New York Times stands by editorial board hire despite racist tweets

[Guest]

First topic message reminder :

The New York Times on Thursday was standing by its latest editorial board hire — despite revelations that she has made some racists tweets aimed at white people.

Tech writer Sarah Jeong has drawn fire in social media for a series of tweets she made several years ago that bashed “dumbass f–king white people,” whom she derides in another tweet as “groveling goblins.”

The Times does not condone the remarks, it said.

Jeong said she was imitating the language of her online harassers and intended it as “satire” — but now “deeply regrets that I imitated the language of my harassers.”

Jeong, a South Korean native, tweeted in November 2014: “Dumbass f–king white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

In another tweet she asks, “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”

In a third tweet, Jeong wrote: “Oh man, it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”

Some took to Twitter to wonder if the Times ever bothered to check her social media background before hiring her.

The Times on Thursday insisted it was aware of the remarks and is standing by her and insisted her comments were reactions to vicious online bashing attacking her background.

“We hired Sarah Jeong because of the exceptional work she has done covering the internet and technology at a range of respected publications,” the Times said in a statement.

“Her journalism and the fact that she is a young Asian woman have made her a subject of frequent online harassment,” the newspaper added. “For a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers. She sees now that this approach only served to feed the vitriol that we too often see on social media. She regrets it, and The Times does not condone it.”

The newspaper said it had “candid conversations” with Jeong during the hiring process — and went over her social media history.

“She understands that this type of rhetoric is not acceptable at The Times and we are confident that she will be an important voice for the editorial board moving forward,” the newspaper said.

Jeong said, “I engaged in what I thought of at the time of counter-trolling. While it was intended as satire, I deeply regret that I mimicked the language of my harassers. These comments were not aimed at a general audience, because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns. I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context, and would not do it again.”

https://nypost.com/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-editorial-board-hire-despite-racist-tweets/

['Wolfie]

Ben Folds   ==   clueless dickwits...

You don’t know who Ben Folds is, do you? It’s a PERSON - you didn’t even know that much so how do you know if they’re “clueless”.

You clueless dickwit.  

Secondly, I was quoting the poster Ben himself, who’d just written those very song lyrics earlier, on this very thread.

Clear now?

Oh what’s the point.

Any songwriter who writes that kind of clueless and shameless crap  ==  a clueless fuckwit...

Put that kind of ignorant bullshit in front of a Koori, Amazon native, Innuit or native American, and see what kind of reaction he might get..

**************************************

Oh, and I have heard of Ben Folds Five, over the years.

We do still get music down here in the Never Never..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Folds_Five

[Guest]

You don’t know who Ben Folds is, do you? It’s a PERSON - you didn’t even know that much so how do you know if they’re “clueless”.

You clueless dickwit.  

Secondly, I was quoting the poster Ben himself, who’d just written those very song lyrics earlier, on this very thread.

Clear now?

Oh what’s the point.

Any songwriter who writes that kind of clueless and shameless crap  ==  a clueless fuckwit...

Put that kind of ignorant bullshit in front of a Koori, Amazon native, Innuit or native American, and see what kind of reaction he might get..

I would encourage him to do so and speak freely with the ancestors living today

How is that ignorant unless you think he is responsible?

I would suggest you have not a clue nor do you have an idea how many Koori, Amazon native, Innuit or native American would react. I bet many would never blame him also either and think you are a complete dick

Just because you are mixed aboriginie, does not mean you share the views of countless other indegeneous people. Your other half Australian, was part of a people that clearly did discriminate against the indegeneous.

Go figure

So to say he is clueless when he is correct, is what is wrong with you here.

He has not committed a crime and yet you think people born, have to share the responsibility of a crime, their ancestors did

Nobody states that the Germans have to live with the guilt of the Holocaust forever or that Germans today are responsible

Ask any Jew this and they will say to you, that Germans living today are not responsible. They blame those who did this, not their descendents

You really are an imibiclle to claim people should bear responsibility for the crimes of others, when they never committed them

Its the same bullshit leftist victimhood mentality. You dont teach people to be strong and stand on their own two feet, you would rather teach them to feel insecure and weak. When they are nothing of the sort. They are strong, because unlike you, they in the main have learnt from these past horrors and are able to move forward

[nicko]

Veya spouts the same bullshit, some times wonder who "educated" them !

[Original Quill]

The ancestors of slaves haven't put money in anyone's pocket. They wouldn't be entitled to interest anyway.

You can say that, but then you are freely taking the position that the property gained by holders of slaves is presently available for anyone to take.

If the property yielded from slavery didn't go to slave-holders, that means it's up for grabs. If enough blacks move in and take over the land, buildings and holdings of former slave-holders and their states, maybe we can cure the south and what ails it. There will be no need for a moral reckoning.

[Guest]

The ancestors of slaves haven't put money in anyone's pocket. They wouldn't be entitled to interest anyway.

You can say that, but then you are freely taking the position that the property gained by holders of slaves is presently available for anyone to take.

If the property yielded from slavery didn't go to slave-holders, that means it's up for grabs.  If enough blacks move in and take over the land, buildings and holdings of former slave-holders and their states, maybe we can cure the south and what ails it.  There will be no need for a moral reckoning.

What about the porperty yeilded by Aricans that enslaved them

They now stand today, as the elite and off the back of this slavery

Maybe latinos can take your home, I mean California, was once part of mexico. That kind of makes you a squatter

[Original Quill]

You can say that, but then you are freely taking the position that the property gained by holders of slaves is presently available for anyone to take.

If the property yielded from slavery didn't go to slave-holders, that means it's up for grabs.  If enough blacks move in and take over the land, buildings and holdings of former slave-holders and their states, maybe we can cure the south and what ails it.  There will be no need for a moral reckoning.

What about the porperty yeilded by Aricans that enslaved them

They now stand today, as the elite and off the back of this slavery

You are talking about...what?  A few elephant's foot wastebaskets?  I'd rather go after the Floridians who own Miami Beach.

Maybe latinos can take your home, I mean California, was once part of mexico. That kind of makes you a squatter

The principle we are talking about is value derived from slavery.  Mexicans were never slaves.  

As far as the land, it was taken in the Mexican-American war in 1848.  Mexico only came into possession of the west coast in 1821.  Mexicans started the war...poor boys.  Bad luck, that...President Polk had even sent a peace delegation to try to resolve things.  Santa Anna never was good at chess...and the US had a waaay better army.  To the victor go the spoils...and all that.  Ta-ta!  

[Guest]

What about the porperty yeilded by Aricans that enslaved them

They now stand today, as the elite and off the back of this slavery

You are talking about...what?  A few elephant's foot wastebaskets?  I'd rather go after the Floridians who own Miami Beach.

So now you are excusing the people that did capture and enslave many Africans

The Europeans did not have to do this, other Africans did this. As they already did for the Arabs

The principle we are talking about is value derived from slavery.  Mexicans were never slsves.


 

As far as the land, it was taken in the Mexican-American war in 1848.  Mexico only came into possession of the west coast in 1821.  Mexicans started the war...poor boys.  Bad luck, that...President Polk had even sent a peace delegation to try to resolve things.  Santa Anna never was good at chess...and the US had a waaay better army.  To the victor go the spoils...and all that.  Ta-ta!  

So what you are saying is that they stole land, like the Arabs did  and then you stole the land from the Mexicans

Best you get out your cheque book and give back California to the mexicans

I mean that is what you back right?

[veya_victaous]

Veya spouts the same bullshit,   some times wonder who "educated" them !

a civilized culture

[Guest]

Veya spouts the same bullshit,   some times wonder who "educated" them !

a civilized culture

Indeed, they are called the British

[Original Quill]

So what you are saying is that they stole land, like the Arabs did  and then you stole the land from the Mexicans

We already paid the Mexicans, on June 8,1854.  Santa Anna may have calculated it was better to yield territory by treaty, and receive payment, rather than have the territory simply seized by the U.S.

But Mexico was also cash-strapped, and it made sense given their dire straits.

[Guest]

So what you are saying is that they stole land, like the Arabs did  and then you stole the land from the Mexicans

We already paid the Mexicans, on June 8,1854.  Santa Anna may have calculated it was better to yield territory by treaty, and receive payment, rather than have the territory simply seized by the U.S.

What?

Again 

WTF

Here is an example of where immigration went drastically wrong

Mexico invited American Europeans to come into Texas and then had these very same people turn against them

This is why you are a hypcoritical numpty

California and Texas was once part of Mexico and yet you do not want to let go of this land. Of course the Spanish were also invaders and colonizers, but here is the crux here

Its hilarious, you bemoan Trump being vile and hateful to Mexicans and yet you do not even want to give back lands they once owned

That says to me, you are very much compatiable with Trump and think, only California should be ruled not by Latinos, but by white Europeans

That makes you, the worst white supremacist going

Leadership should not be based on leftist values around a victim mentality

It should be based on the best person to lead, no matter their ethnic ancestry

When you champion California and Texas becoming part of Mexico again. Then I will start to actually listen to you

Where even then, they have no right to this land

[veya_victaous]

[Original Quill]

California and Texas was once part of Mexico and yet you do not want to let go of this land. Of course the Spanish were also invaders and colonizers, but here is the crux here

Mexico was a colonial territory prior to 1821.  As you, yourself admit, Texas was barely in the hands of Santa Anna and his cohorts by 1834.  In the brief 14-years, Mexico had hardly congealed as a nation:

In much of Spanish America soon after its independence, military strongmen or caudillos dominated politics, and this period is often called "The Age of Caudillismo". In Mexico, from the late 1820s to the mid-1850s the period is often called the "Age of Santa Anna", named for the general turned politician, Antonio López de Santa Anna...

[I]n 1834 Santa Anna abrogated the federal constitution, causing insurgencies in the southeastern state of Yucatán and the northernmost portion of the northern state of Coahuila y Tejas. Both areas sought independence from the central government.

The year before Texas declared it's independence, Santa Anna had just succeeded in another revolution of his own.  What do you expect?  Neither Yucatán or Texas were justifiably compelled to join yet another new nation.  So, Texas declined, as was their right.

The history of Texas has nothing to do with California.  The point is that Mexico only effectively consolidated  in 1834, so no one could take anything from them. Former states and territories were free to go their own way.  The US paid Santa Anna $10-million as nuisance value, mainly because it was cheaper than K-rations and horses to mobilize troops.  We'd already kicked their ass once; what use in further bruising their battered body?

[Guest]

California and Texas was once part of Mexico and yet you do not want to let go of this land. Of course the Spanish were also invaders and colonizers, but here is the crux here

Mexico was a colonial territory prior to 1821.  As you, yourself admit, Texas was barely in the hands of Santa Anna and his cohorts by 1834.  In the brief 14-years, Mexico had hardly congealed as a nation:

In much of Spanish America soon after its independence, military strongmen or caudillos dominated politics, and this period is often called "The Age of Caudillismo". In Mexico, from the late 1820s to the mid-1850s the period is often called the "Age of Santa Anna", named for the general turned politician, Antonio López de Santa Anna...

[I]n 1834 Santa Anna abrogated the federal constitution, causing insurgencies in the southeastern state of Yucatán and the northernmost portion of the northern state of Coahuila y Tejas. Both areas sought independence from the central government.

The year before Texas declared it's independence, Santa Anna had just succeeded in another revolution of his own.  What do you expect?  Neither Yucatán or Texas were justifiably compelled to join yet another new nation.  So, Texas declined, as was their right.

The history of Texas has nothing to do with California.  The point is that Mexico only effectively consolidated  in 1834, so no one could take anything from them.  Former states and territories were free to go their own way.  The US paid Santa Anna $10-million as nuisance value, mainly because it was cheaper than K-rations and horses to mobilize troops.  We'd already kicked their ass once; what use in further bruising their battered body?

And yet the US took it by force, after Mexico had allowed and encouraged immigration

I mean to look to use the issue of a Dictator, Santa Anna as the issue here, when again immigration was encouraged. Shows that the issue should have been to defeat Santa Anna and call for free elections. That never happened and the issue was seen as a call for the basic Americanization of Texas and California. You neglect that this had been the goal and views to expand American territories under Polk.

It does not matter how long Mexico had been ruling California and Texas, as they had been Spanish territories for over a 130 years. You are wrong on compensation. It was 15 million, for the phsycial damage of the war, not any compensation for the actual lands.

Seriously, what needs to be done is to oust every idiot lefty, that is teaching such bullshit revisionist history in the US. I mean, for you not to even know your own history, shows the extent of brainwashing by leftist idiot professors in the US

[Original Quill]

And yet the US took it by force, after Mexico had allowed and encouraged immigration

The Texans took it by force.  You forget that the Republic of Texas was Santa Anna's adversary, not the US.  Texans were just executing a revolution of their own.

If you're going to legitimize the revolution of Santa Anna in 1834, on what grounds do you say the revolution of Texans was illegitimate?

Really, the Texans were just refusing to join in Santa Anna's latest iteration of a nation state.  Note it was Santa Anna who invaded Texas.  The Battle of the Alamo took place in San Antonio, not Guadalajara.

[Guest]

And yet the US took it by force, after Mexico had allowed and encouraged immigration

The Texans took it by force.  You forget that the Republic of Texas was Santa Anna's adversary, and Texans were just executing a revolution of their own.

If you're going to legitimize the revolution of Santa Anna in 1834, on what grounds do you say the revolution of Texans was illegitimate?

The Texans were just refusing to join in Santa Anna's latest iteration of a nation state.  Note it was Santa Anna who invaded Texas.  The Battle of the Alamo took place in San Antonio, not Guadalajara.

Well you are majorly ignoring the goals of Polk and how in the end Texas did become a part of the US. As seen it was not just Texans involved in this war, with many volunteers from other states within the US.

At no point have I legitimized anything and hence why I stated that elections should have been held after

How could Mexico under Santa Anna invade their own territory?

It was Mexican territory?

I mean, imagine today, whether the US would have such issues around illigeal immigration from Mexico, if Texas and California would still part of Mexico?

[Original Quill]

Well you are majorly ignoring the goals of Polk and how in the end Texas did become a part of the US. As seen it was not just Texans involved in this war, with many volunteers from other states within the US.

Texas did petition the US for statehood. And for a long period, it was quite chancy that the US would accept.

When the US did accept, Texas--being a free and independent nation--put in the papers that it could disassociate itself from the US, and go its separate way, should Texans wish. Thus Texas was taking independent initiative on its own, rather proving that it was not any surrogate of the US.

[Guest]

Well you are majorly ignoring the goals of Polk and how in the end Texas did become a part of the US. As seen it was not just Texans involved in this war, with many volunteers from other states within the US.

Texas did petition the US for statehood.  And for a long period, it was quite chancy that the US would accept.

When the US did accept, Texas--being a free and independent nation--put in the papers that it could disassociate itself from the US, and go its separate way, should Texans wish.  Thus Texas was taking independent initiative on its own, rather proving that it was not any surrogate of the US.

The US and not Mexico?

Why should it look to the US for this, if as you claim independence?

It shows the above by you, completely contradicts

[Original Quill]

The US and not Mexico?

Why should it look to the US for this, if as you claim independence?

Why did the Republic of Texas choose to petition the US for statehood? Well, there wasn't a lot of choice; it was either the US, Canada or Mexico. Canada was too far away and was non-contiguous. Mexico had just been rejected. So the US was the only alternative.

Put yourself in the Republic's shoes. They needed protection from Santa Anna's harassing, and the US was good at pounding Mexico's ass. Petitioning for statehood made sense, especially since they even spoke the same language.

However, note that Texas put into the papers of statehood that the Republic of Texas could dissolve the bond as soon as the threat of Mexico went away. It is my opinion the Republic of Texas had in mind regaining their independence, had not the US Civil War refocused matters.

[Guest]

The US and not Mexico?

Why should it look to the US for this, if as you claim independence?

Why did the Republic of Texas choose to petition the US for statehood?  Well, there wasn't a lot of choice; it was either the US, Canada or Mexico.  Canada was too far away and was non-contiguous.  Mexico had just been rejected.  So the US was the only alternative.

Put yourself in the Republic's shoes.  They needed protection from Santa Anna's harassing, and the US was good at pounding Mexico's ass.  Petitioning for statehood made sense, especially since they even spoke the same language.

However, note that Texas put into the papers of statehood that the Republic of Texas could dissolve the bond as soon as the threat of Mexico went away.  It is my opinion the Republic of Texas had in mind regaining their independence, had not the US Civil War refocused matters.

Because the allowance of European immigration failed

To the point they became the dominant group in Texas

The reality is people were invited to come and settle in Texas, they then turned against Mexico

When they only needed to turn against Santa Anna

[Original Quill]

Why did the Republic of Texas choose to petition the US for statehood?  Well, there wasn't a lot of choice; it was either the US, Canada or Mexico.  Canada was too far away and was non-contiguous.  Mexico had just been rejected.  So the US was the only alternative.

Put yourself in the Republic's shoes.  They needed protection from Santa Anna's harassing, and the US was good at pounding Mexico's ass.  Petitioning for statehood made sense, especially since they even spoke the same language.

However, note that Texas put into the papers of statehood that the Republic of Texas could dissolve the bond as soon as the threat of Mexico went away.  It is my opinion the Republic of Texas had in mind regaining their independence, had not the US Civil War refocused matters.

Because the allowance of European immigration failed

To the point they became the dominant group in Texas

The reality is people were invited to come and settle in Texas, they then turned against Mexico

When they only needed to turn against Santa Anna

Hmmm...interesting theory.

I take it you agree that the US did not take Texas, then. They were disgruntled Texans, under the flag of the Republic of Texas, who went, hat in hand, to the US.

The US did nothing to improperly deprive Mexico of any of its territory. I agree.

[Guest]

Because the allowance of European immigration failed

To the point they became the dominant group in Texas

The reality is people were invited to come and settle in Texas, they then turned against Mexico

When they only needed to turn against Santa Anna

Hmmm...interesting theory.

I take it you agree that the US did not take Texas, then.  They were disgruntled Texans, under the flag of the Republic of Texas, who went, hat in hand, to the US.

The US did nothing to improperly deprive Mexico of any of its territory.  I agree.

Well as seen i disagree, but the point has clearly gone over your head here

I mean based on your thinking on israel, why not have the Texans moved to Washington?

Funny how in this instance you have no issue here.

Double standard?

[Sponsored content]