I was really curious how the NYT would respond to this story. Keeping her is not what I expected and I am really surprised that they reviewed her racist tweets prior to the promotion. This plays...
I was really curious how the NYT would respond to this story. Keeping her is not what I expected and I am really surprised that they reviewed her racist tweets prior to the promotion. This plays right into the conservative media’s hands in painting the Times as anti-white, doesn’t it?
What do you all think about this? Do you consider her tweets racist? Is it ok to be racist to defend yourself from constant racism? Is it at least understandable as the Times claims?
The Times added that Jeong, as a "young Asian woman," had been the "subject of frequent online harassment" and that "for a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers."
The newspaper said that Jeong knows "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."
To me, "racism" is not just a word to describe any prejudiced or discriminatory action, it's prejudiced and discriminatory acton that reinforces existing social hierarchies. So no, I don't think...
To me, "racism" is not just a word to describe any prejudiced or discriminatory action, it's prejudiced and discriminatory acton that reinforces existing social hierarchies. So no, I don't think "anti-white" tweets are racist, especially if they're directed at real racists. That doesn't mean they're not wrong per se (I haven't gone through all of them), but anyone who gets really upset at them is probably so used being at the top of hierarchies that any insult is seen as unbelievable.
This doesn't seem like the correct definition to me... hypothetically (if I understand you correctly), if a person of color assaulted a white person solely because of the color of their skin, it...
To me, "racism" is not just a word to describe any prejudiced or discriminatory action, it's prejudiced and discriminatory acton that reinforces existing social hierarchies
This doesn't seem like the correct definition to me... hypothetically (if I understand you correctly), if a person of color assaulted a white person solely because of the color of their skin, it wouldn't be racist?
I understand that systematic racism is a whole other beast (and one that white people, in particular, are often unaware of), but there's definitely a "I don't like you because you are of ancestry X" clause in my own racism definition.
From what I understand, the missing piece of this discussion is the impact of poststructuralist thought through third wave feminism. Basically, you're operating at a foundational difference of...
From what I understand, the missing piece of this discussion is the impact of poststructuralist thought through third wave feminism. Basically, you're operating at a foundational difference of understanding. People who define racism as, "power plus privilege" are, either purposely or not, trading on that philosophical base.
As I understand it, the basic idea is that language itself holds no descriptive usefulness, so definitions can be changed and edited wherever expedient. Where there is a perceived injustice, language meaning can be changed to fight idealogical differences. So while you're arguing that they don't have the right definition, they're (possibly unknowingly) saying that definitions themselves can be used as cognitive weapons.
I'm not making a value judgement on that stance, but I see it as a point of contention among many on this issue and wanted to clarify the situation as I see it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism Definition of RACISM 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an...
Definition of RACISM
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
I'm sorry, but what exactly are you guys referring to when you say "plain language"? The way you two talk about it, it's not the concept as I understand it. Plain language doesn't mean giving all...
I'm sorry, but what exactly are you guys referring to when you say "plain language"? The way you two talk about it, it's not the concept as I understand it.
Plain language doesn't mean giving all words simple definitions. It means using simple words to explain things, including complicated things.
Racism is a complicated concept, with many different facets and factors. It's just like the concept of sociopathy—have you ever seen a consistent definition? Everyone has their own variation on it because they all understand this big, nebulous concept slightly differently. There's a few general principles that are the pillars but then the details always get fuzzy between accounts. In this case, you all want to believe that doing something just because of skin colour is enough to be racist, but someone else feels there needs to be more intent behind it than that. We're off the green and in the rough now, things get fuzzy here.
Plain language is in no danger from sociological concepts having inconsistent and fluctuating definitions. Plain language's role is to explain why nobody can give a consistent answer in an easy to digest way.
It's tempting to vigorously defend the dictionary definition of a word when it fits your agenda, but ultimately the dictionary definition of "racism" is woefully insufficient to capture the stark...
It's tempting to vigorously defend the dictionary definition of a word when it fits your agenda, but ultimately the dictionary definition of "racism" is woefully insufficient to capture the stark difference in ramifications between prejudice when it flows with or against social power constructs. This is why academics generally reserve racism for prejudice which flows "downstream" and prejudice for everything else.
Frankly, the difference isn't very difficult to wrap one's head around: have any white people been materially harmed by Ms. Jeong's tweets? No. Given that answer, do you really think it's fair or even accurate to use the same word to describe her actions and the actions of the Sacramento Police? In fact, I would argue that such stubborn insistence on equating these two very different situations perpetuates the very social divide that enables this situation to exist in the first place.
Perhaps you'd prefer to refer to what @pleure is calling racism as "institutional racism" and prejudice as "racism," which would be a much better way to approach this than "I have no room for any of them," because then at least we would establish that you recognize the difference and you understand the importance of recognizing that difference.
But why would you use this definition? Discrimination based on skin color is called racism. The bad part of racism is the discrimination, because that's what actually hurts people. If you...
But why would you use this definition? Discrimination based on skin color is called racism.
The bad part of racism is the discrimination, because that's what actually hurts people. If you differentiate discrimination based on skin color when that color is white from racism - why? The bad part, being prejudiced against people because of their skin color and discriminating against them, is exactly the same.
To me, it reads like a bizarre language game where you are intentionally trying to defend an unusual and not useful definition of a common word.
The definition is blind to history and context, but the reality is not, which is why it's important to distinguish between the two. Racism towards minorities comes with the baggage of historical...
The definition is blind to history and context, but the reality is not, which is why it's important to distinguish between the two.
Racism towards minorities comes with the baggage of historical precedent + institutional racism, which is why it is absolutely not the same as racism towards dominant power groups.
The definition is the same. The act is not. Hence why people will adjust the definition to make that clear.
Using the same word to describe two things doesn't suggest those things are equal. When Confederates enslaved black people that was racist. When Roseanne referred to a black person as an ape that...
Using the same word to describe two things doesn't suggest those things are equal. When Confederates enslaved black people that was racist. When Roseanne referred to a black person as an ape that was racist. Presumably we both agree on both points and also I assume we can both agree that slavery was a far worse thing than the tweet.
I'm bothered by the attempt to change the definition of common words. It feels like gaslighting to say "No no, insulting you based on your race isn't racism. If you insult someone based on their race, that's racism." It's just such an absurd argument to try and make that it's hard for me to take it seriously.
Sure. But at the same time with a complex topic like racism it seems folly to point to something simple as a dictionary definition and assume that's enough to "define" a word. Since the same word...
Sure. But at the same time with a complex topic like racism it seems folly to point to something simple as a dictionary definition and assume that's enough to "define" a word.
Since the same word describing two things doesn't suggest those things are equal, that sounds like a failure in definition, does it not?
I admit I'm a language descriptivist. I don't see a problem with people changing definitions of words through language. Dictionaries, in my opinion, document language -- they don't define it. But again, descriptivism shining through. That's a debate for another day.
We shouldn't have to consider conservatives at all, but they just won't shut up and accept that the world has moved on and they're no longer welcome in it.
We shouldn't have to consider conservatives at all, but they just won't shut up and accept that the world has moved on and they're no longer welcome in it.
That's not a brush. That's not even a roller. That's me flinging gallons of high gloss like Jackson Pollock. There hasn't been a conservative worthy of the the name in US politics since Barry...
That's not a brush. That's not even a roller. That's me flinging gallons of high gloss like Jackson Pollock.
There hasn't been a conservative worthy of the the name in US politics since Barry Goldwater left office. He saw what would come of the Republican Party getting in bed with the religious right, but did anybody listen? Of course not. They saw a way to stay in power and stay relevant, sold their souls to gain the world, and turned the USA into a banana republic that doesn't even grow its own goddamn bananas.
And the Democrats aided and abetted the GOP's slide into theocratic fascism the whole time.
So, she's an asshole. I'm an asshole, too, but I get away with it more easily because I'm a white dude and too obscure to matter to anybody. Hell, I don't even matter to my wife. I disagree,...
But some were just plain bigoted wiithout an attempt at humour.
So, she's an asshole. I'm an asshole, too, but I get away with it more easily because I'm a white dude and too obscure to matter to anybody. Hell, I don't even matter to my wife.
The one where she says she enjoys being cruel to old white men is pretty irredeemable, even as a joke.
I disagree, mainly because of what I plan to do as an old white man.
We'll never know, because I don't have a Twitter account with which to shitpost about Asians, and nobody at the New York Times has any inkling of my existence, or any interest in putting me on the...
Do you think you would've gotten away with tweets like this, as a white dude, and get hired at the New York Times, if you were tweeting about Asians?
We'll never know, because I don't have a Twitter account with which to shitpost about Asians, and nobody at the New York Times has any inkling of my existence, or any interest in putting me on the payroll.
Besides, if I were on Twitter I'd be talking shit about evangelical Christians and giving them something to feel persecuted about. Gotta punch up, not down, right?
We may never know, but I think we both have a pretty good idea. As far as persecuting Christians I really don't see how they're "above" you or why antagonizing them would be okay.
We may never know, but I think we both have a pretty good idea. As far as persecuting Christians I really don't see how they're "above" you or why antagonizing them would be okay.
Honestly, these to me look like just really shitty jokes. It bothers me that she thought they were funny, in the same way that it bothers me that Daniel Tosh thinks his jokes are funny. That said,...
Honestly, these to me look like just really shitty jokes. It bothers me that she thought they were funny, in the same way that it bothers me that Daniel Tosh thinks his jokes are funny. That said, I don't wish for either Tosh or Jeong to be fired, I'm also probably going to ignore anything either of them does, but I don't actively wish harm upon them.
What really bothers me about this situation is that it seems like Jeong's getting off lightly from the internet's two-minute hate because of who she is, in spite of what she did, where other people, most notably in my immediate remembrance, Justine Sacco, who had her life absolutely destroyed for a joke that was, in my opinion, at least a little funny, and certainly leaps and bounds ahead of anything that Jeong or James Gunn recently got lit up for, have not been so guarded.
The optimist in me thinks that the kind of shift from bloodthirsty scalp collecting twitter mob that consumed Sacco, to the "Maybe he shouldn't get fired" reaction that Gunn got, to "We'll stand by Sarah." is a sign that people are recognizing the danger of that mentality and trying to ween themselves of the opiate that is outrage.
The other 95% of me has a bridge I'd like to sell to the optimist in me.
I was really curious how the NYT would respond to this story. Keeping her is not what I expected and I am really surprised that they reviewed her racist tweets prior to the promotion. This plays right into the conservative media’s hands in painting the Times as anti-white, doesn’t it?
What do you all think about this? Do you consider her tweets racist? Is it ok to be racist to defend yourself from constant racism? Is it at least understandable as the Times claims?
To me, "racism" is not just a word to describe any prejudiced or discriminatory action, it's prejudiced and discriminatory acton that reinforces existing social hierarchies. So no, I don't think "anti-white" tweets are racist, especially if they're directed at real racists. That doesn't mean they're not wrong per se (I haven't gone through all of them), but anyone who gets really upset at them is probably so used being at the top of hierarchies that any insult is seen as unbelievable.
This doesn't seem like the correct definition to me... hypothetically (if I understand you correctly), if a person of color assaulted a white person solely because of the color of their skin, it wouldn't be racist?
I understand that systematic racism is a whole other beast (and one that white people, in particular, are often unaware of), but there's definitely a "I don't like you because you are of ancestry X" clause in my own racism definition.
From what I understand, the missing piece of this discussion is the impact of poststructuralist thought through third wave feminism. Basically, you're operating at a foundational difference of understanding. People who define racism as, "power plus privilege" are, either purposely or not, trading on that philosophical base.
As I understand it, the basic idea is that language itself holds no descriptive usefulness, so definitions can be changed and edited wherever expedient. Where there is a perceived injustice, language meaning can be changed to fight idealogical differences. So while you're arguing that they don't have the right definition, they're (possibly unknowingly) saying that definitions themselves can be used as cognitive weapons.
I'm not making a value judgement on that stance, but I see it as a point of contention among many on this issue and wanted to clarify the situation as I see it.
No. It would be a hate crime but I wouldn't call it racism.
Same deal.
So does this change in a non white ethno-state? Say China or Japan?
Were the mongol conquests racist? Genuinely curious how this logic works out.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
Definition of RACISM
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Racism doesn't have a clear-cut definition and many people I know would disagree with yours.
Using a word differently than how you use it isn't "skewing plain language" or "pushing an agenda".
I'm sorry, but what exactly are you guys referring to when you say "plain language"? The way you two talk about it, it's not the concept as I understand it.
Plain language doesn't mean giving all words simple definitions. It means using simple words to explain things, including complicated things.
Racism is a complicated concept, with many different facets and factors. It's just like the concept of sociopathy—have you ever seen a consistent definition? Everyone has their own variation on it because they all understand this big, nebulous concept slightly differently. There's a few general principles that are the pillars but then the details always get fuzzy between accounts. In this case, you all want to believe that doing something just because of skin colour is enough to be racist, but someone else feels there needs to be more intent behind it than that. We're off the green and in the rough now, things get fuzzy here.
Plain language is in no danger from sociological concepts having inconsistent and fluctuating definitions. Plain language's role is to explain why nobody can give a consistent answer in an easy to digest way.
You're not using any plain language in your comments, bud.
It's tempting to vigorously defend the dictionary definition of a word when it fits your agenda, but ultimately the dictionary definition of "racism" is woefully insufficient to capture the stark difference in ramifications between prejudice when it flows with or against social power constructs. This is why academics generally reserve racism for prejudice which flows "downstream" and prejudice for everything else.
Frankly, the difference isn't very difficult to wrap one's head around: have any white people been materially harmed by Ms. Jeong's tweets? No. Given that answer, do you really think it's fair or even accurate to use the same word to describe her actions and the actions of the Sacramento Police? In fact, I would argue that such stubborn insistence on equating these two very different situations perpetuates the very social divide that enables this situation to exist in the first place.
Perhaps you'd prefer to refer to what @pleure is calling racism as "institutional racism" and prejudice as "racism," which would be a much better way to approach this than "I have no room for any of them," because then at least we would establish that you recognize the difference and you understand the importance of recognizing that difference.
It my experience when people in my cohort talk about racism they mean institutional racism. Maybe that's different for other people, idk.
AssI'd say that they're acting prejudiced, bigoted, discriminatory, etc. Again, something not being racist doesn't mean it's OK.
But why would you use this definition? Discrimination based on skin color is called racism.
The bad part of racism is the discrimination, because that's what actually hurts people. If you differentiate discrimination based on skin color when that color is white from racism - why? The bad part, being prejudiced against people because of their skin color and discriminating against them, is exactly the same.
To me, it reads like a bizarre language game where you are intentionally trying to defend an unusual and not useful definition of a common word.
The definition is blind to history and context, but the reality is not, which is why it's important to distinguish between the two.
Racism towards minorities comes with the baggage of historical precedent + institutional racism, which is why it is absolutely not the same as racism towards dominant power groups.
The definition is the same. The act is not. Hence why people will adjust the definition to make that clear.
Using the same word to describe two things doesn't suggest those things are equal. When Confederates enslaved black people that was racist. When Roseanne referred to a black person as an ape that was racist. Presumably we both agree on both points and also I assume we can both agree that slavery was a far worse thing than the tweet.
I'm bothered by the attempt to change the definition of common words. It feels like gaslighting to say "No no, insulting you based on your race isn't racism. If you insult someone based on their race, that's racism." It's just such an absurd argument to try and make that it's hard for me to take it seriously.
Sure. But at the same time with a complex topic like racism it seems folly to point to something simple as a dictionary definition and assume that's enough to "define" a word.
Since the same word describing two things doesn't suggest those things are equal, that sounds like a failure in definition, does it not?
I admit I'm a language descriptivist. I don't see a problem with people changing definitions of words through language. Dictionaries, in my opinion, document language -- they don't define it. But again, descriptivism shining through. That's a debate for another day.
Bigot is a noun.
She's a racist. Shame on the nytimes.
I am not willing to go that far and totally write her off.
I think Ms. Jeong's tweets about white people are hilarious. The fact that she annoys conservatives is reason enough to hire her.
I am uncomfortable with getting behind a writer because of "Conservative Tears".
We shouldn't have to consider conservatives at all, but they just won't shut up and accept that the world has moved on and they're no longer welcome in it.
This is a shockingly broad brush to be painting with.
That's not a brush. That's not even a roller. That's me flinging gallons of high gloss like Jackson Pollock.
There hasn't been a conservative worthy of the the name in US politics since Barry Goldwater left office. He saw what would come of the Republican Party getting in bed with the religious right, but did anybody listen? Of course not. They saw a way to stay in power and stay relevant, sold their souls to gain the world, and turned the USA into a banana republic that doesn't even grow its own goddamn bananas.
And the Democrats aided and abetted the GOP's slide into theocratic fascism the whole time.
Side note: your user name is amazing :p
So, she's an asshole. I'm an asshole, too, but I get away with it more easily because I'm a white dude and too obscure to matter to anybody. Hell, I don't even matter to my wife.
I disagree, mainly because of what I plan to do as an old white man.
Do you think you would've gotten away with tweets like this, as a white dude, and get hired at the New York Times, if you were tweeting about Asians?
We'll never know, because I don't have a Twitter account with which to shitpost about Asians, and nobody at the New York Times has any inkling of my existence, or any interest in putting me on the payroll.
Besides, if I were on Twitter I'd be talking shit about evangelical Christians and giving them something to feel persecuted about. Gotta punch up, not down, right?
We may never know, but I think we both have a pretty good idea. As far as persecuting Christians I really don't see how they're "above" you or why antagonizing them would be okay.
Honestly, these to me look like just really shitty jokes. It bothers me that she thought they were funny, in the same way that it bothers me that Daniel Tosh thinks his jokes are funny. That said, I don't wish for either Tosh or Jeong to be fired, I'm also probably going to ignore anything either of them does, but I don't actively wish harm upon them.
What really bothers me about this situation is that it seems like Jeong's getting off lightly from the internet's two-minute hate because of who she is, in spite of what she did, where other people, most notably in my immediate remembrance, Justine Sacco, who had her life absolutely destroyed for a joke that was, in my opinion, at least a little funny, and certainly leaps and bounds ahead of anything that Jeong or James Gunn recently got lit up for, have not been so guarded.
The optimist in me thinks that the kind of shift from bloodthirsty scalp collecting twitter mob that consumed Sacco, to the "Maybe he shouldn't get fired" reaction that Gunn got, to "We'll stand by Sarah." is a sign that people are recognizing the danger of that mentality and trying to ween themselves of the opiate that is outrage.
The other 95% of me has a bridge I'd like to sell to the optimist in me.