MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The New York Times Shouldn't Fire Sarah Jeong for Racist Tweets About White People

Call out hypocrisy, but don't join the lynch mob.

JeongScreenshot via YoutubeAnother day, another attempt to get somebody fired over offensive tweets. This time the target is Sarah Jeong, a journalist who recently joined the editorial board of The New York Times.

Jeong, an expert on tech policy and internet culture, is the author of The Internet of Garbage, a book about online harassment. Yet Jeong, who was born in South Korea, has a habit of tweeting disparaging things about white people. "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants," she wrote in November 2014. "#CancelWhitePeople," she hashtagged around the same time. "It's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men," she tweeted a couple months earlier.

I strenuously objected to Disney's firing of Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn over his offensive tweets about pedophilia. Gunn was obviously joking; he was trying to provoke or amuse, not communicating something he actually believed. Similarly, Jeong claims her statements were satire. She was responding to harassing tweets she had received by mimicking their tone and structure and substituting "white people" for whatever slur the trolls had directed at her. This was not an especially wise course of action, and it's one she regrets.

The New York Times addressed the controversy in a statement on Thursday:

That ought to be enough. A culture in which people are allowed to seek forgiveness, grow, and go on with their lives without losing their jobs is vastly preferable to one in which armies of trolls are constantly hunting for that one career-ending tweet, statement, or association.

One wonders, however, why Jeong is allowed to come out of this unscathed when the same dispensation was not granted to Quinn Norton, who was asked to join the New York Times editorial board as a tech specialist last February and fired immediately after her ill-advised tweets were publicized. Norton had used an anti-black slur and an anti-gay slur (she claimed she belongs to the LGBT community, so this was in-group usage), and she was friends with the alt-right hacker weev (she claimed she did not share his pro-Nazi views and hoped she could persuade him to abandon them). When these facts came to light, The New York Times and Norton went their separate ways.

Part of the problem here is that people with a special expertise in technology policy are likely to have spent a lot of time on social media, and the more time one spends on social media, the greater the opportunity to say something career-ending. Again, I don't think anyone is solely defined by their worst moment or stupidest opinion, and both Jeong and Norton probably have much of value to contribute. The same goes for Kevin Williamson (speedily dumped by The Atlantic for some offensive comments about women who have abortions) and Ben Shapiro (rejected as a plausible candidate for "reasonable conservative that liberals should pay attention to," in part because of some gross and juvenile statements he made, some of which he has renounced).

I'm tempted to think there's a pretty fundamental reason that Jeong weathered the storm, while Norton and Williamson drowned at sea. Norton and Williamson committed thought crimes against intersectional progressivism. But "white people" are not an exploited category, according to the kind of thinking popular on college campuses these days, and many leftists therefore do not think it is wrong to malign them. Calling out this hypocrisy is a worthwhile exercise; supporting the lynch mob against Jeong is not.

One could certainly make the argument that woke anti-whiteness is an important strand of leftist thought that deserves representation at The New York Times. Bad opinions, after all, should be grappled with and argued against. Unfortunately, Jeong's job at the Times will consist of researching and writing the paper's unsigned editorials. That means we won't see her byline, and it will be harder to directly contend with the views she holds. Instead, they will be subtly influencing the paper in ways that are difficult to parse. But that's an argument for getting rid of unsigned editorials, not an argument for getting rid of Jeong.

Photo Credit: Screenshot via XOXO Festival / Youtube

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • AustinRoth||

    Because the Left always gets a free pass? Hating Whitey is what we SHOULD do?

  • Cathy L||

    You have some stellar reading comprehension skills. I bet you had a great SAT verbal score.

  • AustinRoth||

    780. What was yours?

  • Cathy L||

    Higher than that. Yes, really.

  • TLBD||

    Pro-tip: No one cares.

  • Cathy L||

    Pro-tip: I'm not the one who gave my score. Or dramatically misinterpreted the post.

  • TuIpa||

    awwww now you're upset.

  • Fancylad||

    I got 100,000 on my SAT's Cathy.

    And yes, Canadian SAT's go that high, but we call them Federal Unified Canadian Keenness and Organizational Fact Finding exams.
    Am I almost as smart as you?

  • WoodChipperBob||

    Pro-tip: Yes, Cathy, actually, you did give your SAT score (within a range of 19, which is the same as giving your score). And since you mentioned AustinRoth's verbal score first, it seems like just maybe you were fishing so you could brag. So let me reiterate TLBD's:
    Pro-tip: No one cares.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    ^ This.

  • Quixote||

    Ah, but some of us do care. If she adheres, as she must, to our anti-Troll program, surely Cathy will agree that Ms. Jeong should not only be roundly fired, but rapidly arrested and jailed, to prevent any further damage to the reputation of the New York Times itself and to the superior class of citizens represented by the leader of our movement. With only a few minor tweaks of our nation's harassment laws (tweaks that can, if necessary, be retroactively applied by the appellate courts), it would be easy enough to convict this Tweet-scribbler of criminal "satire," in line with the results of America's leading criminal "parody" case. See the documentation at:

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • BYODB||

    lol, fortunately I pegged out the test so it's literally impossible to do better than I did.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    I got higher than that so I'm better than you.

  • Longtobefree||

    I got higher than you, and that is just fine.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    I got high before the test.

  • Trigger Warning||

    I got high during the test.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Cathy knows all about pegging...

  • Libertymike||

    So does Steely Dan.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    It will come back to you.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    So if we should need to look for you, should we now assume you will be in your bunk?

  • BYODB||

    Wait, people leave their bunks?

  • The_Hoser||

    I fell asleep during the math section.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Higher than that.

    It's not graded on an inverted scale.

  • Jimbo||

    Last time I bowled, I got 301.

  • Mr. Dyslexic||

    Next you'll be telling us you're a card carrying member of MENSA.

    Also, heed the pro-tip from TLBD below.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Mensa wouldn't let me in because I got a perfect score on their test and they couldn't figure out what to do with an IQ over 300.

  • NashTiger||

    Wake me up when you have achieved singularity with all the databases on the internet, dumbass

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Pssh, I did that last year then quit that shit because it was as making me dumber. Have you read the Internet?

  • John||

    Sparky, that was the SAT you took. And 300 was not a perfect score. I don't care what your mom told you.

  • VOTE MILES||

    I remember Cathy arguing with a troll about which of them was more proficient at French. Some people look for validation wherever they can.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Who takes the SAT anymore?

    Its a tool of the racist white male.

  • Uncle Jay||

    You forgot homophobic and xenophobic white male.
    Report to your local gulag for more political re-education.
    You obviously need it.

  • Matthew Chalice||

    In what world do libertarians give a damn about standardized testing scores?

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    Somebody didn't read the article. If someone had, they'd see where Robby pointed out that it was bullshit for righties to get fired for similar tweets and that the most likely explanation for why Jeong still has a job is because she's a Prog.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Let's be honest, most of us don't actually read the article. Especially when it's Robby, Shika, or Shackford.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    What's with the Shackford hate?

  • Blindwebser||

    Robby should have done more research before he wrote an article.

    This is the first person who should be fired because her excuse doesn't add up at all... The timing of her tweets, the long history and quantity of her tweets, the blatant racism without any hint of sarcasm in her tweets say she's either actually racist or she's unhinged.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    I'm not sure I can read Robbie any more after this:
    "One could certainly make the argument that woke anti-whiteness is an important strand of leftist thought that deserves representation at The New York Times."
    Would you make the case for a Nazi senior editor there too? Jeong's position is a little more influential than a freelance contributor to an opinion panel.
    The NYT should know better, and should be better.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    It's not like it's racism.

  • Microaggressor||

    They didn't change the definition of racism for nothing!

  • Trigger Warning||

    Robbo is a woke millennial shitstain. Fuck him.

  • ||

    You missed the rest of the paragraph:

    Bad opinions, after all, should be grappled with and argued against. Unfortunately, Jeong's job at the Times will consist of researching and writing the paper's unsigned editorials. That means we won't see her byline, and it will be harder to directly contend with the views she holds. Instead, they will be subtly influencing the paper in ways that are difficult to parse. But that's an argument for getting rid of unsigned editorials, not an argument for getting rid of Jeong.
  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So we admit that racism is now "an important stand of leftist thought that deserves representation?"

    Well it's progress.

  • ||

    So we admit that racism is now "an important stand of leftist thought that deserves representation?"

    I think most people here have thought that for years and don't really regard it as news, no?

    Hence Robby's next line, used by so many here to defend racism when expressed by white people:

    "Bad opinions, after all, should be grappled with and argued against."

    It's almost like there's a whole strand of "libertarians" who only defend racist speech when it's white people engaging in it.

  • Nardz||

    People here generally defend the position that isn't being universally defended. "White" racist speech gets defended because, here and in the media and culture at large, is pretty universally condemned, often with calls for (or acts of) censorship and/or retribution. "Non-white" racism is, conversely, often ignored, excused, and defended, at best mildly criticized, by those same sources. Racism by "whites" is unacceptable - that's agreed on - and the only question is of how to oppose it. Racism against "whites" is acceptable to many and meets far less opposition.

  • ||

    Racism by "whites" is unacceptable - that's agreed on - and the only question is of how to oppose it. Racism against "whites" is acceptable to many and meets far less opposition.

    So one might say defending white racism is "punching up?" Standing up for the little guy?

    The even less-defended position is free speech absolutism.

    I get that it's exasperating that racism is tolerated when non-white people do it. What I was responding to was Marcus Aurelius' selective quotation of Robby to make it look like Robby was endorsing this woman's views, which he wasn't. He was saying literally the same thing he (and many people here) says when he defends white racists' free speech rights.

    Note that he defends the racists' rights, not the racists. For some reason that is a continuous source of outrage for many here. Except with this lady - in this case he's bad because he's not condemning the racist hard enough.

  • DarrenM||

    It's not like the New York Times has anyone particularly proficient in investigative techniques.

  • STSA||

    Yes, Jeong is as racist as David Duke and Louis Farrakhan, so why hire her at all? Jeong is a commie, commies separate the world into classes, races, etc.

    Blacks/Asians = Good
    Whites = Bad

  • Presskh||

    Giant Tiger, the only reason she didn't get fired was because she was name-calling white people, which is OK with the "progressive" left. Had she said the exact same things and replaced the word "white" with "black" or "gay", she would have been fired immediately.

  • VinniUSMC||

    the most likely explanation for why Jeong still has a job is because she's a Prog.

    Funny, that's exactly what AustinRoth said, in his own words. Your reading comprehension skills seem to be even worse that you think his are.

    Because the Left always gets a free pass?

    Too bad people like Miss "I totally am not lying about getting better than 780 on the SAT verbal portion" Cathy don't have reading comprehension skills matching their supposed uber-amazing scores.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Treat her identically to everyone else. Consistency is its own reward. If it's satire, would she be fired if the satire had substituted 'black' or 'brown'?

    This is something you either get fired for, or you don't. As usual, Robby doesn't get it.

  • Crazyotto||

    I don't think the author was saying that. Even so it is certainly true that progressives really are good at hating. Hating men, hating whites, hating Jews, hating Christians and themselves. In fact the white left in particular are keenly adept at self loathing. They lather themselves up in it. So if for some reason Reason starts to agree with this silly notion then we can safely say they no longer represent the Libertarian viewpoint and have decided to "drop trou" for the Koch brothers and Fast wrinkly Georgie Soros. Other than that who cares about some South Korean refugee who hates white people. Her rather stupidly simplistic tweets are more proof positive that many minorities who get into Ivy league schools based on their race/gender are typically not prepared intellectually and are given a free pass on order to move them along. She just is not that bright.

  • SIV||

    Fire the cunt.

  • grrizzly||

    Keep her on the payroll. Trump will tweet about her sooner or later and a few more people will leave the Democrat plantation.

  • Fancylad||

    Pretty much this.
    It's an ideal situation for the Republicans if the NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC are full of loud, overt racists like Jeong. The hatred spewed by Jeong and the hypocrisy demonstrated by the NYT will further diminish the MSM's ability to manufacture or platform issues.

  • Jerryskids||

    I don't know about firing Robby, maybe just a sensitivity training class to teach him that it's NOT OK to defend despicable racists. Especially if the racist is a gook.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    I thought Koreans were slants. Or was it slopes?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Both, you zip.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, these comments should be good.

    And by "good" I mean a dumpster fire.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Well, YOU are commenting. So everyone's IQ just dropped about 15 points just due to your relative proximity.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Yeah, Robby laid a turd and all the blowflies are out.

  • Fancylad||

    I knew you'd be here.

  • MarkLastname||

    Starting with yours.

  • hive of scum||

    This comment is racist against dumpster fires. They have rights too!

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Always a smart idea to import immigrants who hate their new country's culture and inhabitants and then place said immigrants into elite positions of power. What could go wrong?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    hate their new country's culture

    Can you succinctly define what "American culture" is, and how Sarah Jeong supposedly hates it?

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Can you succinctly define what fascism is, and why we should hate it?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Can you succinctly define what "American culture" is, and how Sarah Jeong supposedly hates it?"

    Which specific aspect of it?

    See? I can play your title semantical game too Jeffy. It's the sort of shit employed by idiot college freshmen who think they're being clever when they just embarasss themselves. Which is you. That s what you sound ok,e all the time.

  • Fancylad||

    "succinctly define"
    Wow, look at those goalposts move.
    I'm reasonably sure that no matter how cogent of an example he gives you, you'll say "that's not American Culture", or claim it wasn't "succinct" enough.

  • Flinch||

    I don't think I could arrive at a definition that would fit into the text limits, but here's something that might help frame it. Growing up, I found the NYT a bankable source... of being wrong. At that time I cared about comics and movies [if I wasn't playing ball], so I'll stick to that. Comic strips were always somebody else's work, and papers couldn't screw that up, which left movie reviews. If the NYT raved about it, I found it should be avoided like the plague. If they panned it, odds were good it was going to be fun to see. I often started my search for a weekend movie with this metric in mind and it worked like a swiss watch.
    Being older now, I see their detachment as much broader and have to admit some cleverness in their work, but back to the story at hand. Jeong is stained by her association with the NYT, and few want to touch that if they earn their living by writing.
    The best guidance overall might be something Ken Hamblin was often fond of saying: "The business of America is business". Do we have a pure business culture? Not really, but close enough.

  • NashTiger||

    Why don't you read her tweets, dummy

  • Cathy L||

    Who imported Jeong?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well duh! Free migration of people is called "importation", don't you know?

    When you go shopping at Walmart, those devilish Walmart managers are importing you into their store! How dare they!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    " A complex society is totally like a department store!"

  • Cathy L||

    So, who imported Jeong?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The same folks that exported your brain out of your head.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To be fair, Cathy L's brain just fell out on the way to this forum.

  • General_Tso||

    She's so open minded!

  • Inigo Montoya||

    "To be fair, Cathy L's brain just fell out on the way to this forum."

    Hey be nice, man.

    People wonder why there are so few libertarian women around. Maybe this is why. We are not exactly good at welcoming them to the fold.

  • Nardz||

    Eh, lap83 is cool.
    Cathy's...

  • loveconstitution1789||

    She does not like libertarians or libertarianism.

    Find the women that do.

  • Priscilla King||

    *Which* libertarians?

  • STSA||

    He's asking if that Asian was born in America or immigrated here. If she immigrated, she needs to go home. How would China treat me if I moved there and started complaining about their culture? In China, they put you in prison for less!

  • Paloma||

    And when did "we" place her in a position of power?

  • ||

    Who imported Jeong?

    *playing to Jeong's satire*

    Her parents imported her against her will into a nation of white people that she hates. /playing the foil

    I don't see anything like 'Murder the white oppressor while he sleeps.' in earnest so I really don't care.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Well, you could get the United States of America.

  • lap83||

    Weird how this purging of racist media types coincides with journalism numbers being at record lows. Hmmm

  • Cathy L||

    Everything that's happened in media over the past two decades has coincided with journalism numbers being at record lows.

  • ||

    Weird.

  • lap83||

    Thanks Trump

  • Naaman Brown||

    Don't get it. Did Trump retroactively cause journalism numbers to start to drop two decades ago?

  • AustinRoth||

    Oh, wait. It wasn't "racism racism", so that's ok.

  • Bearded Spock||

    I'm cool with the NYT keeping Ms. Jeong on their payroll, because there is nothing I could do that would damage their credibility more with the average voter.

    This was a massive Own Goal by the Grey Lady, a stunning display of the tone-deaf hypocrisy that is a big reason most Americans don't trust the Media.

    Trump couldn't have asked for an easier issue to demagogue. All that remains now is for him to call attention to the controversy via a tweet and their failure will be complete.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Because the "average voter" is a race-conscious white person?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    No, the average voter is an open border advocate who doesn't actually live near the diversity they fetishize.

  • Just Say'n||

    That does define the NYT editorial board well

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    And most white urbanites generally.

  • Cy||

    White tower liberals... What a bunch of assholes.

  • Jimbo||

    cf: See the story from yesterday on Berkeley denying the permit to build an appt building.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Because the average voter in America, believe it or not, is white and middle-class.

    Tweeting vile racist sentiments about whites might be acceptable or dven desirable to liberal New Yorkers, but to the folks in Flyover Country it's pretty offensive.

    Especially her sadistic comment about the pleasure she gets from being cruel to "old white men", which leads one to wonder what exactly she did to an old white guy that was so fun for her.

    Trump instinctively understands the visceral reaction these statements create in the average voter. Liberals, and that group includes the NYT and apparently chemjeff, do not.

  • TLBD||

    Disdain for hypocrisy is an ingrained human trait.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Because that disdain is only regularly applied when the wrong people do it.

  • Exsqueezeyou||

    Joy Reid says she believes Jeong.

  • Libertymike||

    Do you believe a homo hating negress?

  • Flinch||

    Well, if Joy said it, I guess that settles it: Jeong is right at home at the paper of record for denying the holocaust in real time. Very special breed running their editorial board there... maybe they can turn their NY offices into a lunatic asylum when the paper finally goes belly up.
    As always, I continue to be annoyed at cross labeling the despicable skinhead types parading as the ghosts of national socialists as something right wing - it's our tip that self styled Stalinists are doing the labeling to rally their comrades as they reach for armed conflict. I like to remind people Hitler was never called a right winger until he attacked Russia. Most convenient, It all dovetails with the open sewer that happened in Virginia, where a "former" sychophant and friend to the democrats penetrated and riled up a bunch of lowlifes in a piece of agitprop to serve the purpose of giving BLM and Antifa an excuse to run wild in the streets. "Incite the right" my eye... more like trigger a leftist revolution. Don't ever turn out for one of these orchestrated events on either side: a contest of mean vs. stupid has a guaranteed outcome, and only the severity or length of media coverage is the unknown.

  • MarkLastname||

    Do you ever consider that, now running interference for an unabashed anti-white racist, maybe you're on the wrong side of this issue?

  • Microaggressor||

    Because the "average voter" is a race-conscious white person?

    No. The average voter hasn't adopted the new Marxian definition of racism, and still considers anti-white bigotry just as racist as any other kind.

    Chemjeff, you seem just as tonedeaf as the NYT.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Working on it.

  • STSA||

    Every white person is becoming "race-conscious" after all the hate we're getting for being white. You'd have to be a retard not to see it.

    I for one will not be checking my "privilege" or apologizing for being white. That doesn't make me a white supremacist, it makes me a NORMAL white male.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    But "white people" are not an exploited category,

    Exploiting a previously unexploited people for their lack of exploitation is exploitation, no?

  • Nardz||

    Exploiting a previously unexploited people for their lack of exploitation is exploitation, unless that previously unexploited people is unexploited because they themselves exploited a system that perpetuates the exploitation of traditionally exploited peoples who, prior to their exploitation at the hands of those unexploited people, had been previously unexploited themselves.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    And that, I believe, is the future. Devolving into nonsensical babbling.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Therefore one is judging individuals by a perceived collective stereotype.

    What is that called again?

  • SIV||

    Korea is not sending us their best editorialists.

  • majil||

    Russian plot and Trump is in on it

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    How do we know that it isn't a Trump plot, amd Russia is in on it?

  • JWatts||

    "How do we know that it isn't a Trump plot, amd Russia is in on it?"

    It will be huuugggee!

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    I bet hey BBQ sucks too.

  • TangoDelta||

    Well that's obvious since it isn't actually barbecue now is it?

  • JrJr||

    Yeah and you have to cook everything yourself....whats the joy in that.

  • TommyInIdaho||

    Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
    Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
    Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. And savor the lamentations of their women.

  • BYODB||

    Saul Khan?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Conan Alinsky, dumbass.

  • BYODB||

    I would pay good money to see a show based on this concept, just by the way.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Well Robby's got the hair to play the lead.

  • TangoDelta||

    Any relation to Conan the Destroyer?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "Dumbass fucking black people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants," she wrote in November 2014. "#CancelBlackPeople," she hashtagged around the same time. "It's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old black men," she tweeted a couple months earlier.

    This shit is pretty over the top for someone employed at the NYT-- the snoozepaper of record.

    I'm all about de-escalating the mob for random people and celebrities who lose their job over dodgy comments or off-color remarks. I'm not sure if the remarks above would be considered "off-color". Thoughts?

  • NashTiger||

    Uh, she's not merely "employed by the NYT", like some tech blogger, she's now ON THE EDITORIAL BOARD

    Can you imagine what happens to a publication when the people who run it and decide what it stands for dispense with all semblance of journalistic integrity and join the Woke Olympics? What a shitty read that would turn into, amirite people here commenting at Reason.com?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I agree. This isn't some movie director who made a dark quip about children. As you point out, this is someone on the fucking editorial board making overtly racist comments on Twitter.

    Once again, Twitter proves itself to be the greatest journalistic tool of all time-- allowing readers to know what these fucking retards are really thinking when they're editing a major newspaper.

  • BYODB||

    I honestly don't understand why journalists are even on Twitter anymore, given that it appears to generate hate mobs that consume people on the regular these days.


    I guess it's because none of them think they'll be next, but it's like we're watching a reenactment of the Nazi take over on Twitter. (When they came for my neighbor I said nothing, etc. etc., but when they came for me there was no one left to stand with me.)

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    But I love it when they eat their own. God help me I love it so.

  • Microaggressor||

    Because Twitter is their primary source.

  • ||

    ^^ This guy gets it.

  • The_Hoser||

    James Gunn is a 40-something man who said he came all over his own face after watching teenaged girls sing about touching themselves. He's also pals with a guy convicted of possessing child porn.

    Let's not act like he's some poor mislabelled innocent. He's a fucking creep.

  • Nardz||

    "Can you imagine what happens to a publication when the people who run it and decide what it stands for dispense with all semblance of journalistic integrity and join the Woke Olympics? What a shitty read that would turn into, amirite people here commenting at Reason.com?"

    I see what you did there...

  • Book 'em Dino||

    This is the problem with having writers cover writers. These kinds of "Save the Writer!" articles are as masturbatory as the Academy Awards giving The Artist Best Picture.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Great point!

  • Eddy||

    Meanwhile, in an alternate universe, the New York Times put a white man on their editorial board who back in 2014 tweeted stuff like this:

    "Dumbass fucking black people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants"

    "#CancelBlackPeople,"

    "It's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old black men"

    Defending the new hire, the Times gave the following spin on the guy's tweets:

    "Mr. Blanc had been subject to online harassment because of his journalism and because he was a white male. He responded in kind, which is wrong of course, because it only contributes to the coarsening of our culture. We expect Mr. Blanc to avoid these attitudes in his new position on our editorial board."

  • Microaggressor||

    Marxian class oppression theory to the rescue!

    PoC can do no wrong, and whitey can do no right. It's a moral compass that doesn't require too many brain cells.

  • NashTiger||

    "A culture in which people are allowed to seek forgiveness, grow, and go on with their lives without losing their jobs "

    I totally missed the "seeking forgiveness" part, much less the growing

  • Eddy||

    She probably sought forgiveness for saying such blatant stuff in public.

  • Jerryskids||

    I'm sorry you were offended by my comment.

  • Eddy||

    Well, *I'm* sorry you feel that way.

  • Eddy||

    Just to be clear, it's obvious she'll fit right in at the NYT so maybe she has exactly the right job. I don't see how she'll make the Times any worse.

  • Careless||

    While I haven't called for any other heads based on these twitter issues, this woman deserves to be fired.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    I'd give Robby's audition for the NYTimes a B-.

  • Wanderer||

    Do B- applicants get invited at cocktails ?

  • majil||

    No, they should not fire her for her ramblings .
    I question if they hired her for the tax break they get for hiring the mentally handicapped as I just watched a couple of her speeches and I would call her dumber than a bag of hammers but will not as it would be too much of an insult to the hammers intelligence.
    JFC, she is a coo-coo loo-looo .

  • PeteRR||

    The current rule is you say something like this and you get fired, Barr, Gunn, Williamson. So, she goes. Anything else is a double standard enforced against everybody except for the woke progressive left.

    You want to talk about changing the standard, okay, but first, she goes.

  • Cathy L||

    I thought the whole reason Shapiro & Co went after Gunn was because he was part of the "woke progressive left."

  • Just Say'n||

    Shapiro never went after Gunn. He defended him

  • Just Say'n||

    Cathy just highlighted why this hypocrisy upsets people. People like Shapiro and Peterson do exactly what Robbie advocates, and rightly so, and they still get smeared by progressives and "libertarians" that are indistinguishable from progressives. While progressives get defended even when they behave horribly.

    Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    This is part of why we should be destroying progressives where we find them. They cannot coexist with non-progressives peacefully.

    Sod estroy them before they do the same to us.

  • ||

    They cannot coexist with non-progressives ideology peacefully.

    FIFY

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I don't think progressives make any distinction once they know you're not part of the hive mind.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Why add 'ideology'?

    Ideology is just words. Words aren't attacking people. People are. People who hold progressive ideologies dear.

    Ideologies can be ridiculed to the point at which believing them is idiocy.

    AFTER their murderous adherents are dealt with.

    Nazism didn't become a punchline in The Producers without a lot of Nazi bodies to stand on.

    Progressivism, at once a Nazi antecedent and heir, will not become a joke until there are heads on pikes that don't belong to the right.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Agreed. I would be perfectly happy if the progs would just abandon all of their beliefs and walk away. They won't. So it's probably going to get very ugly before we have them sorted out.

  • The_Hoser||

    If you think Shapiro went after Gunn, I think we can definitely say you did not score 780 or higher on your verbal SAT.

  • Careless||

    This woman deserves to be fired on merit, not a zero-tolerance policy. She's a racist shitbag.

  • Cathy L||

    Yeah this actually seems like by far the worst one of these examples at this point.

  • MarkLastname||

    Worst in what sense? She's far more overt about her bigotry than, say, Rosanne Barr; her 'satire' excuse is clearly nonsense. If anyone should be fired, it's her.

  • Cathy L||

    Uhh...that's exactly what I meant.

  • ||

    Absolutely.

    Notice the NYT in their response basically saying, 'Hey, it was satire! /slap! Don't you read Juvenan?' Also inviting us to 'keep things in context' and 'to look at the nuance!'

    In this case. Others not so much.

  • ||

    Juvenal.

    My typing is getting worse and worse by the day.

  • Jerryskids||

    When I see a type O like that I just assign it was the stupid auto-carrot that picnicked a radium word to replace the one that was miso soup.

  • ||

    Pretty much.

    That's why I'm not 'that guy' when it comes to correcting people on the internet for their grammar.

    I chalk it up to 'brain cramps', 'auto-spell' and the like.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Plus you speak Canadian.

  • ||

    IT WASN'T MY CHOICE!

  • The_Hoser||

    I have no idea what you're on aboot

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Notice how when someone on the right has some sort of excuse why whatever they did had some contextual justification, or was part of some innocent misunderstanding, the left never gives a shit and demands that person be destroyed anyway? Yet when it's one of their own, we're supposed to accept their bullshit excuse without question.

    Fuck these people. If we have the opportunity it's to destroy the life of a progressive, we should take it. They are an existential enemy.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    They should reap the whirlwind. We've tried ignoring their vicious crap for decades, to no good result. Now we're hitting back.

  • Idle Hands||

    the problem is calling out someone's hypocrisy has been painted by the aggrieved as being part of the mob.

  • SIV||

    I see the cucks have conveniently forgotten about Popehat's Rule of Goats.

    Sarah Jeong has to have pulled the record goat-train among here colleagues at the NYTs

  • Don't Give Reason $$$||

    Registered an account just to post this comment. I liked Reason but I won't renew my subscription after this.

    There is definitely a problem of people losing their jobs/careers over gaffs. This is not another Roseanne. This is a woman who is explicitly racist and detestable toward a group of people with ZERO redeemable qualities. The New York Times won't fire her because they are complacent in and after this incident outright condone anti-white racism. And by not calling out their poor practice Reason is complacent in it too.

  • Cathy L||

    The word you're looking for is "complicit."

  • Don't Give Reason $$$||

    A regrettable mistake. Nevertheless some bad grammar shouldn't diminish the point.

  • Tony||

    Yes it should.

  • Don't Give Reason $$$||

    Attacking someone's grammar is just a way of dodging responsibility to come up with a response.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony and Cathy L attack without actual positions.

    We have Lefties among us, young Padawan.

  • Cathy L||

    I agree with the point of the post.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Attacking someone's grammar is just a way of dodging responsibility to come up with a response."

    Have you not met Tony before?

  • MarkLastname||

    When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the spelling.

    You are a paragon of sciolism, Tony.

  • Cathy L||

    Or you could just, you know, not be a fucking moron even if you're generally right.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The word you're looking for is "relevant."

  • Longtobefree||

    I think complacent works too.

  • ||

    Maybe even better. At the very least, not a 'rein/reign in terror' logic inversion.

  • Blindwebser||

    Yes, it's obvious Sarah Jeong is lying with her explanation. She's been making nasty unprovoked comments for years. The fact that the author here takes her word at face value is sad. Roseanne had a reasonable explanation. Gunn's tweets, while in bad taste, were obviously humor. What Jeong wrote is just nasty.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Well, Robby is an idiot........

  • redfish||

    Yea, well she at least excused herself saying explicitly racist things, and her excuses would never fly if the races in question were different.

    If I was targeted by some small number of black nationalist trolls on Twitter calling me 'cracka' for my white privilege or whatever they believed, then took this seriously enough to write racist tirades against black people, then I excused this by saying it was "counter-trolling" I wouldn't even be taken seriously.

    I probably wouldn't even be taken seriously the author here, Mr. Soave. He talks about not forming a lynch mob and being forgiving, and uses a lot of recent examples of dumb remarks to bolster opinion, but I'm sure there are lines that he would also draw push come to shove, and someone making outright racist tirades against blacks, or other minorities would probably be one of those lines. I'm sure he believes push comes to shove that for certain extreme individuals, its fair if they're fired.

    Who knows Ms. Jeong believes; she claims not to be racist. She also responded to some non-trolls by basically suggesting she couldn't be racist against white people and white people can't have opinions about race. I'm willing to not hold a grudge against her, but on the other hand she did cross some lines other examples did not cross and this goes far beyond typical liberal hypocrisy.

  • John||

    Who knows Ms. Jeong believes; she claims not to be racist. She also responded to some non-trolls by basically suggesting she couldn't be racist against white people and white people can't have opinions about race. I'm willing to not hold a grudge against her, but on the other hand she did cross some lines other examples did not cross and this goes far beyond typical liberal hypocrisy.

    It is more than fair to conclude she hates white people. It is a free country. She can do that. But, the fact that the Times is still willing to defend her and hire her and Soave is willing do support that, tells you that neither the Times nor Soave thing this kind of vicious hatred of white people is a problem. it is really that simple.

  • redfish||

    You can conclude that if you want. Personally, I don't assume either that all nasty alt-right people who say racist things about minorities are all being honest about their beliefs versus just trolling people and trying to get attention.

    Personally, I don't care whether she's racist or not. I agree with you though its more than fair if people see it that way, and the people just want to brush it off are engaging in a bigger problem than hypocrisy. It doesn't matter to them whether Jeong hates white people, because even supposing she did, they'd still cover it up, say she didn't, and make excuses for her.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tell your friends. You dont have to give Reason any money to register and comment.

    I have been on here for around 2 years and have not given Reason a penny. Dont plan to give then a penny until they start acting like they actually appreciate Libertarian ideals and positions.

  • hive of scum||

    I gave Reason a small donation at the time of the Preet Bharara woodchipper fiasco. Since then Reason has mailed me all kinds of guff that I didn't ask for and didn't want, thereby using my donation and probably more in postage costs. Libertarian economics, anyone?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That was reasons great battle and they have squandered much of the goodwill.

  • Jerryskids||

    The New York Times won't fire her because they are complacent in and after this incident outright condone anti-white racism. And by not calling out their poor practice Reason is complacent in it too.

    Does Reason call out The Nation for employing socialists, Stormfront for employing white supremacists, High Times for employing illegal drug enthusiasts? The only reason to criticize the NYT for employing this person is if you believe the NYT is the sort of place that wouldn't normally hire this sort of person, that this sort of person doesn't fit in at the NYT. She's not just an employee, she's on the editorial board. The NYT didn't just hire her, they hired her knowing exactly what sort of person she is and now they're defending the hire. If you didn't know it before, you should know now exactly what sort of place the NYT is. Forget all the bullshit you've heard about the press and journalists being neutral observers fairly and impartially speaking The Truth - that's a big fat lie the press itself thought up and has been cramming down the public's throat for years. It's the sword and the shield these people use to defend themselves while they attack their enemies. The only difference between a journalist and an editorialist at the NYT is that only one of them is honest enough to tell you up front that he's just giving you his opinion.

  • John||

    You are dead on Jerry. This crazy bitch is who the Times is. Not firing her might be the first honest thing they have done in decades.

  • Idle Hands||

    Right on man.

  • Rhywun||

    The fact that she is a _____ _____ _____ [has] made her a subject of frequent online harassment.

    ...and is completely irrelevant. You could fill in the blanks with anything and that would be true of anyone. But of course only certain values of ______ land you a job at the NYT.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I'll give Jeong some credit--Asian immigrants to the US typically don't start bashing their new country until the second or third generation. She's already got a running start!

  • Careless||

    Young South Koreans have gotten bizarrely anti-American in recent decades.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I suspect a lot of it comes from resentment about our military still being stationed there. The older folks who remembered the war didn't really care, but the younger generations don't see the point.

    Plus, protesting seems to be the country's national pastime. I remember seeing some wicked clashes on the news between protestors and police when I was there many years ago.

  • Careless||

    Oh, they do the best protests. It's a sport. As organized and intentionally violent as one of those big old English proto-soccer games

  • Longtobefree||

    Ever track the dates of protests against the school calendar?

  • redfish||

    I don't know that "resentment" is the right word; resentment comes from actual things to be resentful about, not just petty things to complain about and pretend offend you when they really don't, in a form of self-righteous posing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You people weren't born yet when North Korean troops were murdering South Koreans and burning their homes. Young people brush off history and that is just what Socialists are counting on.

    South Korea now looks like a war never happened.

    I dont think US troops should be there anymore but the USA saved South Korea's ass. There literally would be no South Korea with the USA's help.

  • ||

    This is true.

  • ||

    Trevor Noah wasted no time bashing America for its alleged racism.

    Never mind what goes on in his native shithole South Africa which is basically crimes against humanity.

  • Careless||

    But what got Noah in trouble was saying that there are no attractive Australian Aboriginal women

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    They are 0 for the Miss World pageant...

  • Ken Shultz||

    It isn't about the writer. It's about the credibility of the New York Times.

    "Hoisted by their own petard": "The phrase's meaning is literally that the bomb-maker . . . is blown up . . . with his own bomb, and indicates an ironic reversal or poetic justice."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.....own_petard

    All in favor of poetic justice for the New York Times say, "aye".

  • Rhywun||

    The story I'm sensing - true or not - is that she was "imitating" all the folks who harassed her. Well. Let's say that's true. That still doesn't speak well for, as you say, "the credibility of the New York Times". Any normal employer wouldn't hire her after reading that stuff, whether it was all an act or not. The NYT was either impressed by her wokeness or wanted to make everyone think they were. Either way, they must have known this would blow up. Probably welcomed it, in fact.

  • Just Say'n||

    Come on, are we still pretending like the NYT is a worthwhile read

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Who is pretending that? They were finished way back 15 or 20 years ago when they gave a pass to an investigative journalist who admitted he routinely made up quotes and even entire sources because that makes it easier to get articles in under deadline (and also make sure the stories play out like he wanted them to).

    The NYT showed they had not a shred of journalistic integrity left at that point. A publication can be partisan without being a total rag. The NYT is a partisan rag.

  • ||

    The NYT is pure crap. And their comments community even worse. Their ascots are dated and stained.

  • ||

    Does that chick - Down is it? - still write for them and wins awards?

  • ||

    Dowd.

    That's TWO fricken errors in one thread.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I read the movie reviews.

  • Ken Shultz||

    My business section is the WSJ.

    My sports section is the Washington Post. HTTR! Let's go, Caps!

    World news comes from the Financial Times, the Economist, among others.

    I read NYRB, New York Times, and local LA and San Diego papers for culture/stuff to do.

    I read everything with a critical eye. My bullshit detector settings go up to 11 when I'm reading news at the NYT. It's mostly sickening. I generally don't use it for that. I read it for other stuff. I don't give a shit about their opinions, although sometimes . . . something is so bad, it catches my eye. I'll give you an example below:

  • ||

    What was your opinion of FT when Chrystia Freeland was the editor?

    I'm still at a lost as to how she's gotten this far. Every single time I listen to her, she sounds unbelievably banal and ridiculous.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    NYT is good for putting down under a litter box.

  • The_Hoser||

    Ken, I suggest a sub to The Athletic. I love it.

  • Book 'em Dino||

    Private organization hires maybe racist white tech blogger...left explodes with outrage and said private organization withdraws offer fearing loss of woke paying customers.

    Same organization then hires maybe racist Asian tech blogger...right explodes with outrage and said private organization probably thinks this will attract new customers because of how woke they are now.

    Isn't this exactly how free speech, the free press and freedom of association work? The marketplace of ideas has enough room for the people who want her fired for being an on the record hater of white people. Let people demand firings....let them not subscribe...let the NYT decide what to do with their editorial staff, no matter how inconsistent with their purported ideals.

  • John||

    Sure it is. If you still read the Times after this, it can be fairly said that you do not have much of a problem with overt racism against whites.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Anyone who has been reading the NYT regularly for the past 20+ years does not care how skewed their Lefty agenda is.

  • Qsl||

    There use to be a time (some glaringly obvious exceptions excluded) when work life was considered distinct from private life, where you could have differing views than your employer (and even engage in the promotion of those views) and inasmuch as it didn't affect your work performance, it was considered off limits or at least in poor form to make employment dependent on ideological uniformity. There is freedom of association, sure, but there is also minding one's own business. The space afforded to others would be afforded to you in kind. You rent out your labor, not your mind.

    And that mutual respect has been eroded by numerous factors on all sides, and beyond the tit for tat, or pointing out glaring hypocrisy (can anyone point to Jeong calling for someone to get fired for some view they hold); the bigger question is if this is the type of world you want to live in?

  • VinniUSMC||

    That time was before the woke SJW Twitter mob. The cat's out of the bag now.

  • Azathoth!!||

    And that mutual respect has been eroded by numerous factors on all sides

    Stop saying this.

    It isn't 'on all sides'. Ideological conformity is NOT a feature of the right and never has been--the right argues--incessantly--which is why it so often finds itself holding the shitty end of the stick--because it doesn't unify easily enough to get it's points actually across.

    Gramsci used this. It is why Conquest second law exists. BECAUSE the right argues, the left can creep in.

    And they do--and, before long, people are left looking around going 'what's going on with all the writers at Reason?'

    At the absolute best, the right has tremulously 'united' enough to try to use the left's tactics against them.

  • Qsl||

    I applaud the right's new forays into performance art (even utilizing a new medium beyond the musty congressional hearing!), at once with the "stop saying this" while stating ideological conformity isn't a feature.

    And people say Dada is dead.

    Rock on you rebel cereal!

  • Trollificus||

    Yes, she gloated about that poor scientist and Eich, in posts I saw reproduced, and a couple of others I don't recall. (not gonna, you know, actually RESEARCH this shit for this thread) But yeah, the hypocrisy goes all the way down here.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If an employee's public comments negatively affect the business, the business has to terminate the employee. Do Times readers give a shit?

  • Bearded Spock||

    The Times knows its audience, and they know it ain't white conservatives who pay to read their Woke Telling-Truth-To-Power.

    I don't think this episode will hurt them much on the bottom line. But it will help Trump immensely with his 2020 campaign.

  • John||

    The Times knows its audience, and they know it ain't white conservatives who pay to read their Woke Telling-Truth-To-Power.

    Bingo. And their audience is for the most part just like this woman and agree with the things she said. And that fact should be pointed out at every opportunity. She is who Progressives are.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I'll grant you that there may not be a lot of white conservatives paying to read the Times, but I'm sure there are still plenty of whites (for now).

    How many people who are part of a group that is being targeted are okay with it because they don't identify themselves as the "sort of ______" that is raising the ire of those who are bashing the group? For example, if someone is an educated professional who happens to be black fine with anti-black racism because they figure it's not directed at THEM specifically?

    I wonder how many European Jews in the 1930s figured they were safe when the Nazis were bashing all the Jewish bankers and business owners, because they figured, "Hey, I'm not one of those rich/influential Jews, I'm just an average joe and not part of the perceived problem."

    These "woke" NYT whites need to wake up. If ethnic background is the standard by which they will be judged, their public spouting of the the correct sentiments won't save them when it's time for people of their ethnicity to be cleansed.

  • John||

    The Nazis didn't just one day decide to kill all of the Jews and get the rest of the German public to go along with them. It was a long process that started with years of vicious propagandizing about the evils of the Jewish race. The first desensitized people to anti-Semitic hatred. People don't just do things. They first have to feel free to think and say things before they act on them. Leftists like this creature are trying to start the same process in this country.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Times readers tend to have a better sarcasm detector than Reason commenters, apparently.

  • John||

    Yeah, because if she had directed this sarcasm at black people or anyone but white people, Times' readers would be totally okay with it.

  • Happy Chandler||

    It depends on how it was done. Blazing Saddles made lots of statements about black people, but it was obviously anti-racist satire. All in the Family was the same.

    Roseanne was not.

  • John||

    Blazing Saddles showed white people saying racist and stupid things about black people. It was making fun of white people. There was nothing insulting about it towards black people. In this case, the woman directly said white people smell like dogs and she can't wait for the day they all die and a lot of other things. She said what she said. She wasn't doing it to make fun or racist Asians. She said it because she if not believed it completely thought the ideas funny and pleasant enough to say. She is a racist. If she is not a racist, then no one is.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Ironic that a Korean lady said white people smell like dogs yet Koreans eat dogs.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Hmmmmm....that irony may clue you into something.

  • Happy Chandler||

    She said it because of the racist shit white people said to her. It was meant to provoke. It was meant to illustrate. It was probably also an outlet of frustration over the abuse she received.

    Smart people understand what she was doing. Willfully ignorant people think she's racist.

    The truth is that you can't get anywhere in this country by being racist against whites. It's really not even a thing.

  • John||

    he said it because of the racist shit white people said to her. It was meant to provoke. It was meant to illustrate. It was probably also an outlet of frustration over the abuse she received.

    She has provided zero proof that that was the case. All of the tweets stand on their own and they are not made in response to any sort of abuse. That is a total post hoc rationalization. And it is one that you would never buy in any other context. You only buy it here because you think her being racist is somehow different and more acceptable.

    The truth is that Progressives loathe white people and think racism against them is acceptable. If you don't like that, do something to change it and stop defending and excusing this woman.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    "She said it because of the racist shit white people said to her."

    There's the problem: only a small percentage of white people are racist and even smaller number said racist shit to her. But she still directed her ire at whites IN GENERAL, not racist whites.

    This is the problem I have with collectivizing entire groups. "Whites" are no more of a homogenized group, all sharing one set of opinions, than are "people over five-foot-seven" or "anyone under age 35."

    It's the kind of thing that drives me crazy, but we hear it all the time and rarely even question it. It's like when you hear someone saying, "Men want women with big boobs and tiny brains." Really? Which men? Do you have a citation? This particular man doesn't, and I'm sure I could find thousands of other men who also don't. Stop lumping all "men" into one group and don't do that to women either, or to any other broad group of humans. Grow up!

    Imagine if she had a been mugged a couple of times in the past by some black criminal and decided that she now has a license to hate on all black people, despite the fact that the vast majority of black people have never mugged anyone. Would that be okay?

  • John||

    Imagine if she had a been mugged a couple of times in the past by some black criminal and decided that she now has a license to hate on all black people, despite the fact that the vast majority of black people have never mugged anyone. Would that be okay?

    No it wouldn't be. And Chandler would excoriate her for that. It is only okay now because racism against whites is excusable according to leftists like him.

  • Happy Chandler||

    But that's the thing. The over-the-top nature, in the context of what this fucking country is, what it has done and continues to do to Asians, especially Asian women, it's clear that it's not meant to hate on all white people.

    Unless you are willfully stupid.

  • John||

    But that's the thing. The over-the-top nature, in the context of what this fucking country is, what it has done and continues to do to Asians, especially Asian women, it's clear that it's not meant to hate on all white people.

    Unless you are willfully stupid.

    WTF? That makes no sense. Moreover, she never said a single word about it not being serious until today. She never once explained the joke or gave any indication that she didn't mean it.

    Moreover, the only people discriminating against Asians in this country are leftists who run the admissions at elite colleges. What the fuck are you even talking about? This bitch immigrated from Korea at 13 and spent her entire life in elite schools and living an upper-middle-class existence. But somehow that makes it okay for her to hate white people?

    You think her believing this is okay. It is who you are. Own it.

  • lap83||

    "The over-the-top nature, in the context of what this fucking country is, what it has done and continues to do to Asians, especially Asian women, it's clear that it's not meant to hate on all white people."

    Translation: it's OK to be a bitter, mean-spirited racist when someone who looks like you has been victimized before. Wow, do the double layers of racism cancel each other out or something?

  • Azathoth!!||

    But that's the thing. The over-the-top nature, in the context of what this fucking country is,

    What-- the country that is, by any objective measure, one of, if not THE least racist country on the planet?

    what it has done and continues to do to Asians, especially Asian women

    Do you mean denying them access to colleges and universities for the purposes of admitting more African-Americans? That is horrible--but I suspect you've no problem with it.

  • lap83||

    Imagine if she had a been mugged a couple of times in the past by some black criminal and decided that she now has a license to hate on all black people

    Bingo, and the NYT sees no problem with her racism because they think it's OK when progressives do it... i.e. equating all white people with slaveowners, klan members, etc.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Chandler, are you this big of an apologist for David Duke too?

  • Nardz||

    Racism is racism - doesn't matter if it's against a "minority" or the majority.
    For that matter, it's still racism even if it's "positive".
    Progressivism classifies people according to the color of their skin.
    Progressives do not treat people as individuals, but judges their abilities, needs, personality, actions, etc as members of a superficial assigned collective.
    That is racism. Assessing individuals according to the identity group they "belong" to is racist.
    Full stop.

  • Priscilla King||

    I'm sure anyone can understand what she was doing. Of course they can. And if someone whose watch was recently yanked off his/her arm by a Black assailant posted hatespews about Black people, would NYT continue to employ that person? Doubtful.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The hero of Blazing Saddles was a black man, Cleavon Little.

  • MarkLastname||

    So, you're suggesting Jeong was making fun of anti-white racism?

    Because that means you're the one who needs some recalibration.

  • Just Say'n||

    Well yeah. You got to have a good sense of humor to take Krugman seriously.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Well played

  • Happy Chandler||

    Were you the one who was supposed to show me where Krugman was not against the Iraq War?

    His economic predictions (minus one hasty blog post on election night, corrected the next day) have been mostly accurate.

  • MarkLastname||

    Haha, that's hilarious. The internet being no more important than the fax machine? That Chinese stock market crash he was always predicting? Greece leaving the EU? The sequester tanking the economy?
    No, Krugman is not remotely 'mostly accurate.' You'd do better flipping a coin.

  • Happy Chandler||

    1) Internet vs fax machine was in an article about overoptimism in technological predictions. It was an example of pessimistic prognostication, not a prediction.
    2) The Chinese stock market dropped by 1/3 from 2009 to 2012, and almost half from 2015-2016. Not so off?
    3) I never saw a prediction that Greece would leave the EU. He correctly diagnosed that the pain and uselessness that austerity would bring, and he was a proponent of the actions that Draghi ultimately took that saved the Euro. He did say that he overestimated the competence of the Greek government, but he also missed that Draghi would change course at the ECB.
    4) He was right on sequester.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Chandler, you're acting as an apologist for a dedicated racist. Now you're shilling for Krugman. Your credibility has already reached rock bottom, so now you're getting out the pick and shovel.

    Just stop. Your embarrassing yourself.

  • ThomasD||

    I'm beginning to think Happy is a too subtle Marxist version of OBL.

  • JesseAz||

    I'm not sure if you're completed retarded, but you seem retarded. Just read the post 2009 recession articles from Krugman and pay special attention to his articles regarding Estonia and the few other countries in Europe that actually pushed austerity measures. Each country that did had far greater growth rates than the European Average yet Krugman kept attacking them as failing. Krugmans has been nothing but wrong on economics since he joined the NYT and became a cocktail drinking idiot. He doesn't even follow his own economics that got him the Nobel.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    His predictions have been so bad they're not even wrong.

  • ||

    If by accurate you use Paul Ehrlich as a metric, then sure,Krugman has been spectacular.

  • Happy Chandler||

    You want I should use Kudlow? Hassett? Any of the hyperinflation screamers?

  • Longtobefree||

    Wait, what? Times readers? Really?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Exactly, part of me thought the NYT went bankrupt recently.

  • Longtobefree||

    Financially, maybe; morally, long ago

  • Tony||

    However much technology changes, the principles behind good manners stay the same. The ability to forgive and forget is not just a nice idea, it keeps civilization from collapsing under the weight of endless grievances.

  • ||

    Aw. Tony is defending a racist cunt.

    Cute.

    /tickles Tony's tummy.

  • Tony||

    I would express this same sentiment if it were a white dude who said something unseemly in 2014 about crippled black midgets.

    I find public shaming like this to be unseemly and show-offy and in itself rude.

  • Just Say'n||

    We remember what your response to Williamson's firing was. You're just the reverse side of John on this topic

  • Tony||

    And what was that?

  • Just Say'n||

    You were defending him being fired. Drop the act, Tony. You're no more above the fray than John

  • Careless||

    Did you really provide a defense of Rosanne, Tony? Her offense was much less severe.

  • Just Say'n||

    No and he defended the firing of Wool

  • Just Say'n||

    *Williamson

  • Longtobefree||

    This is not public shaming.
    She has no shame.

  • MarkLastname||

    No, you wouldn't, because every time the shoe is on the other foot, you express the exact opposite sentiment, torch in one hand and pitchfork in the other.

  • Rhywun||

    /tickles Tony's tummy.

    Ew. Not with my-- well, you get the idea.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tickling Tony's tummy with the taste of nuts and honey?

  • The_Hoser||

    No idea , but this cracked me up.

  • Trollificus||

    old cereal commercial, even funnier.

  • ||

    And you're right in principle by the way.

  • NashTiger||

    You Don't forgive those who Do apologize, but Do forgive those that Don't apologize.

    I find your belief system fascinating [/Kruger}

  • MarkLastname||

    Surely, you're joking, right? You are perhaps the least forgiving person on the internet.

    Be honest: these rules of decency, you only believe they should work toward the benefit of people in your political camp. Just say it. Leftists deserve forgiveness; anyone else, throw the book at them. Be open about your double standards. They're the only standards you have it seems.

  • Tony||

    Don't be silly. I'm not much of an advocate for book throwing. Now stop whining.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    the more time one spends on social media, the greater the opportunity to say something career-ending

    Are you trying to create Soave's Law?

  • Rhywun||

    There's an obvious solution to that thicket which seems to be escaping anyone younger than around 35. I wonder what it is....

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    I'm extremely thankful that my kids are staying clear, at least.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    Fire her because you can find someone better to do the job. Which would probably be pretty easy to do.

  • Eddy||

    Is finding the best people actually their business model? I haven't seen proof of this recently.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    She checks a lot of boxes for HR, those don't come along every day...

  • Tony||

    I posted without reading comments, assuming that everyone would treat this situation as they do when it's a rightwinger talking about Mexicans. Oh reason people, you never fail to disappoint.

  • ||

    That didn't take long.

    So you won't forgive Trump?

    What about the collapse of civilization in the absence of forgiveness and all that?

  • Tony||

    Trump's still president isn't he?

    I'm not here to say that a wholly boorish person deserves constant forgiving. The perpetually rude deserve to be ostracized from polite society. And criminals go to prison.

  • Dizzle||

    You look so, so dumb right now. just fyi.

  • NashTiger||

    Why should Now be any different?

  • MarkLastname||

    Which is precisely what this woman was: perpetually, repeatedly bigoted, and I bet she'll keep it up at the NYT.

    It's good you found an excuse to defend your hypocrisy though, however flimsy.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "The perpetually rude deserve to be ostracized from polite society. And criminals go to prison."

    Then how do you explain the denizens of the democrat party that remain unincarcerated?

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Is there a problem with expecting one political group to just one time - just once - to practice what they preach? Just to show that one of them is actually capable of doing so for a moment or two? That's an unreasonable expectation, isn't it?

  • Tony||

    I agree, I think libertarians should treat this situation the same way they do when a rightwinger says something nasty about minorities.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Don't know if that was directed at me or not, but I basically do that. I'm sick up to here of the "they said something I don't like, let's get 'em fired" bullshit.

    The problem is that Sarah and the NYT and their ilk is basically on the same level behaviorally as the Rabid Right. I keep waiting for the adults to show up and slap some sense into everyone, but I'm quickly coming to the realization that there are no adults in the room...….

  • MarkLastname||

    Right wingers already do get fired; hell they get fired even when they don't; Brendan Eich, James Damore, the list goes on.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Well sure, it helps to know your enemy.

  • Rhywun||

    I am no more interested in her disposition than in Trump's. The NYT and the US are equally free to hire/elect whomever they want.

  • BYODB||

    Lets play the replacement game.


    Yet Jeong, who was born in South Korea, has a habit of tweeting disparaging things about Jews. "Dumbass fucking jews marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants," she wrote in November 2014.


    "#CancelJews," she hashtagged around the same time.


    "It's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old jewish women," she tweeted a couple months earlier.


    It's a pretty fun game.

  • BYODB||

    And, just to be clear, I'm doing what she did.


    She was responding to harassing tweets she had received by mimicking their tone and structure and substituting "white people" for whatever slur the trolls had directed at her. This was not an especially wise course of action, and it's one she regrets.

  • John||

    The Times excuse for her boils down to "Whitey made her do it." It is just pathetic.

  • BYODB||

    Maybe, although I would say that our society has absolutely no tolerance for satire anymore.

  • John||

    The Times can hire or fire whomever they want. In doing so, however, they are making a statement about who they are and what they consider acceptable. This case is perfectly analogous to the Williamson case. There, the Atlantic decided that it didn't want to be associated with a guy who said women who had abortions should be hanged. For better or worse, they own that.

    In this case, the Times, by keeping Jeong has decided that having a visceral hatred towards white people as a race is acceptable and is a view that the Times has no problem associating itself with. Just like the Atlantic, that is their choice and they own that. So from now on, it is perfectly reasonable to think of the Times as a newspaper that while not entirely racist against white condones racist hatred towards whites.

    That is really all there is to it. This isn't a free speech issue. It is not even really a "make them live by their own standards" issue. It is simply a case of the Times telling us who they are.

  • Happy Chandler||

    The difference being that she doesn't have a visceral hatred of white people. Just that a lot of people turn off their sarcasm detector when it suits them.

    Williamson said a statement with intent that people found offensive. He said it more than once. It wasn't sarcasm. Not only that, he lied to the editor about it. That's what got him fired. If he was truthful about it, maybe even shading the truth a little (a position I took without thinking it through, something along that line) he could have stayed employed. But, he told the editor it was a one-time thing, and other instances came up about it.

    The moral of the story -- don't lie to the hiring manager.

  • John||

    The difference being that she doesn't have a visceral hatred of white people. Just that a lot of people turn off their sarcasm detector when it suits them.

    Yes she does. Even if she meant them sarcastically, they are so appalling that no one who wasn't a racist would ever write them. Moreover, she has not provided a single bit of context that would indicate they were sarcastic. That is nothing but a post hoc rationalization.

    She is what she is. And neither the Times nor apparently you have a problem with it. If she had said these things about anyone but white people, you wouldn't believe her post hoc rationalizations for a minute. You only do because you are willing to excuse racism against whites when you would not be it against any other race.

    Whites are the new Kulaks and Jews for modern leftism. Leftism has a real anti-white bigotry problem. And this woman and the Times condoning and excusing of her behavior is just further evidence of that.

  • Happy Chandler||

    A majority of Democrats are white. There is no anti-white racism problem.

    She just turned the insults that she received around. I mean, the smell one should really trigger any sarcasm detector. That's never been a slur against white people, it has been against Asians since forever. Your concern trolling is quite thin.

  • John||

    A majority of Democrats are white. There is no anti-white racism problem.

    Not all Democrats are leftists. Campuses all over the country have classes teaching about the problem of "whiteness". This woman posts vicious slurs against whites and you and the Times and every other leftist thinks it is okay. She wasn't being sarcastic or turning it around on people who said bad things about her. She was saying what she thought. Moreover, you would never buy that excuse about anything except racism against whites.

    The Democrats lost 70% of the white vote in 2016. They are going to lose more of it in 2020. You are basically making whites into an identity group and empowering the white nationalist. But hey, go ahead and pretend you don't have with anti-white racism. Continue to associate yourself with people who claim white people smell like dogs and their opinions are like dogs pissing on fire hydrants. Good luck with that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    and election 2018.

  • Happy Chandler||

    How do you know what she thought? Have you ever read anything by her other than these tweets?

    You're being willfully dumb.

    You're cherry picking out a few college kids to be outraged at. Looking at the issues of whiteness doesn't mean you're racist. It means that you are actually looking at the way the world works.

    The people to blame for white supremacists are white supremacists. Fuck them. They smell like kimchi anyway.

  • John||

    How do you know what she thought?

    She told me in her tweets. How do you know her words don't mean exactly what they say?

    Have you ever read anything by her other than these tweets?

    I don't have to. There are dozens of them each one nastier than the last. And no one has provided any evidence or context to show that they are anything but what they appear to be. If those tweets don't mean what they clearly say, it is up to her and her defenders to show why not the people who are taking her at her word to prove she didn't really mean it.

    The people to blame for white supremacists are white supremacists. Fuck them. They smell like kimchi anyway.

    Really? Yet you excuse her racism by claiming racists mad her do it. There is no significant white supremacy in this country today. But people like you and her who make it okay to openly hate white people are helping to change that. If you hate people long enough, they will eventually start to hate you back. This woman is a racist and you are okay with it.

  • Happy Chandler||

    She's only a racist to the willfully ignorant. You keeping on repeating that she is, but it doesn't make it true.

    Occam's Razor would tell you that a smart minority looking to advance in a white-dominated country (published in many top publications, Forbes 30 under 30) would, even if she were racist, not bleat out over the top insults on twitter.

    Her book has gotten good reviews, from men, women, white, non-white.
    http://www.goodreads.com/book/.....of-garbage

  • John||

    Occam's Razor would tell you that a smart minority looking to advance in a white-dominated country (published in many top publications, Forbes 30 under 30) would, even if she were racist, not bleat out over the top insults on twitter.

    She just did you fucking moron. And it didn't hurt her career. It helped it. She works in a profession dominated by leftists who find her racism acceptable if not desirable. You just keep repeating that she didn't mean what she said when all of the evidence indicates she did and everyone knows you would never give such a benefit to anyone else. Face it, you like anti white racism because doing so is necessary to be a leftist.

  • John||

    Her book has gotten good reviews, from men, women, white, non-white.
    http://www.goodreads.com/book/.....of-garbage

    So what? Ezra Pound wrote great poetry. That didn't mean he wasn't a fascist. She is a racist bitch. Just because she wrote a book that didn't show her racism, doesn't mean she isn't a racist. She is.

  • MarkLastname||

    "Issues of whiteness."
    Alright, yeah, you're a full-fledged retard. Not worth my time.

  • ||

    I smell bull shit about her claim. Cathy Newton did the same with Peterson after she was (rightly) pasted for her embarrassing performance. They all claim 'I was only joking' or 'I was defending myself against alt-right' racists without ever producing a single shred of evidence AFAIK.

    I'm still willing to be shown the door on that.

    Other than that, go read the great satirists in history. Then get back to me if you still think she was being satirical.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    She just turned the insults that she received around.

    You have to be a special kind of moron to believe that.

    Her racist tirades against white people predate the two exemplar insults she claims motivated her "satire" by years. The obvious conclusion, to anybody who doesn't eat a steady diet of paint chips, is that her explanation -- "I was just turning the insults I received around! It was just satirical performance art!" -- is pure uncut horseshit.

    She's a racist. Attest to the fact and move along.

  • MarkLastname||

    Colleges, corporations, and government agencies actively discriminate against white people in hiring practices. There's more actual 'institutional' racism practiced against whites and Asians in this country than against blacks or Hispanics; they call it 'affirmative action.' Yes, there is a problem.

  • lap83||

    "She just turned the insults that she received around."

    If you think that is acceptable then you might be 12 years old. Seriously, most adults have matured beyond that kind of thinking.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Seriously, most adults have matured beyond that kind of thinking.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    phew, good one. I can see 400+ posts here proving you wrong.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The difference being that she doesn't have a visceral hatred of white people.

    "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants," she wrote in November 2014. "#CancelWhitePeople," she hashtagged around the same time. "It's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men," she tweeted a couple months earlier.
  • John||

    Yeah, there is nothing sarcastic about what she wrote. She just hates white people. She is an appalling racist. People like Chandler and Tony are okay with that and will do anything to rationalize and justify it.

  • Happy Chandler||

    http://www.theverge.com/2018/8.....arah-jeong

    Listen to the people she works with and know her.

    And stop being a fucking moron troll.

  • John||

    Sure. And all they are saying is "its okay that she is a racist because whites made her do it:". They never mention that she was saying this shit for years before she the cited harassment. Yes, the leftists she works with think what she said was okay. They just rationalize it in ways they would never rationalize racism against anyone but whites.

    Thanks for proving my point dipshit. You are just dumber than a post.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Listen to the people she works with and know her.

    You mean the dumbshit proglydytes at Vox?

  • NashTiger||

    Listen to me: GFY

  • NashTiger||

    Or, uh, Listen to what she herself wrote

  • NashTiger||

    Or, listen to what she says

  • John||

    Whether the Times fires this woman or not is just a reflection of whether they are a racist newspaper or not. It is their choice but they should be held to the consequences of it. This is about the Times not about the rare Asian the Times found who apparently has an IQ below 70.

  • Tony||

    Damn, the New York Times lost John.

  • John||

    They didn' t lost me. They are a racist newspaper. It is what it is. If you think that is okay, feel free to continue to read them. Just understand what that fact says about you.

  • Tony||

    Your concern troll game would be better if everyone didn't already know what a hypocritical tribal hack you are.

  • John||

    I am not trolling. The left hate white people and white working class people in particular with a passion. This woman is who the Times and their readers are. This is what they believe. That is not concern trolling. That is pointing out the facts.

    You belong to a hateful nasty movement Tony. Saying entire races of people smell like dogs and should be exterminated is part of what modern Progressivism is. This woman and the Times decision to hire her just confirmed that, as if any more confirmation were needed.

  • Tony||

    Perhaps you're not aware of the primary goal of the political movement of which you are a part. It's not racial harmony!

  • John||

    No newspaper I read hires people who claim other races smell like dogs. If you think saying that is okay, that is your choice. I disagree.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, you are a vile racist shit. how dare you insult John like this.

    You have no redeeming values. So go drink your Drano.

  • NashTiger||

    Like 10,000 spoons on your wedding day

  • ||

    He's no more a troll than you are.

    Neither of you are since you've established yourselves here.

    But you're a dink Tony. /drink!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Oh Tony, Americans now realize what Lefties are. The same type of Lefty that denigrated Jews and then murdered them.

    American workers finally saw the Democrat elite for what they are.

  • MarkLastname||

    That's an interesting rhetorical device: saying something that applies both to your interlocutor and to yourself.

  • Bob Mitchell||

    I'm glad to see racist ethnic minorities taken to task. The next step should be exposing them for the homophobes that they have always been.
    By the way Reason, when did you start being against a private business reacting to customer disapproval and firing an employee?
    You have become the politically correct of a different strip, perhaps just liberals masquerading as libertarians.

  • John||

    This woman confirms everything the alt-Right says about the left and the media and minorities. Richard Spencer and the rest of them should send her and the Times a thank you note. What other conclusions can you draw here except that the media and the Times, in particular, hate white people?

  • damikesc||

    The only difference between her and Spencer is the audience.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    My understanding is that Gunn made JOKES about abusing babies. Back during my 80s childhood, I remember actually seeing joke books in the local mall's B. Dalton book store (remember those?) entirely about dead babies. I doubt those books were actually advocating doing away with pesky toddlers.

    It doesn't seem like this woman is just joking around, but rather collectively condemning white people as a group. As far as the First Amendment is concerned, she has every right to do so without interference from government, IMO. However, her employer, which I would bet has plenty of white people on the payroll, including ones who need to routinely interact with this person as pat of their job, has every right to can her ass. If she were saying the same things about, say, Latinos, or blacks, or gays, or Muslims, she would already be out of a job. Double standards are never good, not even for the New York Times.

  • John||

    However, her employer, which I would bet has plenty of white people on the payroll, including ones who need to routinely interact with this person as pat of their job, has every right to can her ass.

    Yes they do. They also have a right not to can her. And when they do that, they are saying they don't have a problem with anything she said.

  • Longtobefree||

    "I doubt those books were actually advocating doing away with pesky toddlers."

    Were they published by Planned Parenthood?

  • higgyb||

    "Gunn was obviously joking; he was trying to provoke or amuse." Because child molestation is funny, right? Now we know a little more about Robby Soave.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    It's only funny because it has at least a hint of truth.

  • Number 2||

    Unfortunately, Gunn then chose to accept employment with a movie company that sells itself to parents of young children as a "safe place" for their youngsters to watch TV. Jokes about child molestation don't really fit in with that corporate image, do they?

  • Cathy L||

    Oh god the child-loving pearl-clutches are so fucking annoying.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    ""Gunn was obviously joking; he was trying to provoke or amuse." Because child molestation is funny, right? Now we know a little more about Robby Soave."

    Lots of stuff that's disturbing can also be funny.

    I've been watching old episodes of Monty Python's Flying Circus. Laughed my ass off at the "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" bit. The reality of the Spanish Inquisition was absolutely horrible. It was surely a low point in European history. But the bit is still hilarious and probably one of their best.

  • Kivlor||

    Ummm... no. The reality of the Inquisition is that the "horrors" are almost entirely fabricated. 3,000 people in 300 years. Many of those "executions" were executions in effigy.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Shhh! ' Inigo' is woke!

    Quick Inigo, toss out a few jokes from your 'Raping Babies and Children' jokebook. Because that's just like dead baby jokes.

  • Weygand||

    What's grosser than gross?

    A dumpster loaded with aborted baby fetuses

  • Weygand||

    What's grosser than gross?

    A live one at the bottom having to eat it's way to freedom

  • Trollificus||

    I think the first one should be "gross" with the second being "grosser than gross". I remember that one.

    I also know a joke that is "over 9,000!!" in both racism and sexism, that had me prone on the fairway of #2 at Glendale Golf course, helpless with laughter until the guys behind us teed off into us. So, if something is actually funny, I got no bounds at all. Apparently.

  • Longtobefree||

    Public notice to all who would be journalists if only they cited actual, verifiable, named, sources:
    If you ever read the NYT again, or cite any NYT article, or talk ever again to an employee of the NYT, you are a racist.

  • John||

    Every employee at the Times should be asked to disavow Jeong. If they don't, then it is fair to conclude they are racists.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Guilt by association is wicked awesome.

  • John||

    Guilt by association is a fallacy if the association has nothing to do with the cause of the guilt or is not by choice of the person. If I know you are a racist and I choose to hire you and associate with you anyway, that doesn't necessarily make me a racist. It does, however, show that I consider racism acceptable behavior. If I didn't, why am I hiring you and associating with you?

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Hey, I'm with you. It's probably the biggest reason I don't call myself a libertarian. I see all the morons around here claiming to be one and I want no part of that.

  • John||

    And no one would accuse you of making an irrational choice.

  • Jerryskids||

    "I'm here to call on folk to understand that in a moral moment there is no neutral. In a moral moment there is no bystanders. You are either complicit in the evil, you are either contributing to the wrong, or you are fighting against it." Wise words from a wise man.

  • Cathy L||

    If you ever read the NYT again, or cite any NYT article, or talk ever again to an employee of the NYT, you are a racist.

    I love right-wing logic.

  • TuIpa||

    Apparently even when it mirriors left-wing logic.

  • MarkLastname||

    Haven't you been informed that it's homophobic to eat at Chic fil-A too?

  • NashTiger||

    Yes, it was the right-wing who insisted that people not eat certain sandwiches, shop at certain stores, and when some hick Democrat running for dogcatcher in Missouri said something dumb, the right-wing made every single elected democrat comment on it and ritualistically denounce, including a dozen Presidential candidates at a nationally televised debate.

  • knockatize||

    If your enemy has taken dead aim at their own foot, why advise them not to pull the trigger?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Being the bigger man only works after the other guy realizes he screwed up.

  • mysmartstuffs||

    The concept of "racism" was created simply to bash White people. You don't need more proof than this.

  • Eddy||

    The concept was invented because racism actually exists, and has existed in many times and places, often with horrific results.

    But words, like currency, can be subject to inflation.

    So it ought to be uncontroversial to say that it's racist to kill off lots of people because the killer doesn't like their race.

    It should also be uncontroversial to say it's racist to give a job to a white person because (s)he is white.

    But when, seeing the effectiveness of using the word, people start throwing it around all the time to describe everything they happen not to like, then there's Weimar-style word inflation. You'll eventually need several wheelbarrows of the word "racism" to purchase the amount of outrage you used to be able to buy with a couple uses of the word.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    That's a good analogy.

  • Weygand||

    I am impressed by that as well

  • Weygand||

    I am impressed by that as well

  • Trollificus||

    Can't we just, Zimbabwe-style, just add zeroes to the "racism" rather than lugging around whole wheelbarrows of it?

    "You're so racist000,000,000!"

  • JBSparks||

    White people? What about Koreans who have the spine to dethrone the Kim family? Whitey's alright by me.

  • JBSparks||

    White people? What about Koreans who have the spine to dethrone the Kim family? Whitey's alright by me.

  • JBSparks||

    *haven't *

  • Eddy||

    There's some old white guys still around who at least helped save South Korea from being run by the Kim family.

    And some white guys who would be old today if they hadn't died young protecting the South Koreans from such a fate.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There would be no South Korea and this chick would likely not be alive if it had not been for brave American men who fought for South Koreans and Americans women who aided in the war effort.

    Luckily, this one lady does not represent all South Koreans and most of them like Americans and America.

  • DCR1||

    The bottom line here is that throughout the history of our country, there have always been groups about which making disparaging remarks has been socially acceptable. It just so happens the current group that holds that honor is "old white men."

  • Number 2||

    ""It's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men," she tweeted a couple months earlier."

    Satire, huh?

    Unfortunately, being an old white man who is posting a comment on a website funded in part by the Koch Brothers, I cannot engage in the satirical response that this "satire" richly deserves.

  • Weygand||

    Who is number one?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Sorry, Robby, I love you like the backroom sprog you don't let out when company's over, but I've run the numbers eighteen ways from Sunday. There is no fucking way that a newspaper the caliber of the New York Times would let a professed white supremacist/racist sit on their editorial board.

    Firing her is the correct option. This does not have anything to do with hypocritical conservative tweet mobs getting revenge, this is just horrible policy for a major newspapers editorial integrity.

    We're done here.

  • John||

    You are right Paul. And the fact that they don't fire her says that they don't have a problem with racists or racism just as long as it is directed at the right race.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Maybe they're just trying to even up with The Atlantic having Ta-Nehisi Coates.

  • John||

    Considering their customer base, hiring an anti-white racist is probably a sound business move.

  • ||

    So much this.

  • MarkLastname||

    Yeah, what exactly is a bridge too far for hatred of white people, sincerely calling for their extermination?

    Of course, if we had consistent standards, half the columnists at major left wing papers would be regarded as a bunch of David Dukes.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    David Dukes

    Are those short shorts that come with nooses on the sides?

  • Just Say'n||

    Worse. It has a noose draw string belt.

  • Trollificus||

    +1, concept, and
    +1, topper

  • Ken Hagler||

    "One wonders, however, why Jeong is allowed to come out of this unscathed when the same dispensation was not granted to Quinn Norton..."

    Nobody wonders that.

  • John||

    No one does. Joeng comes out of this unscathed because the left considers anti white racism to be acceptable.

  • John C. Randolph||

    They consider it mandatory, and they'll jump down the throat of anyone who doesn't approve of their racism.

    -jcr

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Will the left consider me a racist since I consider Jeong's hateful racist comments freedom of speech?

  • ||

    They will consider you a racist if you think her comments were racist and don't accept it was satire.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""and don't accept it was satire."'

    Satire doesn't seem to be a part of their equation.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Are you white?

    Think what you want. You're a racist.

  • MikeP2||

    It's pathetic to defend this racist.
    It wasn't a few tweets. It was many.
    It wasn't satire or comedy, but vitriol and hate.

    She's a racist. And if "white" was replaced with almost anything else besides "man" no one would defend her. But somehow hating on white men is now socially approved.

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Ok, don't fire her for being a racist. Fire her for utter incompetence. She bills herself as an expert on "internet culture" and she yet didn't foresee the shit show her tweets would incite. It's like hiring a firearms expert who regularly shoots himself in the foot at the range, or an aviation expert who periodically crashes when landing.

  • John||

    You have to give the Times credit; they seem to have found an Asian with a low IQ. That is not easy to do.

  • Libertymike||

    Well, you could add Kumar's buddy, Harold, at least after being stoned.

  • John||

    I think even he is smarter than this broad.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    she yet didn't foresee the shit show her tweets would incite

    Seeing as how the shit show is happening on reason.com, she'll most likely never see it.

  • John||

    This is a side show. The shit show is all over Twitter. It is bad enough the Times isssued a statement excusing her behavior. She knows it.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Or a married spy who sends dick pics to random women.

  • Trollificus||

    Or an aspiring politician who randomly sends...oh, wait

  • Violent Sociopath||

    And on cue, here's Robby, with more ineffectual fretting and if-this-goes-on'ing and morally imbecilic accusations of hypocrisy towards those of us who reject the left's double standards.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    Why would anyone care what this yellow opinion whore thinks?

    /satire

  • jdd6y||

    Only da Joos, I think.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I mean ... not wrong.

  • Priscilla King||

    /Michin/ Nork is a phrase she probably doesn't get on Twitter every day, if you want to, pardon the pun, twit her.

  • ||

    She's perfect for NYT 'diversity and inclusion' division.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Gee what a shock.
    250 comments, and very few about whether it's a good idea or bad idea on principle for a leading newspaper to hire someone with evidently edgy views, or how ideas that are out of the mainstream should be regarded in the course of normal discourse, or even on the nature of racism itself.

    Oh no, it's 200+ comments on "they're hypocrites" and "this helps Trump".

    This is the problem with the discourse nowadays.

  • TuIpa||

    Omfg shut up you whiny bitch

  • Nardz||

    ^this

  • John||

    250 comments, and very few about whether it's a good idea or bad idea on principle for a leading newspaper to hire someone with evidently edgy views, or how ideas that are out of the mainstream should be regarded in the course of normal discourse, or even on the nature of racism itself.

    So thinking white people all smell like dogs and enjoying the suffering of old white people is "edgy"?

    Hating white people is totally acceptable on the left. The Times readership and staff think anti-white racism is okay and so do you. So they didn't fire her over this. Why would they?

    It is really that simple. You fire people for things that you don't find acceptable. If you don't fire someone over it, it is because you don't have a problem with it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The Times readership and staff think anti-white racism is okay and so do you.

    I do not think we could all even agree on a single definition of racism, let alone believe certain types of racism are okay or not.

  • John||

    I do not think we could all even agree on a single definition of racism, let alone believe certain types of racism are okay or not.

    Yes, you don't think someone being racist towards white people is really "racist". That is just another way of saying that you think anti white racism as it is commonly defined is okay. You just rationalize it by defining racism in a way that excludes prejudice against white people.

    The left has an enormous problem with anti-white racism. But they seem to embrace it and not see it as a problem. It is who they and you are.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Please read what I wrote below.

    You are trying to use the emotional impact of an accusation of racism against someone, when not all parties are even on the same page with their definition of the terms.

    A progressive might argue that there is no such thing as "anti-white racism" because racism is prejudice + power, and since whites hold most of the power in this country, there can't be any real racism against them. I disagree with this point of view, but I also understand that this viewpoint does not say "anti-white racism is okay", it says that anti-white racism is a contradiction in terms.

  • John||

    I disagree with this point of view, but I also understand that this viewpoint does not say "anti-white racism is okay", it says that anti-white racism is a contradiction in terms.

    Yes, it does. You either find it morally objectionable or you don't. And clearly, you don't because while you claim to not agree with it, you find it to be an acceptable position and nothing that should reflect poorly on the speaker. In your view, the horrible things this woman said are not that big of a deal. It is okay for Asian people to think white people smell like dogs and should die. You don't agree but that is just a minor disagreement and nothing of moral consequence.

    You are excusing and condoning racial hatred. That is all there is to it. It is disgusting.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You either find it morally objectionable or you don't.

    Whether it is "morally objectionable" and whether it is "racist" are two different questions.

    Yes, I believe it is wrong to treat individuals in a collectivist fashion, in any context. Because it denies their fundamental human dignity.

    If Sarah Jeong really does believe it is okay to unjustly treat anyone for any reason, then that's wrong, regardless of the race of the individual involved.

    But is it "racism"? That depends. That is the point that I am trying to make.

    It is okay for Asian people to think white people smell like dogs and should die.
    you find it to be an acceptable position and nothing that should reflect poorly on the speaker.

    I said nothing of the sort.

    You are excusing and condoning racial hatred.

    I am doing nothing of the sort. But, you've got your outrage boner going.

  • John||

    Whether it is "morally objectionable" and whether it is "racist" are two different questions.

    Sure. But so what? If you want to say this woman is an appalling bigot who has no place on the editorial board, fine. There is nothing magical about the word racist. Like all words, it describes an underlying reality. .Who cares what word you use as long as you are honest about reality?

    You are excusing and condoning racial hatred.

    I am doing nothing of the sort. But, you've got your outrage boner going.

    Then you agree with me and think this woman is loathsome and the Times loathsome for not having a problem with what she said.

    All you are willing to admit to here is that "well maybe progressives view racism as meaning something different". Well maybe they do. Who gives a shit? That doesn't make what this woman said any less disgusting or the Times any less disgusting for condoning it, which is the entire point of the discussion.

  • TuIpa||

    "A progressive might argue that there is no such thing as "anti-white racism" because racism is prejudice + power, and since whites hold most of the power in this country, there can't be any real racism against them."

    I don't particularly care that evil people define their evil as not evil, but you should be concerned if you uncritically accept their definition.

  • Azathoth!!||

    I disagree with this point of view, but I also understand that this viewpoint does not say "anti-white racism is okay", it says that anti-white racism is a contradiction in terms.

    Actually, this definition was created with the sole intent of saying 'anti-white racism is okay' by making racism against whites into an impossibility.

    Racist comments against whites, if this construction is used, simply aren't racism. They're truths.

    The construction 'racism is prejudice plus power' doesn't even INCLUDE 'race', any descriptors of race or any indication that 'race' is needed in 'racism'. Prejudice has nothing to do with race, nor does power.

    You can pre-judge someone based on racist ideas--but them the racism is there before the power. So we still need racism defined.

    See?

  • Trollificus||

    Yeah..no. "anti-white racism is a contradiction in terms." is just a contrived and very transparent way to say "anti-white racism is okay". A distinction without a difference, eh?

  • Cathy L||

    You forgot all the posts where people just wrote nonsense based on something Robby didn't write.

  • John||

    What is Soave's position? That she didn't mean it? It is pretty obvious her claims of it being sarcasm are bullshit. She has racist tweets going back years and none of them contain any kind of disclaimer or are ever made in response to a racist tweet directed at her.

    If not that, is it that it is okay to be a racist and still sit on the Times editorial board as long as you are racist towards whites? That seems to be the heart of what he is saying. The rest is just rationalization and lying on his part.

  • TuIpa||

    Omfg Cathy, shut up you whiny bitch.

  • Just Say'n||

    Says the person who accused Ben Shapiro of instigating the firing of Gunn.

  • TuIpa||

    Cathy is a stupid sock and just shows up to give childish takes and bait people. But she's even bad at that, certainly not master or anything.

  • ||

    She has edgy views? Robert Crumb is edgy. This idiot isn't. Worse, she then ran to the most ridiculous of excuses to defend her dumbass tweets. Learn the difference pal.

    So racism = edgy?

    Ok. Lessss go!

  • TuIpa||

    Learned something about Jeff today.

  • Libertymike||

    What did you learn?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Gee, a Jeffy comment calling racism "edgy." What's the next step beyond charitable interpretation? Organ donor?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Guy who does nothing but middle school gotcha bullshit has a problem with "discourse nowadays."

  • MarkLastname||

    Is David Duke 'edgy?' If the Washington Times put him on their editorial staff would you be congratulating them for expanding discourse outside the mainstream?

    No, I don't think you would.

    What this all really comes down to is, a lot of people think she shouldn't be fired like the others because 'racism against white people is A Ok.'

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Is David Duke 'edgy?'

    In his own way, yes.

    And you all are just proving my point. You'd rather get outraged by my use of the word 'edgy' than talk about anything of substance.

    If the Washington Times put him on their editorial staff would you be congratulating them for expanding discourse outside the mainstream?

    I didn't congratulate anyone for anything.

    What this all really comes down to is, a lot of people think she shouldn't be fired like the others because 'racism against white people is A Ok.'

    I think a lot of people have a completely different view of racism than the more traditional view of racism.

    Racism used to be defined, broadly, as "a belief that a person is inferior due to that person's race". A more modern view of racism is that it is "prejudice plus power". From this point of view, anti-white racism can't really be a "thing" because whites hold most of the power in this country. But, anti-black racism can be very real, since blacks are a minority and hold very little power.

    I tend to agree with the more traditional definition myself. But I understand the divergence of views on the subject. And because I believe the charge of 'racist' to be a very serious one that is not to be thrown around lightly. It is bad when those on the left do it, and it is bad when those on the right do it. And a few tweets doesn't do justice to a person's genuine views on a complex subject like racism and prejudice. That is true of everyone.

  • John||

    Racism used to be defined, broadly, as "a belief that a person is inferior due to that person's race". A more modern view of racism is that it is "prejudice plus power". From this point of view, anti-white racism can't really be a "thing" because whites hold most of the power in this country. But, anti-black racism can be very real, since blacks are a minority and hold very little power.

    She hates an entire race of people because of the color of her skin. Just because she and the rest of the left try and redefine "racism" to not include that doesn't make it anything other than what it is. Call it whatever you like, it is just as disgusting and immoral no matter its name.

    All that position is saying is that it is okay to hate white people. And you, while claiming not to agree with it, don't consider such an attitude to be morally objectionable.

    The immorality of that position speaks for itself. You have allowed your politics to get rationalize believing or tolerating hideously immoral ideas.

  • TuIpa||

    "You'd rather get outraged by my use of the word 'edgy'"

    Swing and a miss.

    "And you all are just proving my point"

    Actually, you are continuing to prove theirs.

  • John||

    According to Jeff hating white people as a race and thinking they all smell like dogs and bragging about how fun it is to inflict misery on them is just a minor thing. It is not Jeff's thing but he is okay if it is yours. It is just a minor difference of opinion and taste; sort of like liking a different kind of beer.

    This is what he is claiming.

  • TuIpa||

    Jeff seems to be very accepting of the idea that there is no problem with evil people redefining their evil as not evil.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    "Racism used to be defined, broadly, as "a belief that a person is inferior due to that person's race."

    That is STILL the definition, and it is still something worthy of condemnation.

    I'm sorry, but I don't buy any new "power" element to it. You say that "anti-white racism can't really be a "thing" because whites hold most of the power in this country. But, anti-black racism can be very real, since blacks are a minority and hold very little power."

    By that logic, a hyper-nerdy, glasses-wearing kid that is merciless bullied in school can't actually be a victim of bullying because everyone knows he will grow up to have power/money thanks to his studiousness and interest in things that can develop into marketable skills, while those doing the bullying will barely graduate and probably spend their entire careers in menial jobs. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Wrong is wrong.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm sorry, but I don't buy any new "power" element to it.

    That is fine. But please at least understand that others do, and think about racism in that other context.

    People like John here who are condemning her for "hating whitey" are really stealing quite a few bases in their condemnations.

    First, they are judging her by their definition of racism, which may or may not be her own definition.
    Then, after that, they presume that the racism (judged by their own standards) is the result of racial hatred. It is possible after all to exhibit prejudice that is not motivated by racial hatred.
    Finally, they implicitly assume that a few flippant tweets represents her sober considered views on a complex topic such as racism and prejudice.

    Really, it's all about jumbling and mashing up these complex issues into easy-to-digest narratives in order to promote one tribe or another. That shouldn't be the Reason approach and it shouldn't be the approach of anyone who wants to thoughtfully consider these issues.

  • TuIpa||

    "But please at least understand that others do, and "think about racism in that other context."

    I think we are all aware that humans justify their vile behavior, going to great lengths to do so, but thanks for the reminder.

  • John||

    First, they are judging her by their definition of racism, which may or may not be her own definition.
    Then, after that, they presume that the racism (judged by their own standards) is the result of racial hatred. It is possible after all to exhibit prejudice that is not motivated by racial hatred.
    Finally, they implicitly assume that a few flippant tweets represents her sober considered views on a complex topic such as racism and prejudice.

    Yes, people rationalize racial hatred against whites. That doesn't make it okay. You think just because the left is doing it, it is okay. They mean well. God you are stupid.

  • Just Say'n||

    When you have to resort to ad hominems, you know you're winning the argument

  • Just Say'n||

    Some people interpreted Kevin WIlliamson's opinion about abortion to by misogynistic, because they're stupid. Sure, if she wrote these comments about another race she would not be given the benefit of the doubt, but that interpretation may not be any more accurate than the Left's perception of Williamson's opinions.

    Also, if it weren't for doubly standards, progressives would have no standard, which is so true it cannot be repeated enough.

  • Frazo||

    People like John here who are condemning her for "hating whitey" are really stealing quite a few bases in their condemnations.

    Or maybe John is reading her tweets and applying the dictionary definition of racism, instead of the "brown people can't be racist" version you adhere to.

  • jay||

    Ok fine, then tell me what could possibly be valid about HER definition of racism. I guess you can respond that that you aren't necessarily saying there is one, in which case maybe you just want people to have an open mind. Fair enough. So then DO please explain how her definition of racism can be of value, because at the end of the day, just because others happen to redefine words isn't justification for doing so. Tell me what is the point in considering her views other then just knowing your enemy, or learning to understand what makes stupidity possible?..and then excusing it, which in the end helps no one...not even her.

  • Azathoth!!||

    That is fine. But please at least understand that others do

    But they don't actually.

    They act as if racism follows the real definition in everything else and only use that secondary definition to rationalize the racist behavior of non-whites to whites.

    That secondary definition ONLY exists to justify racism against whites.

  • Trollificus||

    Also, the "prejudice+power" formulation is never examined with any real rigor. How's this: There is NOTHING inherently wrong with white people having most of the power in this country, just as there is nothing wrong with Indians having most of the power in India or Chinese having most of the power in China. Nothing evil, and certainly nothing to apologize for.

    The attempts to show that the nations' prosperity and success is entirely based on the backs of exploited blacks and Asians should be recognized for what they are: desperate contrivances. The country was largely built by the exploitation of WHITE people. Sure, by other white people, but hey, let's get this shit straight.

    So the formulation is flawed even at the root, except for the "prejudice" part, which reverts the defintion back to the original logical and applicable-across-the-board one. IOW, it's bullshit.

  • Trollificus||

    Also, the "prejudice+power" formulation is never examined with any real rigor. How's this: There is NOTHING inherently wrong with white people having most of the power in this country, just as there is nothing wrong with Indians having most of the power in India or Chinese having most of the power in China. Nothing evil, and certainly nothing to apologize for.

    The attempts to show that the nations' prosperity and success is entirely based on the backs of exploited blacks and Asians should be recognized for what they are: desperate contrivances. The country was largely built by the exploitation of WHITE people. Sure, by other white people, but hey, let's get this shit straight.

    So the formulation is flawed even at the root, except for the "prejudice" part, which reverts the defintion back to the original logical and applicable-across-the-board one. IOW, it's bullshit.

  • Just Say'n||

    I'll take, "things not said by chemjeff about the Williamson firing for $500, Alex".

    I love how people rage against John for being a hypocrite and then behave the exact same way. You're not any better, buddy

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Please demonstrate where I said anything with regards to Williamson's firing from the Atlantic that contradicts what I wrote above.

  • Just Say'n||

    If you didn't then my apologies. Just seems like everyone contradicts themselves ever damn week on this same stupid topic. I shouldn't have made such an accusation against you

  • Trollificus||

    Apology? Jebus, dude, where do you think you are? The not-internet?

  • ThomasD||

    "...evidently edgy views..."

    Edgy views...

    Christ , you are a simpering fuck aren't you?

  • XM||

    Does Robby really believe this "counter trolling" line of defense? Some twitter users are already pointing out that she was sending out racist tweets long before any significant harassment. And you wouldn't counter troll without providing context or disclaimer to your followers - otherwise people might think you're racist.

    And obviously if a conservative counter trolled against a Marxist Latino, the left wouldn't accept that.

    If a company had a history of unjustly firing black people but said "we'll give Latinos a fairer chance", a certain injustice still remains. There's a clear double standard in Sarah Jeong not losing her job while the likes of Kevin Williamson are fired. The bias and other implication are plain to see.

    I don't have a problem with our side taking the high road. Jeong can keep her job. But it's not mob behavior to point out hypocrisy. Seriously, how many people were banned from twitter for making less offensive jokes? Ridiculous.

  • John||

    If a company had a history of unjustly firing black people but said "we'll give Latinos a fairer chance", a certain injustice still remains. There's a clear double standard in Sarah Jeong not losing her job while the likes of Kevin Williamson are fired. The bias and other implication are plain to see.

    I don't think there is a double standard. Williamson said something that both the readership and the staff at the Atlantic found objectionable. The readership and staff of the Times do not find anything objectionable about what Joeng said. It is not the Times is saying "its okay to say offensive things if you are a Prog but not if you are a conservative." That would be a double standard. The Times is saying "it is not offensive to hate white people" and that is not a double standard.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You assume the question of a double standard only applies to the NYT here. There's a tad bit of editorializing on this page by somone not yet employed by the times.

  • posmoo||

    The times just fired a woman six months ago that was hired for the same exact tech writer position less than a year ago because she had retweeted something that was unkind towards blacks eons ago.

    If that's not a double standard, double standards don't exist.

    Literally only the races of the actors and the demonized group changed. The writer who got fired within 7 hours was still a woman even! The same tech department!

  • ||

    Look at Nick DiPaolo with Sirius.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    I do have a problem with our side taking the high road. When has the left ever been moved to feel shame by fretting and chin-stroking? It accomplishes nothing; it's just ineffectual preening by vapid moral exhibitionists like Robby and Cathy Young.

    I want this shit to end, and if demanding that leftists be held to their own standards helps convince them that ginning up outrage mobs and attacking people's livelihoods over tweets is a bad idea, then I'm all for it. As for the moral exhibitionists and their accusations of hypocrisy? I'm unaware of any principle that requires me to refrain from using the tactics that my enemies are only too willing to use against me.

  • nicmart||

    I disagree with Mr. Soave. Her sentiments are despicable and there is no ethical obstacle to her firing. I don't think twitter should censor her tweets, though. If the Times keeps her it confirms and extends its existing editorial position.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Here's an excellent example, I mentioned above, of the NYT being full of shit.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2018/07.....eptic.html

    "Transaction Costs and Tethers: Why I'm a Crypto Skeptic"

    ----Paul Krugman

    Anybody who knows more than their grandmother about cryptocurrency and reads that article should know that Krugman has no idea what he's talking about. It's like reading somebody writing about "the interwebs" in 1995, (that's when "the interwebs" came preinstalled on your computer!).

    Generally speaking, he keeps talking about "cryptocurrency", when I think he really means to talk about "bitcoin". The things he's saying about "cryptocurrency" are simply false.

    He writes about cryptocurrencies not being anonymous--like he's never heard of Monero.

    He writes about the uselessness of cryptocurrency--like he's never heard of etherium, the Etherium Alliance, all the banks, companies, etc. that are already using this stuff, like he's never heard of blockchain technology being used for smart contracts, tracking intellectual property via etherium via streaming, etc.

    Krugman doesn't know shit about cryptocurrency. I guess he's their resident economist, though, so he feels obligated to throw his worthless two cents in?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Oh, he spends so much time talking about transaction costs--apparently oblivious to etherium's pending move from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake. Krugman doesn't know shit, and people who read that column and believe what they read are actually dumber than they were before they read it.

    In this way, the New York Times squanders its intellectual authority--every fuckin' day.

  • John||

    Krugman knows a lot. He knows full well the things he is writing are untrue. He just writes them because he is a hack and enjoys the money and attention it gives him.

  • Libertymike||

    Ken, you are doing your level best to match Tom Woods in taking down Krugman.

    This is a compliment.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Bob does most of the taking down.

  • ||

    He's their resident 'conscience'.

  • MarkLastname||

    Krugman is actually a clever writer: he knows that if you say something as arrogantly and disdainfully as possible, few people will have the will and the patience to contradict you. In a debate in front of an audit ends, arrogance can be more persuasive than intelligence.

    Krugman knows trade theory and he knows monetary policy (not saying he's particular right on those). On everything else he's a total amateur, but he writes like he actually knows what he's talking about. On healthcare, my god, it's embarassing. I don't think he knows what Medicare actually does.

  • John C. Randolph||

    This is Krugman you're talking about. Better known as that asshole who said that the internet would have less impact on the economy than the fax machine. Also known as the moron who advocated the real estate bubble as a remedy for the dot com bubble.

    -jcr

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

  • Just Say'n||

    She does make a good point there

  • Widhalm19||

    I believe in Freedom Of Speech .... I believe in exposing racist hypocrites for their use of Freedom Of Speech too.

  • jdd6y||

    It seems to me that every organization has a moral duty not to hire outright, blatant racists if we don't like racism. Those tweets should be career killers. Because they weren't jokes, they were consistent -- she's a blatant bigot. But, whatever, she might be useful in crafting their editorials, so, whatevs!

  • ||

    Williamson chimes in:

    https://bit.ly/2veCoOB

    Count me in as one of those who doesn't give a shit who gets hired but the problem is it's the rule and not exception it seems these days. Too many people have lost their jobs because of the 'zeitgeist'.

    Think the CEO of Mozilla and so on.

  • Libertymike||

    It would appear that Mr. Williamson is on the same page as John, Ken, and Tom Woods on the subject of Paulie Krugnuts.

  • John||

    I can't stand Williamson but he is right. If they want to keep her, then they own all this shit.

  • Libertymike||

    I know that you can't stand him, but, in addition to the NYT having the right to keep and own her, Williamson doesn't think too much of Krugman.

  • John||

    Well, Krugman is nuts.

  • Rhywun||

    They employ some excellent reporters, a couple of very good columnists (Hey, Ross!), a fair number of mediocrities, and Paul Krugman.

    LOL

  • ||

    You saw that, eh? Lol for real.

  • Libertymike||

    That was the point I was making in responding to your initial post.

  • ||

    Got it.

  • William Mill||

    Sulzberger is a GENIUS!

    Visit Trump to whine about how badly the press is treated. Then Sulzberger pees all over himself in public by hiring a racist idiot. The resulting public disgust PROVES Sulzberger's point that everyone hates the press!

    GENIUS!

  • Libertymike||

    You know what this thread needs now?

    MICHAEL HIHN

  • John||

    The point needs to be make in all CAPS Mike. ALLCAPS.

  • ||

    You know what this thread needs now?

    This video suddenly makes so much more sense to me now.

  • Libertymike||

    Michael Hihn, folk singer?

  • Trollificus||

    Don't you have to say it three times? Or is that just Candyman?

  • jdd6y||

    I wonder how long it takes the twitter mobs to find her listing on the CA state bar website and start harassing her? That seems like what the left wing crew would do.

  • JeremyR||

    They shouldn't be obligated to fire her, but I don't know in what reality is makes sense to make a racist part of your editorial board

    This isn't an off color joke, it's pure ugly racism

  • Azathoth!!||

    I strenuously objected to Disney's firing of Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn over his offensive tweets about pedophilia.

    If Disney fired Barr, they HAD to fire Gunn.

    Gunn was obviously joking; he was trying to provoke or amuse, not communicating something he actually believed.

    But Roseanne was? Her single 'racist' tweet marked her forever as RACIST--but Gunn and co's thousands of tweets about pedophilia leave them unscathed? Both Barr and Gunn said they were joking. Both apologized.

    But Roseanne is friendless for one 'racist' tweet.

    And the pedo-wagons have circled around Gunn.

    Again, if his thousands of 'jokes' are okay, then her single 'joke' is okay.

    But, if hers aren't then his aren't.

    Of course the difference is that hers is reprehensible. His might be actionable. Pedophilia/ In Hollywood!! Shocked. Truly Shocked.

  • Just Say'n||

    It is weird how Soave avoids the whole Roseanne episode.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

  • Just Say'n||

    I know he's written on it. I meant more so as a comparison to this specific case

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    My point: World Famous Anarchist Cody Wilson created a payment platform that was soon shut down because because banks and credit cards are refusing business with right wingers... seems like a data point that would've been brought up at least once by a nominally libertarian magazine covering culture war deplatforming.

  • Just Say'n||

    Reason is at best "libertarian leaning" if we're being honest. No other libertarian publication, podcast, or commentators outside of Reason and half of CATO share their strange opinions that blend Rockefeller Republicanism with a SJW mentality. There are a lot of stories that they avoid that are far more related to libertarianism than whatever is the outrage de jour. On that point, I agree completely

  • Just Say'n||

    Also, journos are going to defend other journos. That's probably the biggest shortcoming of Reason- they have no choice but to stay friendly with an SJW obsessed journo world that may provide them with their next job.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I'm only here to laugh at this shitshow. No need to soft peddle critism to me.

  • CDRSchafer||

    What lame ass material she has. Sounds like the comments section of the Daily Kos for the last 10 years.

  • Microaggressor||

    Her journalism and the fact that she is a young Asian woman have made her the subject of frequent online harassment.

    I love how they come out the gate lying for The Cause.

    They didn't fire her because she's perfect for them. I, for one, am grateful for that transparency, as it will hasten the demise of NYT's respectability.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    If there's one thing guys who spend way too much time on the internet hate, it's young Asian women.

  • John||

    Isn't that the truth Sidd?

  • Trollificus||

    And I hate them pretty frequetntly. And vigorously!

  • John||

    STanding behind this bitch may be the first honest thing the Times has done in decades.

  • XM||

    They obviously hired her precisely because she's a "young Asian woman". It's a transparent diversity move. She's probably qualified for the position, but her ethnicity was a major plus for the NYT. Prog minorities get brownie points.

    The NYT would probably not hire Asian female journalists / personalities like Shikha Dalmia or Michelle Malkin.

  • Pudgeboy||

    Shikha Dalmia is incompetent.

  • Trollificus||

    Plus, I think you have to have more than ONE 'woke' position to qualify. They're already got the open borders beat covered anyway.

  • Nardz||

    Diversity move
    aka
    racism

    When "race"/ethnicity/identity-class is determinative, it's racism.
    Full stop.

  • Priscilla King||

    + this.

  • Priscilla King||

    More comments come in as we type. I was plussing XM's comment.

  • Longtobefree||

    The New York Times has not had respectability for years.

  • John C. Randolph||

    The NYT should just go out of business because they suck at their jobs.

    -jcr

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Theyre on their way

  • Trigger Warning||

    Change the word "white" to the word "black," and I bet Retard Suave never would have written this shit.

  • XM||

    Exactly. And no one would be defending Gunn if he joked about lynching. If he fantasized about raping women under his employ #Metoo would not be as silent.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Does Soave that without Jeong "woke anti-whiteness leftist thought" would NOT be represented at the NYT?

    What reality does he live in?

  • John C. Randolph||

    At this time, I'd like to take a moment to thank Craig Newmark for cutting the NYT's throat financially.

    -jcr

  • Just Say'n||

    You know what's stupid? This conversation that happens every week with everyone switching sides depending on the principal.

    Progressives are hypocrites? Woah!

    Conservatives employ the same tactics used against them in order to exact their pound of flesh? So surprising!

  • ||

    ^ This.

  • jay||

    conservatives defend people who are victims of hypocracy, that doesn't mean they defend the actions. Some people defended rosanne because of the hypocracy, and some don't unfortunately see that there is much better benefit in exploring the values surrounding it. Roseanne was who she was all her life because of the liberal values she had, she in fact was a victim of the cover the left had given her all those years. She thought she could get away with anything for reasons not obvious to her. She was just a naive about the existence of a double standard as some of the posters on here.

  • Azathoth!!||

    You know what's stupid? This conversation that happens every week with everyone switching sides depending on the principal.

    That's so right! --except it's completely wrong!!

    The people on the right demanding that the actions be the same across the board are not 'switching sides'. They don't want Jeong fired--IF Roseanne is rehired. IF Eichs gets his job back. IF the rules are applied equally.

    But they're not.

    So, if one is fired, then the other must be.

    We can have what the right wants--an end to the witch hunts and life destroying--or we can settle for what the left is doing--they get to say and do and destroy with impunity.

    No. Not anymore.

  • Mr. Dyslexic||

    Sarah Jeong's tweets are just the tip of the iceberg from this bitch, and were most likely posted with niggardly regard.

    Come to think of it, haven't we seen people lose their jobs in the past for using the word niggardly correctly in speeches and interviews?

  • Happy Chandler||

    I don't think that word means what you think it does.

  • Libertymike||

    Yes, he does.

    Of course, Mr. D could have used the word thusly, "When it came to expressions of affection and love, demonstrations of the same toward Happy by her mother were niggardly."

  • Priscilla King||

    (dons editor's hat) There is no correct use of "niggardly" because it's a useless obsolete word that deserves to die. "Miserly" is *always* better, unless you're repeating it in a context where repetition is not strategic, in which case "parsimonious" is better, or even "cheeseparing."

  • Mr. Dyslexic||

    Sarah Jeong's tweets are just the tip of the iceberg from this bitch, and were most likely posted with niggardly regard.

    Come to think of it, haven't we seen people lose their jobs in the past for using the word niggardly correctly in speeches and interviews?

  • Longtobefree||

    That's different

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    But that's an argument for getting rid of unsigned editorials, not an argument for getting rid of Jeong.

    True, but since the NYT isn't getting rid of unsigned editorials, then they've got a major problem with keeping Jeong.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Not really, the unsigned editorials are in essence the opinion of the entire board, thus no need to single out whose opinion it is.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Good point.

  • Toranth||

    Remember, according to the Palin defamation lawsuit, no one at the NYT's editorial board is responsible for what the editorial board writes!

  • damikesc||

    If it was said about ANY other race, you would demand firing. Ditto if it was about a gay person

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Have you seen Robby? ESPECIALLY if it was about a gay person.

  • creech||

    Let's see now. It is fine for the "Paper of Record" for Top. Men. and influence makers and peddlers, to defend having a racist on their editorial staff, but horrible for a guy who founded a pizza delivery company to quote another guy who used a racist insult

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You weren't supposed to notice that.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I don't really have a problem with Jeong tweeting what she tweeted, in or out of context, because it's just like, her opinion, man. Actually in context it might not be her actual opinion. I don't care. Cons and libs gonna keep digging up old out-of-context tweets in a battle of "ha, gotcha!" until the end of time, but ultimately it's all pointless. It hasn't taken long for the kneejerk firings to slow down and probably soon stop entirely. Getting panties bunched over some old tweets/comments/speech is boring. Who is so motivated to go digging through years of tweets to get some stranger fired?

    A dog who seems to respond with great enthusiasm to "gas the Jews"?! Well now there's someone who should be pilloried and shamed! Swarms of angry, black-clad, anonymous masked heroes should be lining up to sucker punch a small dog for being a Nazi, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

  • esteve7||

    You mean Jailed. It was only a small miracle he was fined instead of put in prison

  • STSA||

    Jailed for what? In America, we don't put people in prison for free speech or likes. Besides, the difference between Nazis and Asian racists is that the NYT doesn't hire Nazis. But if you're an Asian who hates whites? That's OK.

  • Reverendcaptain||

    I'm not the kind of guy who's anxious to get people fired but there is a sense of fairness and REASON here surrounding what is acceptable in our society. Sure, move the goalposts, you've been doing that all my life, but if you're going to establish new, ridiculous standards, at least make them standards we all live by.
    I appreciate Robby wanting to stick by his standards but the NY Times is showing its hypocrisy and should be called out over and over and over. The end.

  • Reverendcaptain||

    I'm not the kind of guy who's anxious to get people fired but there is a sense of fairness and REASON here surrounding what is acceptable in our society. Sure, move the goalposts, you've been doing that all my life, but if you're going to establish new, ridiculous standards, at least make them standards we all live by.
    I appreciate Robby wanting to stick by his standards but the NY Times is showing its hypocrisy and should be called out over and over and over. The end.

  • John||

    What she said was really disgusting. I think she should be fired. And I am fine with any white person who says such things about other races being fired over it too. Fuck her. She is just a nasty person who doesn't deserve to be on the editorial board of any respectable publication.

  • XM||

    She's most likely a garden variety Asian prog (second gen Korean American, I presume).

    I've never heard of her, and neither did 99% of other Asians. But as far as the NYT is concerned she's a vibrant, representative voice of the Asian community. An asset for no other reason than her cultural background.

    In real life, Japan rolls their eyes when American SJW foam at the mouth at white models wearing a kimono for a photo shoot. The big 3 in Asia (China, Japan, Korea) are generally nationalists and do not obsess over "representation". They're not going to watch some lame Asian American ensemble comedy (with Ken Jeong at the lead) just because the cast is inclusive in the American context.

    There was no reason for NYT to retain her. They could have easily replaced her with a more likable, even tempered tech writer who could be just as informative. How many white readers outside the hard left would want to read her material? Most Asians probably don't read that rag to begin with. This woman made dozens of vile tweets, and they're not some "white people can't jump" type disses. But it's not about readership, but it's about ideology.

  • Nardz||

    Japan rolls their eyes when American SJW foam at the mouth at white models wearing a kimono for a photo shoot. The big 3 in Asia (China, Japan, Korea) are generally nationalists and do not obsess over "representation"

    I hear the term 'baizuo' has become quite popular in China. I believe it means 'white-left'
    I like it.
    I've also hear that Korea is home to an extremely racist culture, and we know Japan's history.
    And you know what?
    I've got no problem with that.
    "You do you." That is the whole of the law.

  • shortviking||

    I don't understand the point of calling out her hypocrisy if not to make sure she pays a price for her toxic racist views.

  • ThanksForTheFish||

    The best part is all these progressive assholes falling all over each to justify why rascism is okay... for some people.

  • SIV||

    That's a large part of Robbie's shtick.

  • Trollificus||

    "To be sure..."

  • Jayburd||

    Just when I was getting a vision of a dominatrix Lucy Liu leadind a bound and gagged Koch bro around I read this-

    Look, if the New York Times wants to hand over their editorial page to someone who writes like every other brain-dead Wellesley sophomore grievance studies major, that's their business

    — David Burge (@iowahawkblog) August 2, 2018

  • Jayburd||

    Makes me wonder if Rico Suave went to Wellesley.

  • Jayburd||

    and what he would look like in a dominatrix outfit

  • Ron||

    And how does Robby feel about Trumps tweets

  • Pudgeboy||

    The statement by the NYT and her lame justification are complete bullshit... neither is sincere. She is a bigot and a racist. That is obvious. To pretend otherwise is laughable.

  • Marshal||

    She was responding to harassing tweets she had received by mimicking their tone and structure and substituting "white people" for whatever slur the trolls had directed at her.

    Note Robbie repeats this as fact even though people have already posted racist tweets which were not responsive to others.

    A culture in which people are allowed to seek forgiveness, grow, and go on with their lives without losing their jobs

    She didn't seek forgiveness. Robbie's problem is that he's so wedded to his narrative he doesn't particularly care what the facts are. That's probably why he's working so hard to get to WAPO where he'll fit right in.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    ""Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants," she wrote in November 2014. "

    You gonna eat me with some bulgogi sauce, bitch?

  • Trollificus||

    I mean, those white people act like they didn't culturally appropriate the Internet!

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    Reason shouldn't fire Robby Soave for writing opinions that have nothing to do with Libertarianism.

  • SIV||

    Boy brings the CLICKS

  • Nardz||

    I do find it interesting that the articles about the Twitter-based war which has broken out routinely get the most (hundreds, over 500 now on this one alone) comments.
    Fun times

  • Nardz||

    Also interesting: this War of the Twitterfield... doesn't even involve Trump

  • Rockabilly||

    The New York Times blows chunks.

    It reported that Saddam had a nuculur bomb.

    Well, ass hats, where the fuck is the fucking nucular bomb? Up your pompous fat ass ???

  • Myk||

    You can't call out the hypocrisy without requiring the same action, to do so is enabling hypocrisy. They who live by the sword need to learn they will die by the sword.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • SIV||

    Kevin Williamson hates white people too. Maybe Quinn Norton...

  • Trollificus||

    Is it spanking? Young Asian woman bare-ass spanking? Coz that sounds totally fair to me.

  • posmoo||

    "She was responding to harassing tweets she had received by mimicking their tone and structure and substituting "white people" for whatever slur the trolls had directed at her."

    That's a lie, Robby, and I think you know it. Half of those tweets were spontaneous expressions of racial hatred aimed at no one in particular but instead the entire world.

    Your main argument, that the nytimes shouldn't fire her, just like they shouldn't fire those that get caught expressing less than sympathetic views for races that the times views as actually worthy of protection is garbage too.

    The times should fire her exactly because they fired the woman who they hired before her for tweeting less than sympathetic things about trans and black people. If the times is going to be agressive about policing the behavior of editors who marginalize whole classes of people, at the very least they must be consistent. With regards to sanctioning others, people and organizations should above almost everything else strive to treat people consistently for the same or similar behavior.

    You're a marginal writer, probably outright disengenuos but at the very least an uninterested researcher, and a terrible thinker, Robby. But you'll always have a job as long as Reason is around because it is so hard to find even a marginal writer who is nominally a libertarian and can be counted on to hold such conflicted and illogical positions on such a consistent basis that the Koch brothers can get behind.

  • Nardz||

    Daaaaaamn, posmoo... well done.

    Nothing is less Progressive than logical consistency.
    The psychological/pathological consistency of progressivism and progressives, on the other hand, is quite obvious.

  • wreckinball||

    Robby seriously you are the one that needs fired

  • Careless||

    needs fired what?

  • wreckinball||

    I mean this chick is a racist bitch. But that fits right in with the NYT.

    And folks wonder about the rise of the Proud Boys and other white groups. It's self defense

  • vek||

    At a certain point if organized group violence is being perpetrated against your group, you have to fight back. If they keep pushing with all this shit I think white people are going to remind all the other ethnic groups why WE conquered the world, and they didn't. White people are really, really, REALLY nice... Until we're not. So for all the non whites sake, I hope the cut this shit out. Otherwise it may get real messy.

  • jay||

    actually, that was HER (completely unjustifiable) defence. There is no such thing as collective racial self defence racism that therefore isn't racism.

  • Jim Strom||

    Even if you accept that her comments were satire, the reputation of the NYT will be damaged in the many eyes of people who won't get that, or won't accept it as excuse, or won't believe it. Belief is reality to a certain extent, and the NYT is sacrificing reputation and influence unnecessarily and for poor return.

  • GamerFromJump||

    Quite simply, in war, the aggressor chooses the rules. They have chosen this rule of "destroy by Twit mob". Smashing this woman is just following the RoE she supports.

  • Hattori Hanzo||

    NYT has no credibility. Print media is dead. They're in a freefall scramble to appeal to the Proggies in hopes they will buy papers.

  • LamarPye||

    Political correctness will destroy this nation

  • Tony||

    That seems a bit far-fetched.

  • hello.||

    She was responding to harassing tweets she had received by mimicking their tone and structure and substituting "white people" for whatever slur the trolls had directed at her.

    Actually you lying shitbag most of her tweets were not in response to anything and cover a span of over 2 years. But then you knew that since it's been reported on literally everywhere and all of her offensive tweets have been retained for your perusal.

    You can still suck her grrrl-cock and offer your fealty to her cause without lying like a piece of shit. All it requires is a little honesty about who and what you are.

  • Nardz||

    One thing it seems we fail to consider: Progressive racialism, the grievance industry, SJWs, etc isn't just directed at the "oppressed" classes.
    Some have noted above that this demonization of "whites" and the double standard with which racism is treated by the Left actually strengthens white supremacist movements.
    This is true - and this effect is not unintentional.
    Progressives need "white" supremacists just as much as they need "colored" victims.
    The more innocent aspect of this strategy is that "oppression" and hatred gives Progressives' lives meaning. The more sinister aspect is that it sows division and breaks down harmonious culture.
    Progressivism is a virus.

  • Tony||

    But also capable of such 3-D chess. White goes first!

    I wonder why bigots can't figure out that the way to defeat this nefarious plot is simply to stop being bigots.

  • vek||

    But that's not really true... There is almost zero overt racism in the western world, FAR less than anywhere else like Asia etc... Yet they still endlessly push the narrative.

    When ANY difference in outcome can just arbitrarily be called "racism" versus looking at the REAL reasons there are differences in outcomes... They can keep the lie going even with ZERO actual racists left in the world.

    Example: Women and their myriad of different outcomes versus men. It's biological people! Women prefer people to things, this shows up in every survey ever... Yet it is sexism that explains why fewer women are interested in engineering versus being a doctor... BULLSHIT.

    The same type of nonsense gets applied to every other sexual difference in outcomes, ethnic differences etc. So they can keep that lie going as long as they want, and as long as gullible people fall for the lies, despite facts proving them to be nonsense.

  • ThomasD||

    "This is true - and this effect is not unintentional."

    The specific divisions may not be intentional, but creating such divisions is the explicit goal of critical theory.

  • Nardz||

    Yes it is. And to put it more bluntly:
    Progressives want the white supremacist (And racism in general) to increase, to grow. It is not an unforseen consequence

  • Kivlor||

    I'm not convinced that they want white people to move that direction. I think that they want whites to lay down and take what they have planned. And South Africa is the model.

  • jay||

    this is true. They want to control both sides of every argument. Every semi-legitimate argument the left offers actually applies mostly to left areas. Most far left people (the ones I know) do the most complaining about race etc, within the context of looking at and living in a mostly moderate to farther left environment. The get their complaints by assuming their far left big city as a representation of the whole country and in the end nobody remembers otherwise.

  • Matthew Chalice||

    Any see Cathy Reisenwitz's tweets on this? Remember when she at least pretended to be a libertarian?

  • Matthew Chalice||

    *Anyone

  • Eddy||

    "Aaaaaack!"

  • ThomasD||

    "Call out hypocrisy, but don't join the lynch mob."

    You've come this far, now acknowledge that tit-for-tat really did work.

    Still amazing though, Rico Suave can actually learn something. Not that he'd ever admit it.

  • Michael Cook||

    Once upon a time long ago, (Nov.1, 1989) I was so proud to have sold an op-ed piece to the New York Times and have it appear.

    Well, that was then. Today the NYT races full speed towards the dust bin of history. Stuffed with their own self-importance, living on a reputation they totally do not deserve anymore, and surviving economically only by stoking the fires of Trump hatred that their cosmopolitan readers crave. this is an institution whose breath already emits the stink of a corpse in the noon day sun.

  • vek||

    I hate all this shit... But I think I agree with the people who said "Lynch the bitch!"

    As long as a double standard exists favoring woke ass commies, we can't let this stand. Either everybody gets fired, or nobody gets fired. I'd prefer nobody getting fired, but until the SJW idiots lay off I think we should ruin the lives and careers of as many shit libs as we can. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire and all that good stuff. The left has pretty much pulled out all the stops, if we just let them continue to have their way our entire civilization is DONE. So in this time and place, I say fight dirty if we must. The stakes are too high to lose!

  • tlapp||

    Agreed they should not fire her. They should keep her there as a constant reminder of their hypocrisy and racism.

  • Deplorable Victor||

    Not even going to read it. There is nothing too ugly - no violence, no loss - that could befall that filthy chink cunt and be "unfair."

  • RanterInEminor||

    The question that sticks out in my mind is ; how exactly was she being cruel to old white men ? Did she push them down a flight of stairs ? Take their cane or walker from them ? Subject them to her vapid and pointless writing ?

    Which ever is the case criminal charges should be brought against her.

  • TGGeko||

    "people are allowed to seek forgiveness, grow, and go on with their lives "

    Funny, I don't remember when she recanted her posts and sought forgiveness.

  • Jerry B.||

    Fire her. What's sauce for the Right Wing goose is sauce for the Progressive gander.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Reprisals are necessary.

  • Wrath0fKahn||

    It's just weird that we've moved to where professionals, are not expected to conduct themselves professionally anymore. I mean, if you're out and out posting racist shit them I think it's fine to expect that person to be fired, and if Reason wasn't trying to kiss progressive ass all the time then they would admit that. Fox News ought to fire staff who say publicly racist or sexist things, and I'd expect the same from the NYT.

  • Cyronic||

    Is it hypocrisy to demand that a Leftist be held to the same standard and fired? Or is it just a demand for consistency?

    Yes, conservatives are rightly incensed when a member of their "tribe" is fired for past comments. If forcing the Left to be consistent wakes them up to the stupidity of their practice, so much the better. If it doesn't, then at least it will be an even playing field. (Insert something about wrestling a pig in the mud, or somesuch.)

  • jjjjj||

    Calling someone a hypocrite is dumb. Either they have already rationalized their reason for behaving differently and therefore can quickly dismiss your comment, or they are a self-acknowledged hypocrite and therefore have no problem with you making a true statement.

    This is why dismissing their credibility, or to get more under the skin calling them 'fake news,' is a more effective tactic. Next time they call for a firing you can say "why should we believe fake news from a newspaper that has racists on its staff?"

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    They're also sociopathic as well.

  • Sonny Bono's Ghost||

    Holding the Left to their own standards is NOT hypocrisy.

  • ||

    Say hello to Weigel for me when you finally get that job at the Washington Post you're angling for, Soave.

    It's fucking disgusting to see what Reason has become.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    > The New York Times Shouldn't Fire Sarah Jeong for Racist Tweets About White People

    Are you completely insane?!?!?!?!

    OF COURSE THEY SHOULD. Because everyone to the right of Joe Stalin is going to use this against the NYT. It's a horrible business decision.

  • BlueEyes_Austin||

    Generally to seek forgiveness one must acknowledge they did something wrong.

    She did not.

  • James Solbakken||

    Some here have alluded to the truth about Jeong, but perhaps it will help if I spell it out and make it absolutely crystal clear:

    This is not about her being a racist, it is ALL about her being a Alinsky-game-playing communist POS. Her point is to manipulate everyone and make us all on every side stupid. The Lynch Mob needs to string her up because of that, not because of the racist content of her tweets.

  • Jayburd||

    Oh no, you mean hypocrisy is the essence of Marxism and race baiting is a tool?

  • Crazyotto||

    Thank you .. the calls for her firing are silly as the NYT knows exactly what they are getting and she is it. She deserves to called out for support of leftist tyranny. Her racism is hollow regardless if justified (according to the author it is justified) I really believe that Reason has dropped off the edge of legitimate journalism. They seem to have quite a few "safe space" marxist snowflakes working over there pumping the illegal, amnesty, BLM war cry ..

  • Crazyotto||

    The author mentions Ben Shapiro's admission to some rather lame tweets. In they were tame and he apologized and brought them to light. The big difference here is that silly and ignorant Korean - American did not apologize

  • McCackie||

    It is very helpful, now officially the NYT is a Racist organisation. Knowingly hiring a racist to senior management removes any doubt. It is just a new version of the Democrat KKK.

  • JWC||

    By substituting a definition of racism that requires the perpetrator to be in a position of power over his victim, the New York Times has attempted a bit of sleight of hand to excuse this horrific hire. The fact that Sarah Jeong is Korean-American complicates this narrative. Asian-Americans, in general, enjoy academic, professional, and economic success in the United States far greater than that of the white Americans that Jeong so glibly disparages (as satire or not). 50% of Asian-Americans have a BA, BS or higher degree, compared to 31% of white Americans. Asian-Americans enjoy a median household income of $66,000, compared to $54,000 for whites. If a position of power (however dubiously) is needed to exercise racism against others, Asian-Americans do not seem to be lacking, at least by most metrics.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online