The NY Times hires an anti-white racists

Seth Barron:
When it emerged yesterday that the Twitter feed of the New York Times editorial board’s latest appointee, Sarah Jeong, crackled with nasty and puerile racial invective, it was generally assumed by many—including her defenders—that she would be let go before the day was over. Jeong’s Twitter remarks were so over-the-top—calling white people “groveling goblins” whose pale skin should force them to live underground, like Morlocks; saying “#CancelWhitePeople”; and exulting in being “cruel” to old white people—that it seemed absurd that the venerable Times editorial board, of all places, would welcome the thumbs that tapped out such jejeune trash.

But it turns out that Jeong is keeping her job, and that the Times knew about her comments when they hired her. “We had candid conversations with Sarah as part of our thorough vetting process,” the Paper of Record clarified, “which included a review of her social media history. She understands that this type of rhetoric is not acceptable at the Times.” Jeong herself explained that “as a woman of color on the internet, I have faced torrents of online hate.” Her comments, she said, cannot be construed as racist because they were “not aimed at a general audience, because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns.” The logic is twisted, but enlightening once you untangle it: Jeong’s explicitly racial insults were intended to “counter-troll” her white harassers, not all whites—many of whom, it is to be assumed, are fine people.

This is the same logic, of course, that all racists use when someone calls them to account for their words. When celebrity television chef Paula Deen admitted in 2013 that she used the “N-word” once to describe a black man who held a gun to her head during a bank robbery, her naïve assumption that people would understand that she didn’t mean to impugn all blacks cost Deen her show and sponsorships. But as the Jeong Affair is making clear to anyone who hadn’t already noticed, different rules apply depending on who’s speaking, and to whom they’re speaking.

Jeong calls herself “a woman of color on the internet”—surely a novel formulation of identity—and assumes a veil of protection from criticism based on this status. It’s hard to understand how a highly rewarded immigrant, whose family was embraced by the same country whose majority population she now denigrates, sees herself as a victim. Yet she does, and in fact, a supportive media narrative casts her as a double victim: first she was trolled by racists online, and now “far-right” activists and even “Nazis” are trying to get her fired. Jeong is not racist, her defenders say—on the spurious but now broadly held view that only whites can be—and even to pose the question, or refer critically to her tweets, or doubt the probity of the New York Times, suggests hatefulness.
...
A lot of white men selflessly gave their lives to protect her native country from one of the most brutal tyrannies on this earth.  Some of their remains are only now being returned to this country.  Racism is where you find it.  South Africa is imposing racism against a white minority taking their land to give to blacks.  It is the kind of thing that led to a disaster in Zimbabwe turning it from the breadbasket of Africa into a basket case economy much like that of Venezuela now.  She would need to show a real change of heart to get a job at a prestigious paper like the Times.  It is not enough to say that those remarks do not meet their standards.  She was wrong and she should admit it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Democrats worried about 2018 elections

Two-thirds of uninsured uncertain about buying insurance

Dr. Ford symptoms of paranoia and the second front door