Another pointless “political” act

I start to realize how much of the “political” and cultural hot-button issues are irrelevant. Please check out this reddit link! Don’t read comments and the OP is nothing but links. Over 60. Not to reddit or 4chan but to various “real” media pages.

Why? Because New York Times hired an editor called Sarah Jeong and stood by their decision. Sarah Jeong is “somewhat” racist. She talks on Twitter like a KKK grand cyclops talks to his best friend after 2 cartons of beer. Click on any of these screenshots to verify. At your own risk, they are really bad:

Needless to say the liberals are standing by her because according to them racism is not judging someone after his race, but some bizarre nonsense about historical systemic power difference or whatnot. Because a guy surely can’t commit a hate crime against you if you are historically privileged. Also needless to say, the conservatives are up in arms against her, including the president of the USA who retweeted one of the articles condemning her.

No, I won’t join the chorus. I want to point out that it’s about nothing. Tell me, how many NYT columnist do you know by name? Have you ever bothered to read their editorials? Do you think that they ever persuaded anyone about anything? They are just preaching to the liberal choir who reads them. After all…
sarahX

It’s a big nothing. Your life isn’t affected by her hiring. Your life wouldn’t be affected if she is fired and subsequently starts “Stormfront for Asians”. You don’t have to read her crap, no matter where she publishes it. So please don’t waste time with such “cultural politics”! If you want to be political, fine, follow actual politicians doing actual changes instead of nobodies being racist on the internet.

What can I add?
sarahY

Advertisements

Author: Gevlon

My blog: https://greedygoblinblog.wordpress.com/

12 thoughts on “Another pointless “political” act”

  1. Meh. She’s entitled to her opinion. All I have to do to not be exposed to her stupidity is to not follow her on twitter. Which is not difficult as I neither have a twitter account nor do I care what she thinks. Now, if she was on the Supreme Court, I would be bit more perturbed.

    Do you know what would be worse? If we lived in a country that could jail you for your opinion.

    Like

  2. @Smokeman: true and I never claimed otherwise. However you don’t need to follow her twitter to be exposed to her stupidity, as she is on the NYT editorial board, so she’ll directly contribute to the unsigned editorials and lower journalists are expected to follow the lead of the board. So practically anything you read on NYT will be tainted by her hate. However you don’t have to read the NYT either and that’s the point of the post.

    @Nightgerbil: please spare me from offtopic rants about unions.

    Like

  3. As you like gevlon: You don’t hear it though it never gets talked about. The right says its bad for the economy, but nobody says why its bad for us who have to suffer from them. I thought she made some good points about it.

    Like

  4. “Allowing people who hate you and want you to die into positions of power is no big deal, no point in contesting it.”

    No, the old media is not as powerful as it used to be. No, getting this one person fired will not make a noticeable difference. That does not mean the principle is wrong. You should fight your enemies.

    Imagine if people had fought, in the past. Imagine how much better the world would be if all media across the entire west wasn’t a fully-owned propaganda organ of the globalist left. If every institution of higher learning wasn’t completely subverted by Marxists.

    Like

  5. Yup, anyone thinking this is a real issue needs to re-evaluate his life priorities. Life is too short to get outraged over everything. But it is good to see New York Times exposed for hypocrites, where racism is ok as long as it aligns with the sensibilities of the Democrat party.

    Like

  6. @AVG but you fight with ideas, not with censorship. Firing Jeong for being openly racist isn’t different from firing Alex Jones. Jones got 6 million!!! new subscribers on his apps. He just got more interesting to many people. Jeong’s disgusting views should be contested, not her person.

    Like

  7. meanwhile anything “nazi” gets banned from the platforms. newest purge Infowars stuff on apple, youtube and facebook. not that I’m fond of the snake oil alex jones is selling. but we all know the saying “first they came[..]then they came for me.”. if infowars gets baned, ok, than people like this fine specimen of a NYT editor should be banned also.

    We really should invest into decentralised web, all of us. archive.org is looking into it https://archive.org/details/DWebMeetUp and it still feels like unreliable and buggy shit. this needs to change fast … but how to you crowd fund research about topics no one really understands but are crucial for this kind of resilient tech?

    Like

  8. The point is that, if you advocate for banning miss Jeong, you accept banning infowars as a just and viable tactic. The answer is not more of the same, just directed at diffrent people. The ansewer is NOBODY should be censored.

    Like

  9. Gevlon:
    “However you don’t need to follow her twitter to be exposed to her stupidity, as she is on the NYT editorial board”

    True, of course, she appears to be trying to fix that with the last “tweet” you put in the post. LOL, it’s like she has tourette syndrome or something and can’t help but try to piss people off. That can’t be good for the NYT.

    There is a “problem” here? But as you’re saying, it can’t be fixed by yelling, screaming, pointing fingers, or flopping about. The problem is people that think it’s Ok to censor others simply because those others have ideas they don’t to sound reasonable and spread. Of course, that’s why the adults are in charge of the Supreme Court. There ARE valid reasons to silence people; if someone is disrupting your business, you can tell them to leave. But you can’t have them arrested unless they fail to comply, and then that arrest will have nothing to do with the speech or behavior, but will be for trespassing.

    So, the worst thing would be if you could be arrested for wrong thinking, as it appears you can be in at least some parts of Europe. Next is if the few people in charge of critically important infrastructure decide to deny you the ability to do business with them based on the same. And THAT’s in the process of happening, but only time will tell if that’s going to be effective. At the moment I think we’ll find out that these people aren’t in as much charge of that infrastructure as they think they are.

    What’s important is that we don’t give credence to the hate mongers that are calling for “censorship of the internet” to stop … paradoxically… “hate.”

    Like

  10. AVG:
    “That does not mean the principle is wrong. You should fight your enemies.”

    You also need to choose your enemies, and the way you can legitimately fight them, carefully. Let’s take This Leong (Or whatever her name is, I can’t be bothered to try to spell it right.) and the NYT. If they were the ONLY NEWSPAPER you could get, or if somehow, they had a total monopoly on news, yeah. That would be a problem. As it is? Just ignore them. The same with CNN, Breitbart, or Alex Jones’ Infowars.

    You can’t ‘fix’ humanity without hogtying it with totalitarian mechanisms, and you shouldn’t try. The best you can do is a constitution based approach where freedoms like the first amendment are in place. Of course, people ARE dumb, and WILL eventually gravitate towards “magic” approaches that promise “guaranteed peace for all.” Is this good in my opinion? No. But if you try to stop it with your OWN appeals to totalitarian control, you only speed up the process.

    Like

  11. I don’t think that Ms. Jeong will go gently or quietly into that good night. The one thing that people always seem to forget in cases like these, is that past behavior is the best way to gauge future behavior. With her previous comments, the NYT’s is putting itself at a huge risk, because she can no longer be trusted by the readership to be non-biased about certain topics. Her hiring is a clear indication from the NYT’s that it cares nothing about pre-existing bias, and anything she is connected to reporting/editorializing on should be viewed as highly suspect.

    Like

  12. @Noguff: I don’t see a risk, because NYT is exactly as biased as her, they merely more civil and don’t shout “cancel white people” (just think it). The subscribers want exactly those kind of opinions. So her being on NYT is just as obvious as a guy who call everyone “nigger faggots” get hired by Stormfront.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s