted August 7, 2018 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

            It’s almost as if they’d prefer that the next cold war be against the EU…

        • Angel
          Posted August 7, 2018 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

          I agree in general terms, but you should exclude de hard left. History shows, i.e. the bolshevicks, Castro, etc., that they tend to co-op and once in power the Left uses the “people’s batton” on the people they claim represents.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted August 7, 2018 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

            Sure, but do you see anybody currently holding, or in the serious running for, national political office in the US that approaches that description? I don’t.

            Not Bernie, not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, not anybody.

    • eric
      Posted August 7, 2018 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

      Maybe. Though if the tea party’s short history is anything to go on, the ctrl-left will have a good election cycle or two, then start costing the Dems seats as they continue to win primaries but lose generals, and then the mainstream will reassert itself.

      I also put some stock in generational trends and changes. I expect the outrage movement to, like hippies and yuppies, age itself out of existence as it’s young activists age and find other interests, and the young folk who come after them choose to define themselves differently.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted August 7, 2018 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

        Are there any candidates running for congress in the midterms this Fall that meet the criteria for “control left” as that term is generally used here?

        • Angel
          Posted August 8, 2018 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

          No, but still you don’t want to be the new Kerensky, do you? Read the Bernstein vs Marx discussion , or the events of the Spanish Civil War, and hopefully would see the inherent behaviour of the far left. No compromise from my part, not one whatsoever.

  6. Randall Schenck
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    It is surprising enough that we have this type of thinking and acting in large numbers but even worse that a so-called main newspaper would hire such a person in journalism. It may be the death of many things but certainly the death of any meaningful journalism. If the Times continues to go this direction they may be closing to doors sooner, rather than later. It is just what the far right would like to see.

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted August 7, 2018 at 10:11 am | Permalink

      the not to…

  7. Historian
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    The NYT made a profound error in hiring Jeong. It has painted itself into a corner that it cannot get out. To fire Jeong now would alienate much of the Left, something it doesn’t want to do. I suspect it hopes that the furor will shortly die down and be forgotten.

    Some have commented that this incident and similar ones may turn some people to support Trump and/or the Republicans. Whether this will be the case is much too early to tell. Polling data should eventually tell the story. My guess (and it is only that) is that these stories will have minimal political effect. So far, the “blue wave” is still churning forward. Those who would turn red because of these incidents seem to this point, at least, insignificant in political terms.

  8. Ken Kukec
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    Per my armchair-shrink diagnosis, Sarah Jeong seems like a flaming attention junkie. Live by the outrageous tweet, die by the outrageous tweet, I always say. Whatever her ultimate fate with NYT, I doubt she’ll ever be fully accepted in the world of responsible journalism.

    • dd
      Posted August 7, 2018 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

      The husband of friend’s sister decided to help out a charity drive.

      That fund raising drive was being conducted by a gay bar and the fund raiser consisted of guy’s participating in an S&M “slave” auction.

      My distraught friend and her sister rationalized it by saying to themselves that “Dave likes to get attention”.

      Their friends, including myself, reminded them that there are many ways to get attention and the particular her sister’s husband had gone about it was of note.

      As is the way Mr. Jeong has decided to quench her “attention junkie” status.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted August 7, 2018 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

        Who among us hasn’t participated in an S&M slave auction at a gay bar at one time or another? 🙂

        • Diane G
          Posted August 7, 2018 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

          Someone, please post that laughing-so-hard-I’m-crying emoji here…!

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted August 7, 2018 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

            You know me, Deej, anything for a good cause. 🙂

        • Pw
          Posted August 7, 2018 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

          🤣🤣🤣 At least I got a good laugh out of this otherwise depressing story.

  9. Scorch
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    Bleh, I hate it when stupid trolls like that odious Owens woman have a point. She’s the worst kind of alt-right troll but in this case the truth is on her side. Dreadful.

    • Rod Wilson
      Posted August 7, 2018 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

      I agree. This is a trend I’ve noticed that is causing me ever increasing anxiety. There have been a few cases where the most reasonable person concerning an issue has been Ann Coulter or Tucker Carlson. Its as if the left is consciously trying to balance out the stupidity from the right.

    • Posted August 7, 2018 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

      Just take the message and forget about the messenger.

      • Angel
        Posted August 7, 2018 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

        I don’t agree with that position, it matters where the information is coming, as for example, both Carlson and Coulter for sure have a hiden agenda; my opinion.

        Also, I think there is clearly a class/power/etc ventage for the majority, but not all, of whites in USA. Some might not acknowledge that, but others do, and try to make this country a better place. However, making a general statement, as she did, cross the line to full racism. But also, denying the white privileges, also amount to racism or class warfare.,

        • Posted August 7, 2018 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

          Sometimes it matters where the message comes from. Sometimes the message speaks for itself, no matter who relays it. 2 plus 2 still equals four, even if Alex Jones is the one telling you so.

          • Angel
            Posted August 8, 2018 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

            Wel, I disagree. First, Jones probably would claim thar 2+2=4 is a math conspiracy from the time of Summeria. Second, if you start to lock for information in Fox or ithers, then you just initiate the March to the right.

            • Posted August 8, 2018 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

              I’ll try again. A correct message is correct no matter who delivers it. My point about Jones was that if he says to you “2 plus 2 equals 4”, you can’t say “no, it can’t equal four, because Alex Jones says it does.”

              None of us are saying we should start trusting InfoWars or Breitbart as good sources in general. But it is possible to distrust them in general yet still appreciate a point they may make, even if they make a good point only once every 15 years.

              • Posted August 8, 2018 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

                If Alex Jones makes a good point, it is purely accidental or incidental. IMHO, the biggest reason to deplatform him is that he seems bent on intentionally misrepresenting the truth and rabble-rousing using conspiracy theories. I’d say the same for Milo Y. They present messages that are on fire. It doesn’t matter if sometimes those messages have a smidgen of truth. Fingers will still get burned.

                I am a big supporter of freedom of speech but, in this digital age, perhaps there needs to be certain acts that are considered legally equivalent to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded auditorium and are punishable as a criminal offense.

  10. Jon Gallant
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    Communicants of the Islamic, Roman Catholic, and Evangelical Protestant superstitions have always claimed inerrancy for every word, comma, and dot in their holy books and in their tracts. Acolytes of the new SJ religion have simply extended this claim to their tweets. The apologists for Jeong’s tweets spout “responding to trolls”, “just joking”, “just the way we talk”, and similar evasions as forms of the familiar religious refusal to ever admit anything is wrong.

  11. Jenny Haniver
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    I would be interested in seeing the precise context her remarks are said to have been wrenched from. There are certain situations where I could find them understandable; say, if she was responding directly to a specific instance where the person made similar blanket statements about Asians and women. I think that could be understandable. However, in this instance, in so far as I can determine, that is not the case.

    Minor correction? I ain’t no grammarian, but I do believe that it should be “like me” and not “like I”; however, wouldn’t “I” be proper if one used “such as” instead of “like”? Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted August 7, 2018 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

      I believe the convention in formal writing is to use the conjunction “as” to link two clauses (even if the verb in the second clause is merely implied). But I think “like me” is a widely accepted colloquial substitute for “as I do” in many circumstances. I agree with you that the “like I” hybrid sounds a bit stilted.

      • Jenny Haniver
        Posted August 7, 2018 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

        In high school English class in Catholic high school, Sr. Lenore was forever (verbally) chastising me for using “like” instead of “as if” – this isn’t quite the same as exchanging “like” for “as” or is it? Though I learned by operant conditioning not to use “like” in the constructions she objected to, I never understood why it was wrong.

      • Kiwi Dave
        Posted August 8, 2018 at 12:33 am | Permalink

        The ‘like me’ usage sometimes seems too informal for writing, mostly as a consequence of indoctrination by dogmatic English teachers, but ‘like’ functions as a preposition here – think ‘similar to me’ – and is thus quite correct. However, as you point out, because of the implied ‘as I do’ and the parallelism with the previous clause, we can be tempted by the subject form of the first person pronoun.

    • eric
      Posted August 7, 2018 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

      The thing that stands out to me here is the sheer volume of them. I’m okay with an occasional joke at my own expense, even if it attacks my color/culture/sex/age/whatever – especially if it’s witty. But reading hundreds of them made over the course of 3-4 years? My response to that is: ‘get a different schtick. You’re not only racist, you’re a poor and tiresome writer.’

  12. jhs
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    Perhaps, I am among the target audience of Jeong’s tweets. Being an older Asian woman, I admit that Jeong’s tweets about white men make me chuckle, though I know they are clearly bad generalizations about white men and not for public consumption.

    I imagine that she would have fought against the comments made by white people everywhere now if she didn’t realize her mistakes and the problems with blanket statements.

    • Mark Sturtevant
      Posted August 7, 2018 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

      I can understand, hypothetically, how a person might make such comments privately to close friends or family in the context of off-color jokes, or to blow off some steam to your besties after getting trolled online.
      But yes, if all those public comments were somehow meant to be a joke and/or blow off steam it was remarkably poor judgement to do so publically, and for so long.

  13. DrBryon
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    If you’re a rape victim, you need an airtight affidavit to be believed . . . .

    Yes, we call that guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. When that standard is adhered to, guily people go to jail, and when it’s not, innocent people do. As Cotton Mather said, “It were better that Ten Suspected Witches should escape, than that one Innocent Person should be Condemned.”

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted August 7, 2018 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, ol’ Cotton was quite the warrior in the cause of social justice, all right.

  14. jhs
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    What are the qualifications to be “privileged Asian women”? I doubt Asian women have greater access to power and resources. They might tell you otherwise.

    (This question is not meant to excuse Jeong’s past behaviors.)

    • Posted August 7, 2018 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

      Asians have higher average income and, I believe, higher educational attainment than whites, the supposedly most privileged group. They also have higher SAT scores and would be overrepresented in universities if there weren’t affirmative action policies that keep the number of Asians down. But I said Jeong was privileged; did you read the article. And she certainly is. Just look at her background on Wikipedia.

      Jeong has plenty of accesses to power and resources, especially now that she’s at the NYT.

      Go back and read how I used the word, please.

      • Paul
        Posted August 8, 2018 at 1:52 am | Permalink

        Yes there are whites with power and Asians too. This putting people into groups based on their skin colour is too crude. There are many, many poor, disadvantaged people of all skin colours. In the uk, as I understand it, white males from poor backgrounds have very limited life chances.

        The whole skin colour as a determiner of of everything is just wrong. It feels like it’s being used as a stick to hit people with and as a way of getting stuff.

      • Posted October 6, 2018 at 8:57 am | Permalink

        Jeong is privileged, but I don’t think Asians as a whole are. As far as I know, they succeed by a stress on education, hard work and close parenting, as cultural traits. “Privilege” implies success due to outside factors.

  15. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    This is orthogonal to the issue at hand. I have been recently appreciating how powerful is the effect of racism when combined with differences in power.
    Consider first how racism against black and hispanic people has effected those populations in this country. With black people in particular, and hispanics not far behind, there are generations of lower income, less education, and more incarceration. With white-on black/hispanic racism, combined with the power structure that exists, the effects have been devastating to those groups as a whole.

    Now consider the effects of black-on-white or hispanic-on-white racism. What effects, you ask? That is my point exactly.

    Racism is found everywhere, between every race. But when combined with significant differences in power, the effects are very toxic.

  16. Luke
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    I’d also just like to draw your readers attention to this article in sighlighting the professionalism and ethical behaviour of Ms. Jeong. The judgement of late of the nytimes beggars belief.

    • Posted August 7, 2018 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

      It looks like the NYT has landed a winner! /s

  17. Brian Jung
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    I’m not about to defend Sarah Jeong, and I think you do a service pointing out that her problems go beyond some ugly tweets.

    However, I think the Candace Owens example at the end of the post perfectly illustrates the importance of racial and historical context in these matters.

    The original post is not nice to white people, it’s true, but changing “white” to “Jewish” is more than a mere arbitrary exercise.

    White people burning in the sun suggests a lack of melatonin. Jewish people burning recalls the Holocaust.

    Likewise #cancelWhitePeople, to me at least, suggests exasperation with the current hegemonic culture while #cancelJewishPeople suggests genocide.

    Not the same thing at all.

    • Posted August 7, 2018 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

      How about #punchAWhitePerson and #punchAJew?

      Any action, or insult, or animus is inevitably directed at a *person*. It’s just as bad to punch Jerry for being white or atheist or over 50 as for being a Jew.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted August 7, 2018 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

      That is a very good point. Circumstances are important and often there are specific memes attached to a particular group. Change the context, change the meaning.

      If I said “I have a solution for the Irish problem” a listener would say “Let’s hear it”. If I said “I have a solution for the Jewish problem” – uh-oh.

      Or if I made a joke about watermelons it would have a very different shade of meaning if black people were in the audience.


  18. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    The best of the posts about Jeong.

    Re: “redefinition of racism as “power plus prejudice.””

    As I have posted here before “power plus prejudice” equals oppression. Prejudice alone constitutes racism. Redefinition of words is always a red flag.

    Now we can listen anew to the BeeGees sing “We can try to understand the New York Times effect on man”

  19. Ken Kukec
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    Not sure I agree 100% with Matthew Galanty there on his “Kafka theory” police work.

    To paraphrase the great Margie Gunderson.

  20. Posted August 7, 2018 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    I agree it feels like a turning point.

    When Hillary made her basket of deplorables speech I told my foreign friends that for the first time I thought Trump might win. It was a turning point because it was the moment when the Democrats decided to own the sneer, to become openly a party of contempt. This feels similar. To Jeong and her supporters consistency, fairness, and as we saw with the Duke thing, even evidence all now take a back seat to being free to sneer and contemn.

  21. Graham
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    “It was only a joke. What’s wrong with you, can’t you take a joke?” The classic riposte of the schoolyard bully for as long as there have been schoolyards.

  22. Posted August 7, 2018 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    Italia’s article is spot on.

  23. eric
    Posted August 7, 2018 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    I was unaware of the UVA incident. Amazing; an author can fabricate a student, create a fake story about them, reveal it to be a fake, and SJWs are still defending the ‘victim.’ This is truly the left’s version of Trump or InfoWars.

    • Taz
      Posted August 7, 2018 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

      I believe the student was real – she existed and did file a rape complaint at the university. It’s widely accepted now that she fabricated the incident.

%d bloggers like this: