So not only is Sarah Jeong a racist, she's also a dangerously unethical journalist? I have friends in PRC and I fully understand where this woman, naomi wu, is coming from. Both expats and natives...
So not only is Sarah Jeong a racist, she's also a dangerously unethical journalist?
I have friends in PRC and I fully understand where this woman, naomi wu, is coming from. Both expats and natives have made it abundantly clear how dangerous it can be to speak your mind in China. China will look the other way so long as you're not making noise, but once you do...it's not safe.
I'm not shocked that Vice acted this way (I still watch Vice News on HBO, though) but I am surprised that the NYT would hire someone who's this bad at their job. NYT truly has gone downhill.
Wu clearly takes issue with this line of questioning for two reasons. It is a sexist line of questioning because no male makers have had their sexuality questioned or have to respond to rumors...
Wu told me she didn’t want to discuss her marital status, but before publishing the piece, I followed up with her. I hoped to discuss the Reddit conspiracy theory that claimed someone she’s in a relationship with was behind her work. Wu has spent significant energy proving these conspiracy theories false, and shutting down this harassment has inspired other women who have faced similar treatment online.
“Do you actually have time to hop on Skype to go over the Reddit conspiracy theory?” I wrote. “It would be really helpful [to] address these allegations. I saw that video where you say you're [name redacted’s] wife—and I'd like to discuss the unfairness of assuming a woman receives help, just because her partner works/worked in a similar industry. If you don't want to discuss this at all, I understand and won't push. I think the Reddit conspiracy theory is vicious, but since this profile is long and comprehensive, I'd love to highlight your opinions about prototype bias, gender expectations, and racism as they relate to the rumor. Let me know how that sounds, and what you're comfortable with.”
Wu clearly takes issue with this line of questioning for two reasons. It is a sexist line of questioning because no male makers have had their sexuality questioned or have to respond to rumors about their relationship status. It is also dangerous because the government could censure her and freeze her out of maker spaces or worse. You can read the first few paragraphs of the linked article for more details.
Had I read this a couple of weeks ago, I might have been more reluctant to take Sarah Jeong's side. I still don't buy the conservative view that she's racist, but she's still an asshole for...
Had I read this a couple of weeks ago, I might have been more reluctant to take Sarah Jeong's side. I still don't buy the conservative view that she's racist, but she's still an asshole for dealing with Naomi Wu as she did.
Do you care to expand on that for discussion sake? I'm having a hard time seeing how she is anything but a racist. If you replace the term "White" with any other color or group and read her...
I still don't buy the conservative view that she's racist
Do you care to expand on that for discussion sake? I'm having a hard time seeing how she is anything but a racist. If you replace the term "White" with any other color or group and read her tweets, it's like you're on a stormfront official account.
I'm Jewish and if someone tweeted, "Are jewish people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?" I would be hard pressed to find the person not guilty of racism, no matter the intent.
Heck, if you want to be more specific and use color instead of ethnic group. "Dumbass fucking black people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants" Would get me banned from twitter and lose me any future chance at earning a living for the rest of my life.
Unless you buy into the racism is prejudice + power theory, then I just don't see how you can spin her as not racist.
I'm not sure how much expansion is necessary, because you've answered your own question by asking my opinion on racism as prejudice + power. I am used to thinking of racism as prejudice combined...
I'm not sure how much expansion is necessary, because you've answered your own question by asking my opinion on racism as prejudice + power.
I am used to thinking of racism as prejudice combined with power. You might dismiss it as a mere "theory", but I think it's a useful model for explaining why I can afford to laugh at Sarah Jeong and her prejudice against white people. Her only power over me is that of the pen, and if she is too careless in the use of that power then those who previously amplified her voice will instead silence her.
Racism and sexism mean that Sarah Jeong has more to fear from me than I do from her. It is a power imbalance built into the way we have thus far permitted our society to work.
but... but.. that IS literally the unanimous dictionary definition of racism: prejudice + superiority. I don't know the context of her insults, but I've seen comedians get away with far far worse....
Unless you buy into the racism is prejudice + power theory
but... but.. that IS literally the unanimous dictionary definition of racism: prejudice + superiority. I don't know the context of her insults, but I've seen comedians get away with far far worse. They can, because it's usually framed as a joke, and not some stance of superiority over another racial group and/or true beliefs of the person.
Again, idk the true intentions of her tweets, but many folks get a pass when it falls under the sarcasm/satire category. Dan Harmon (rick/morty) had tweets dug up where he explicitly advocated cooking and eating babies.
If she's an unethical journalist, that's an entirely different discussion.
That is absolutely NOT the definition, which is why in certain academic papers that hypocrites then held up as banners it was explicitly limited to prejudice + power, being the type of racism they...
That is absolutely NOT the definition, which is why in certain academic papers that hypocrites then held up as banners it was explicitly limited to prejudice + power, being the type of racism they were interested in for those papers. If that was the layman's definition, there would be no need to clarify it.
Discrimination based on race = racism. That is the definition of the word, and attempts to redefine it are just a way for hypocrites to say 'I can do this, but you can't, because of what race we both are' - news flash, that's racist.
No need to redefine it... Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Dictionary.com, Britannica, Wikipedia and Oxford all include "feeling superior to another race" (or some variation) in their published...
No need to redefine it... Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Dictionary.com, Britannica, Wikipedia and Oxford all include "feeling superior to another race" (or some variation) in their published definitions. Unless you want to deviate from every major source of word meanings...
I certainly agree that race discrimination is racist, because that includes the presumption that the discriminating race is superior to the discriminated. My bigger point, though, was that her tweets could have been a joke/satire, which means she doesn't actually believe Asians are a superior race. I don't know the context, but if she seriously believes that, she is indeed a racist.
From Wikipedia: Which does use the word superior, yes, but specifically the belief of the person saying/doing racist things, NOT some punching up/down relative power construct. If you didn't mean...
From Wikipedia:
based on the belief that one's own race is superior
Which does use the word superior, yes, but specifically the belief of the person saying/doing racist things, NOT some punching up/down relative power construct. If you didn't mean that, you need to really look at the things you reply to - the original statement you are supporting is
We're on the same page here. All I'm saying is if she didn't genuinely believe she was superior when making those comments, she's not actually a racist. Just a racist joke. That's all. I'm pretty...
We're on the same page here. All I'm saying is if she didn't genuinely believe she was superior when making those comments, she's not actually a racist. Just a racist joke. That's all.
I'm pretty sure "superior" has something to do with being above someone else. So any punching would certainly be aimed downwards.
Edit: My original supporting claim was pejudice + superiority. I had altered yours slightly in my first reply.
The punching up vs down rhetoric is firmly rooted in a claim that cis/white/het/male/christian/wealthy/neurotypical/etc are inherently 'up' not because the person making the claims believes them...
The punching up vs down rhetoric is firmly rooted in a claim that cis/white/het/male/christian/wealthy/neurotypical/etc are inherently 'up' not because the person making the claims believes them to be superior due to their status, but because society grants them extra privileges, due to some combination of patriarchy, or colonial imperialism, or whatever. Based on that, they then make the claim that it is impossible to BE racist against a white person, or sexist against a man, because racism and sexism require it to be done from a position of power, which they claim can't be done.
You can't come in to a conversation, edit the terms being used, and then claim everybody is in agreement based on some shifting selection of those terms. The original comment in the chain (not mine) stated:
Unless you buy into the racism is prejudice + power theory
And you quoted that. You then said
but... but.. that IS literally the unanimous dictionary definition of racism: prejudice + superiority.
Directly under that quote. There is no other way to interpret that than you equate superiority and power, and it's incredibly intellectually dishonest to shift goalposts like that.
I'm not changing goalposts, you're just extrapolating way beyond what I meant... racism is entirely based on the beliefs of the person being racist. If the racist believes they are superior, it's...
I'm not changing goalposts, you're just extrapolating way beyond what I meant... racism is entirely based on the beliefs of the person being racist. If the racist believes they are superior, it's more than likely that they believe they are genetically more powerful than whatever race they're attacking. I made absolutely no mention of whether or not those feelings power are accurate/reality-based, just that the racist would believe that. Existing/factual power structures are irrelevant to whether someone can be racist. That's why I'm saying we're on the same page.
Anyone can be racist against anyone they want, given they believe that he/she is more genetically superior/powerful than the victim.
I think the disconnect we're having is you're defining power theory as something different than power alone, something I glanced over originally. If PT is a different thought system than regular...
I think the disconnect we're having is you're defining power theory as something different than power alone, something I glanced over originally. If PT is a different thought system than regular ol' power, please educate me.
I don't think you'll deny that someone who feels superior to another race also feels like their own race is more powerful, not economically but genetically.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you still aren't getting this. In a completely literal sense, without any definitions entering into it at all, one person says the word 'power' in a...
I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you still aren't getting this. In a completely literal sense, without any definitions entering into it at all, one person says the word 'power' in a construct. You then say the word 'superiority' in place of the word power in that same construct. What possible other interpretation could you have intended other than superiority = power?
You then argue the point around the word 'superiority' which you have chosen, ignoring the idea of 'power' entirely. Take your pick of fallacies there, strawman or shifting goalposts.
A perception of superiority might be based on genetics, certainly with racism it makes sense that it would be genetic, potentially cultural. That doesn't imply that the person perceives their race to be in power or to hold power - indeed the rhetoric which is used is that one race which is claimed to be genetically inferior holds power over the 'superior race'. This is often used as an argument for that superior race to rise up and take power, and can be seen as taking privilege theory to its opposite extreme.
I am indeed, and never denied, equating the belief of superiority with power in terms of a racist's personal belief of genetic power (strength/intellect/awareness), not an objective...
I am indeed, and never denied, equating the belief of superiority with power in terms of a racist's personal belief of genetic power (strength/intellect/awareness), not an objective cultural/governmental/economic power. Which I think is where our disconnect is. You've been treating power as a far broader & reality-based term, which is entirely understandable. I've just reduced it a little based on the definition of racism being entirely based on a person's belief of their group vs. another.
Random example: an oppressed, racist group may believe they're genetically more powerful than the oppressing race, but have been cheated-out of proper economic/cultural power through longstanding systems of discrimination.
At this point I feel like you're just trying to argue with someone you think disagrees with you, but for the most part, I entirely agree with you, when applying the definitions you've provided. Our problem was we started with fundamentally different assumptions as to what we meant by "power". Searching for its definition brings up 20+ different documented meanings. It's broad af
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...
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
EDIT: (This is directly from Merriam-Webster, by the way.)
So is affirmative action racist? Are groups like the NAACP or the Guatemalan Chamber of Commerce racist? The answer to these rhetorical questions is no, but all AA policies and some organizations...
Discrimination based on race = racism.
So is affirmative action racist? Are groups like the NAACP or the Guatemalan Chamber of Commerce racist?
The answer to these rhetorical questions is no, but all AA policies and some organizations do discriminate based on race. However considering them racist is neither true or productive. It doesn't help us find harmful discrimination or discuss what aspects of our society contribute to systemic racism. It doesn't help us find answers to how we can move toward a non-racist society.
So then perhaps our definition of racism as just discrimination based on race is insufficient. The only definition of racism that offers some guide on why a Guatemalan Chamber of Commerce is different from the Loyal White Knights of the KKK is prejudice + power.
I mean in the UK (where I am) it's illegal without evidence that it will broaden participation of a group with a protected characteristic who are currently under represented. I'm not sure that...
So is affirmative action racist?
I mean in the UK (where I am) it's illegal without evidence that it will broaden participation of a group with a protected characteristic who are currently under represented. I'm not sure that there's any case law yet though.
It's interesting but I'm not sure what part is supposed to respond to the question, "is the goal of broadening participation of a [racial] group that is under represented a racist goal?"
It's interesting but I'm not sure what part is supposed to respond to the question, "is the goal of broadening participation of a [racial] group that is under represented a racist goal?"
That all depends on whether you look at things in isolation (which is silly) or as part of a wider context. Now, some people will latch on to that and say 'the power is the context' - wrong. The...
That all depends on whether you look at things in isolation (which is silly) or as part of a wider context. Now, some people will latch on to that and say 'the power is the context' - wrong. The context is about what the actions are trying to do. If you have a racist institution, where a particular group is over-represented due to historical discrimination, it isn't racist to try to undo that, even though it appears in isolation as though you are discriminating against the over-represented group. The definition still holds, because you are - at least attempting to - cancel out the existing discrimination.
People try to extend that to claim racial slurs or jokes directed at white people are doing the same thing - which is of course bullshit. It's not about an eye for an eye, it's about an opportunity for an opportunity. If 2 people do racist things in either direction, they're both racist. If 1 person disadvantages another for racist reasons, and someone else steps in and tries to return that same advantage, only 1 is racist.
So based on that, I would guess the NAACP to not be racist, though I don't know enough about them to be sure. And I've never even heard of the Guatemalan Chamber of Commerce, so who knows?
All else aside, I'd say the very topic at hand, which is to say her slandering another woman of color to defend a white man, should provide a fair helping of evidence against the "racist against...
All else aside, I'd say the very topic at hand, which is to say her slandering another woman of color to defend a white man, should provide a fair helping of evidence against the "racist against white people" canard.
(Related to which - it seems quite likely that, when she posted those tweets originally, she had numerous white friends & colleagues who saw them, and that none of them felt in any kind of danger, or that she would treat them as lessers because of their race - in short that they saw them as satire, examples of a widely-used form - and moreover none of them decided to raise an objection to her book deal, or her move to the Verge and then to the Times, or her fellowship at Yale, etc.)
I find, as a white person, it's a lot easier to let these kind of statements roll off of you. My girlfriend is ethnically Cantonese, and her twitter is similarly full of posts like Jeong's,...
I'm Jewish and if someone tweeted, "Are jewish people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?" I would be hard pressed to find the person not guilty of racism, no matter the intent.
I find, as a white person, it's a lot easier to let these kind of statements roll off of you. My girlfriend is ethnically Cantonese, and her twitter is similarly full of posts like Jeong's, talking about how she hates / can't stand / is tired of white people. But at the end of the day I know she's not talking about all white people, instead she's using "white" as a synecdoche for "conservative" which might be unfair, but I don't necessarily consider racist. Jeong might not be going for that exactly, but reading her tweets with even the slightest bit of open-mindedness, you can see pretty quickly that they're not meant 100% seriously.
I'm sorry, but just because it's acceptable to be racist to "white people" doesn't mean that it is not racist. Saying you hate, can't stand or are tired of a group of people because of a...
I'm sorry, but just because it's acceptable to be racist to "white people" doesn't mean that it is not racist. Saying you hate, can't stand or are tired of a group of people because of a characteristic determined by birth and not by choice, is the textbook definition of racism. I don't think it means that your girlfriend is a bad person, but it certainly means she is being a racist.
There is a morally justifiable stance whereby the less powerful group should be excused from, and maybe even encouraged to, put down epithets regarding the more enfranchised group. Race is a poor...
There is a morally justifiable stance whereby the less powerful group should be excused from, and maybe even encouraged to, put down epithets regarding the more enfranchised group.
Race is a poor choice to define a group, because if you take a close look, it becomes really problematic to clearly define who is in or out of the "race."
But back to my point as to why "asian" folks can inoffensively say something about "white" folks that would be offensive if the races were vice versa, those in power have a responsibility to pay attention to their unearned, institutionalized benefits, and, at the very, very least, acknowledge the benefit and their lack of doing anything to receive it. "Racist" statements can be a valuable mechanism to foment that acknowledgment.
That's a disgusting viewpoint. How do you define power? If white people are a minority in China, how are they the more enfranchised group? If a white supremacist moves to Somalia and still...
That's a disgusting viewpoint. How do you define power? If white people are a minority in China, how are they the more enfranchised group?
If a white supremacist moves to Somalia and still advocates killing all niggers, should they be excused because they aren't racist anymore, since they're no longer in a position of power? No, they're still a shitty person, and a racist, and we shouldn't be supporting people who spew hate.
"If white people are a minority in China, how are they the more enfranchised group?" Sarah Jeong is a Korean-born American, so I'm not sure what your point is. If she were to go to South Korea and...
"If white people are a minority in China, how are they the more enfranchised group?"
Sarah Jeong is a Korean-born American, so I'm not sure what your point is. If she were to go to South Korea and denigrate white people facing discrimination there, that would be almost indisputably worse than doing it as an American journalist. Let's put semantics and technicalities and pedantics aside for a second. Wouldn't you think one was definitely worse than the other?
"If a white supremacist moves to Somalia and still advocates killing all n*****, should they be excused because they aren't racist anymore, since they're no longer in a position of power?"
Sincerely advocating for the murder of all members of a racial group is horrible. The real question here is whether you think Sarah Jeong is genuinely calling for genocide when she says #CancelWhitePeople.
In any case, yes it would still be more complicated because power dynamics between white people and Africans in Africa is a lot more complicated than the power dynamic between white Americans and African Americans. Much of Somalia was a British colony as recently as the 1960s, for example, and English is still widely taught in schools. I don't actually know anything about Somalia, so I don't know what their relationship is with organizations like the IMF and USAID, whether the CIA was involved in their very recent civil war to oust their communist government, etc. I only got the British colony bit with a good guess and some CTRL+Fing on their Wikipedia page.
Suffice to say, a white supremacist saying "white power" in Somalia would be a bit touchier than a Korean-American journalist making a joke about white people getting sunburnt in the US.
Your logical construct is also going to fail when loosely applying it to different cultures. Race is largely a social construct determined by the powers to be of a given society, and the n-word in particular is a racial epithet with little technical meaning. If you told Somalians to kill n-words (or whatever their linguistic equivalent is) you very well may be telling them to extinguish some underprivileged group. Remember the Hutus and the Tutsis? What you might call a "black" power group committed genocide on a disenfranchised racial group you might also call "black."
This is especially fitting when talking about a country from the horn of Africa because there's a lot of racist anthropology and phrenology bullshit that distinguishes Somalians from "black people."
I would suggest that it's a progressive view that she isn't a racist. I suspect, though I have no evidence for this, that the considerable majority of people on the political center would consider...
I still don't buy the conservative view that she's racist
I would suggest that it's a progressive view that she isn't a racist. I suspect, though I have no evidence for this, that the considerable majority of people on the political center would consider her statements to be racist.
The "considerable majority of people on the political center" can go fuck themselves. I've already decided for myself (based on Naomi Wu's account) that Sarah Jeong is an social climbing asshole...
I suspect, though I have no evidence for this, that the considerable majority of people on the political center would consider her statements to be racist.
The "considerable majority of people on the political center" can go fuck themselves. I've already decided for myself (based on Naomi Wu's account) that Sarah Jeong is an social climbing asshole devoid of ethics who is willing to suck up to white dudes if it will help her career, while throwing Chinese women living in China under a bus. That's reason enough to hold her in contempt.
Sitting firmly in the center of the political spectrum with a slight lean to the left, why should I go fuck myself? Why do you hate me for not playing the team game of politics and instead,...
Sitting firmly in the center of the political spectrum with a slight lean to the left, why should I go fuck myself? Why do you hate me for not playing the team game of politics and instead, thinking for myself, choosing individuals instead of party, and voting based on the politician, not the team jacket they wear?
In this case, I'm saying "centrists can go fuck themselves" because I don't care what they think about Sarah Jeong. I've updated my opinion based on new information (Naomi Wu's account) and...
In this case, I'm saying "centrists can go fuck themselves" because I don't care what they think about Sarah Jeong. I've updated my opinion based on new information (Naomi Wu's account) and decided that Ms. Jeong is an asshole and unworthy of my support.
No one will tell you I am a typical Chinese girl. I have a difficult background. I have had to fight for everything my whole life. When I became a tech enthusiast, due to my strange appearance I had to fight to be allowed to speak at events, and then fight for other Chinese women to be allowed to speak as well. In the West powerful men declared there was no way a Chinese girl could do what I do. I beat them and proved them wrong also.
I like the determination expressed by a quote a few lines later.
I like the determination expressed by a quote a few lines later.
My mother taught me that one day a man will beat you, and you should keep getting up until his hand is broken to teach him the lesson that it will never be easy.
That makes this whole thing so much more interesting to me. She threatened a law suit against me once on reddit because she complained about being meta linked and I wouldn't remove the post (broke...
That makes this whole thing so much more interesting to me. She threatened a law suit against me once on reddit because she complained about being meta linked and I wouldn't remove the post (broke no rules in the sub). When I told her to have her lawyers contact reddit's lawyers to contact me, she filled mod mail with lots of profanities.
This is a tad tangential, but I wish people would make up their minds as to whether or not it's okay to discriminate against us Asians. Perhaps it would help if, as the author suggests in passing,...
This is a tad tangential, but I wish people would make up their minds as to whether or not it's okay to discriminate against us Asians. Perhaps it would help if, as the author suggests in passing, we come to grips with the fact cultures vary from region to region and treating the basic ethnicity as a monolith is a problem. But doing so opens us to conceding this also applies to Caucasian cultures and I'm not sure Sarah Jeong is comfortable with that notion.
I find it fucked up that none of the comments about this article, neither here nor on Reddit mention this. That counts as doxxing and I thought everyone had a general anti-doxxing opinion, no...
I created a pair of boots with tiny video displays in the sides, the video they play is of me making the boots. And, for a few seconds they flash the address I found for Jason Koebler
...
Then I posted the video. Of course, no one but Jason even notices the address in the video because it is so fast and so tiny.
I find it fucked up that none of the comments about this article, neither here nor on Reddit mention this. That counts as doxxing and I thought everyone had a general anti-doxxing opinion, no matter how you feel about Vice, Sarah Jeong or Jason Koebler.
I’d lost all my monthly income because I had no Patreon. Most alternatives PayPal, Drip etc. don’t work in China (yes really, no cryptocurrency and peer-to-peer tech aren’t viable options, yes I know you don’t believe me, trust me if it were easy there would be more Chinese YouTubers, ok got it- you don’t believe me. It’s still true).
Maybe it's time to speak about politics and Chinese government censorship?
It took me two months before I could start up again, and then only with sponsorship provided by a Chinese tech company and with more strict limits on what I could post. No more nuanced discussion of tech issues on social media- Tor in China, VPNs as a wealth and class filter, gender equality in Chinese tech, MakeEd training for young women- all off-limits now
Okay, so it's definitely time to speak out against Chinese government censorship?
She WAS speaking out about Chinese politics. But now that she has to take sponsorship from a Chinese company, she no longer can. The sections you quoted this support this.
She WAS speaking out about Chinese politics. But now that she has to take sponsorship from a Chinese company, she no longer can. The sections you quoted this support this.
There was a comment in the article itself, discussing whether posting publicly available information is considered doxxing or not. Apparently his address can be found easily. I am not stating my...
I find it fucked up that none of the comments about this article, neither here nor on Reddit mention this. That counts as doxxing and I thought everyone had a general anti-doxxing opinion, no matter how you feel about Vice, Sarah Jeong or Jason Koebler.
There was a comment in the article itself, discussing whether posting publicly available information is considered doxxing or not. Apparently his address can be found easily. I am not stating my opinion just quoting from the article, honestly I have no opinion here because the power dynamics are all messed up and I'm a sucker for rebels but at the same time it is a threatening message, but then again, I can threaten a big personality all I want, nothing is gonna happen, meanwhile if a neonazi group finds my info and posts it I'm pretty fucked. So yeah it is a worthy discussion at the very least.
Re. Chinese government censorship, definitely something that should be discussed, I've met Chinese citizens that love their government, others that hate it, others that have mixed opinions... I wish they were free to say their opinions online without fear of retribution.
The power dynamics are especially messed up because she lives in an authoritarian regime that actively censors. That's actually the real source of issues, because without that censorship and their...
Apparently his address can be found easily. I am not stating my opinion just quoting from the article, honestly I have no opinion here because the power dynamics are all messed up and I'm a sucker for rebels but at the same time it is a threatening message
The power dynamics are especially messed up because she lives in an authoritarian regime that actively censors. That's actually the real source of issues, because without that censorship and their oppressive tactics, she wouldn't have been scared of having certain topics posted in the article.
My opinion is we should focus on the bigger problem; it's a problem that the journalist didn't honour a written agreement (it's called keeping your word, even if it isn't an official contract).
I'm OK with publishing the addresses of people in positions of power/authority. Furthermore, if the system doesn't protect Naomi Wu, why should she work within the system? Why should any...
That counts as doxxing and I thought everyone had a general anti-doxxing opinion, no matter how you feel about Vice, Sarah Jeong or Jason Koebler.
I'm OK with publishing the addresses of people in positions of power/authority. Furthermore, if the system doesn't protect Naomi Wu, why should she work within the system? Why should any individual conform to laws, customs, or social norms that do not protect them, but instead make their lives harder?
I don't find your argument persuasive. Why must one tolerate compromise when dealing with the rules of a foreign and apparently inimical society in which one doesn't even live?
I don't find your argument persuasive. Why must one tolerate compromise when dealing with the rules of a foreign and apparently inimical society in which one doesn't even live?
Because this entire mess is due to a bi-directional clash between two societies and their own social norms? She blames VICE for putting her at risk in her own country, and her response is to put...
Why must one tolerate compromise when dealing with the rules of a foreign and apparently inimical society?
Because this entire mess is due to a bi-directional clash between two societies and their own social norms? She blames VICE for putting her at risk in her own country, and her response is to put at risk he-who-wronged-her?
Sure, she addresses the point of not finding a cleaner way to fight, but that's never a good reason to fight back dirty. There is also a more rational argument ( though I'll concede, it is quite weak ;) ): her relations with VICE are widely asymmetrical, what did she expect would happen by displaying his address publicly? That they would accept it and do nothing, even though they are clearly in a position of power over her?
in which one doesn't even live?
One could argue she "lives" in it with her YouTube channel and her english-following, sure she is Chinese, she lives there, and doesn't fly to the US, but she relies/relied on that ecosystem / society for a living.
I don't buy it. It seems plain from the evidence Ms. Wu provided that VICE agreed that certain sensitive topics would be off-limits, and they reneged on this agreement. Seems fair to me. What is...
Because this entire mess is due to a bi-directional clash between two societies and their own social norms?
I don't buy it. It seems plain from the evidence Ms. Wu provided that VICE agreed that certain sensitive topics would be off-limits, and they reneged on this agreement.
She blames VICE for putting her at risk in her own country, and her response is to put at risk he-who-wronged-her?
Seems fair to me.
Sure, she addresses the point of not finding a cleaner way to fight, but that's never a good reason to fight back dirty.
What is this, the Olympic Games? If somebody messes with your life and livelihood, and you have no recourse through the system, you fight back any way you can. If it's a fair fight, then you did something wrong; the ideal situation is to put the other guy in a position where he has no choice but to back down before the fight even starts.
Didn't you ever read Sun Tzu? I bet Naomi Wu has.
here is also a more rational argument ( though I'll concede, it is quite weak ;) ): her relations with VICE are widely asymmetrical, what did she expect would happen by displaying his address publicly? That they would accept it and do nothing, even though they are clearly in a position of power over her?
You've never been bullied by somebody capable of kicking your ass without breaking a sweat, have you? I have, so I'm going to write from experience. If you've fucked up so badly that a beatdown is inevitable, it's a hell of a lot easier to live with yourself if you fight back and lose than it is to live with being so abject a victim that you couldn't or wouldn't so much as strike a blow in your own defence. Even if you're up against God himself, you fight back.
Naomi Wu fucked up by trusting VICE. It's obvious she knows that, but her pride didn't permit her to take their treatment without some kind of response, no matter how ineffectual. I don't blame her, because in her position I would have done the same.
One could argue she "lives" in it with her YouTube channel and her english-following, sure she is Chinese, she lives there, and doesn't fly to the US, but she relies/relied on that ecosystem / society for a living.
Economic ties are the least meaningful ties of all. Ask anybody who hasn't made the mistake of seeking purpose or meaning in the work they do to pay the bills. You think any of them actually give a shit about their employers, or would piss on their bosses if they were on fire?
As fucked up as it is, it's because it's an agreement and not a contract ... our western "social norm" is that we shouldn't trust that kind of written BS, that's where the clash is. Except it's...
I don't buy it. It seems plain from the evidence Ms. Wu provided that VICE agreed that certain sensitive topics would be off-limits, and they reneged on this agreement.
As fucked up as it is, it's because it's an agreement and not a contract ... our western "social norm" is that we shouldn't trust that kind of written BS, that's where the clash is.
Seems fair to me.
Except it's not in the society you live in ;)
Naomi Wu fucked up by trusting VICE. It's obvious she knows that, but her pride didn't permit her to take their treatment without some kind of response, no matter how ineffectual. I don't blame her, because in her position I would have done the same.
Just to be clear: I don't "blame" her, I'm just indifferent to it all. She played her cards and lost, that's it. It's becoming a fuss because she has a strong following in the English world, not necessarily because it's revolution material imho.
That's what I'm asking as well, except I think we're talking about two different systems. I'm questioning why she doesn't turn her fury against the Chinese government censorship that actively...
if the system doesn't protect Naomi Wu, why should she work within the system
That's what I'm asking as well, except I think we're talking about two different systems. I'm questioning why she doesn't turn her fury against the Chinese government censorship that actively prevents her from earning a living?
Why should any individual conform to laws, customs, or social norms that do not protect them, but instead make their lives harder?
Excellent question? How can we support her in her fight against Chinese government censorship?
That wasn't what her article was about. Turning one's fury against tyrants in the wrong way or at the wrong time is a good way to end up in a shallow, unmarked grave. We can't even fix our own...
I'm questioning why she doesn't turn her fury against the Chinese government censorship that actively prevents her from earning a living?
That wasn't what her article was about.
Turning one's fury against tyrants in the wrong way or at the wrong time is a good way to end up in a shallow, unmarked grave.
Excellent question? How can we support her in her fight against Chinese government censorship?
We can't even fix our own government, and we're going to liberate the people of China? Not likely.
So not only is Sarah Jeong a racist, she's also a dangerously unethical journalist?
I have friends in PRC and I fully understand where this woman, naomi wu, is coming from. Both expats and natives have made it abundantly clear how dangerous it can be to speak your mind in China. China will look the other way so long as you're not making noise, but once you do...it's not safe.
I'm not shocked that Vice acted this way (I still watch Vice News on HBO, though) but I am surprised that the NYT would hire someone who's this bad at their job. NYT truly has gone downhill.
This is a personal testimony from a well-known Chinese YouTuber whose wellbeing was ruined thanks to disgusting wannabe journalists from Vice Media.
Do you have a link to the Vice piece?
Yep
What parts are problematic ?
Wu clearly takes issue with this line of questioning for two reasons. It is a sexist line of questioning because no male makers have had their sexuality questioned or have to respond to rumors about their relationship status. It is also dangerous because the government could censure her and freeze her out of maker spaces or worse. You can read the first few paragraphs of the linked article for more details.
Had I read this a couple of weeks ago, I might have been more reluctant to take Sarah Jeong's side. I still don't buy the conservative view that she's racist, but she's still an asshole for dealing with Naomi Wu as she did.
Do you care to expand on that for discussion sake? I'm having a hard time seeing how she is anything but a racist. If you replace the term "White" with any other color or group and read her tweets, it's like you're on a stormfront official account.
I'm Jewish and if someone tweeted, "Are jewish people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?" I would be hard pressed to find the person not guilty of racism, no matter the intent.
Heck, if you want to be more specific and use color instead of ethnic group. "Dumbass fucking black people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants" Would get me banned from twitter and lose me any future chance at earning a living for the rest of my life.
Unless you buy into the racism is prejudice + power theory, then I just don't see how you can spin her as not racist.
I'm not sure how much expansion is necessary, because you've answered your own question by asking my opinion on racism as prejudice + power.
I am used to thinking of racism as prejudice combined with power. You might dismiss it as a mere "theory", but I think it's a useful model for explaining why I can afford to laugh at Sarah Jeong and her prejudice against white people. Her only power over me is that of the pen, and if she is too careless in the use of that power then those who previously amplified her voice will instead silence her.
Racism and sexism mean that Sarah Jeong has more to fear from me than I do from her. It is a power imbalance built into the way we have thus far permitted our society to work.
but... but.. that IS literally the unanimous dictionary definition of racism: prejudice + superiority. I don't know the context of her insults, but I've seen comedians get away with far far worse. They can, because it's usually framed as a joke, and not some stance of superiority over another racial group and/or true beliefs of the person.
Again, idk the true intentions of her tweets, but many folks get a pass when it falls under the sarcasm/satire category. Dan Harmon (rick/morty) had tweets dug up where he explicitly advocated cooking and eating babies.
If she's an unethical journalist, that's an entirely different discussion.
That is absolutely NOT the definition, which is why in certain academic papers that hypocrites then held up as banners it was explicitly limited to prejudice + power, being the type of racism they were interested in for those papers. If that was the layman's definition, there would be no need to clarify it.
Discrimination based on race = racism. That is the definition of the word, and attempts to redefine it are just a way for hypocrites to say 'I can do this, but you can't, because of what race we both are' - news flash, that's racist.
No need to redefine it... Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Dictionary.com, Britannica, Wikipedia and Oxford all include "feeling superior to another race" (or some variation) in their published definitions. Unless you want to deviate from every major source of word meanings...
I certainly agree that race discrimination is racist, because that includes the presumption that the discriminating race is superior to the discriminated. My bigger point, though, was that her tweets could have been a joke/satire, which means she doesn't actually believe Asians are a superior race. I don't know the context, but if she seriously believes that, she is indeed a racist.
From Wikipedia:
Which does use the word superior, yes, but specifically the belief of the person saying/doing racist things, NOT some punching up/down relative power construct. If you didn't mean that, you need to really look at the things you reply to - the original statement you are supporting is
We're on the same page here. All I'm saying is if she didn't genuinely believe she was superior when making those comments, she's not actually a racist. Just a racist joke. That's all.
I'm pretty sure "superior" has something to do with being above someone else. So any punching would certainly be aimed downwards.
Edit: My original supporting claim was pejudice + superiority. I had altered yours slightly in my first reply.
The punching up vs down rhetoric is firmly rooted in a claim that cis/white/het/male/christian/wealthy/neurotypical/etc are inherently 'up' not because the person making the claims believes them to be superior due to their status, but because society grants them extra privileges, due to some combination of patriarchy, or colonial imperialism, or whatever. Based on that, they then make the claim that it is impossible to BE racist against a white person, or sexist against a man, because racism and sexism require it to be done from a position of power, which they claim can't be done.
You can't come in to a conversation, edit the terms being used, and then claim everybody is in agreement based on some shifting selection of those terms. The original comment in the chain (not mine) stated:
And you quoted that. You then said
Directly under that quote. There is no other way to interpret that than you equate superiority and power, and it's incredibly intellectually dishonest to shift goalposts like that.
I'm not changing goalposts, you're just extrapolating way beyond what I meant... racism is entirely based on the beliefs of the person being racist. If the racist believes they are superior, it's more than likely that they believe they are genetically more powerful than whatever race they're attacking. I made absolutely no mention of whether or not those feelings power are accurate/reality-based, just that the racist would believe that. Existing/factual power structures are irrelevant to whether someone can be racist. That's why I'm saying we're on the same page.
Anyone can be racist against anyone they want, given they believe that he/she is more genetically superior/powerful than the victim.
I'm extrapolating nothing at all, I'm explicitly pointing at the literal words you have used.
becomes
prejudice + power -> prejudice + superiority
I think the disconnect we're having is you're defining power theory as something different than power alone, something I glanced over originally. If PT is a different thought system than regular ol' power, please educate me.
I don't think you'll deny that someone who feels superior to another race also feels like their own race is more powerful, not economically but genetically.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you still aren't getting this. In a completely literal sense, without any definitions entering into it at all, one person says the word 'power' in a construct. You then say the word 'superiority' in place of the word power in that same construct. What possible other interpretation could you have intended other than superiority = power?
You then argue the point around the word 'superiority' which you have chosen, ignoring the idea of 'power' entirely. Take your pick of fallacies there, strawman or shifting goalposts.
A perception of superiority might be based on genetics, certainly with racism it makes sense that it would be genetic, potentially cultural. That doesn't imply that the person perceives their race to be in power or to hold power - indeed the rhetoric which is used is that one race which is claimed to be genetically inferior holds power over the 'superior race'. This is often used as an argument for that superior race to rise up and take power, and can be seen as taking privilege theory to its opposite extreme.
I am indeed, and never denied, equating the belief of superiority with power in terms of a racist's personal belief of genetic power (strength/intellect/awareness), not an objective cultural/governmental/economic power. Which I think is where our disconnect is. You've been treating power as a far broader & reality-based term, which is entirely understandable. I've just reduced it a little based on the definition of racism being entirely based on a person's belief of their group vs. another.
Random example: an oppressed, racist group may believe they're genetically more powerful than the oppressing race, but have been cheated-out of proper economic/cultural power through longstanding systems of discrimination.
At this point I feel like you're just trying to argue with someone you think disagrees with you, but for the most part, I entirely agree with you, when applying the definitions you've provided. Our problem was we started with fundamentally different assumptions as to what we meant by "power". Searching for its definition brings up 20+ different documented meanings. It's broad af
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
EDIT: (This is directly from Merriam-Webster, by the way.)
Good bot
So is affirmative action racist? Are groups like the NAACP or the Guatemalan Chamber of Commerce racist?
The answer to these rhetorical questions is no, but all AA policies and some organizations do discriminate based on race. However considering them racist is neither true or productive. It doesn't help us find harmful discrimination or discuss what aspects of our society contribute to systemic racism. It doesn't help us find answers to how we can move toward a non-racist society.
So then perhaps our definition of racism as just discrimination based on race is insufficient. The only definition of racism that offers some guide on why a Guatemalan Chamber of Commerce is different from the Loyal White Knights of the KKK is prejudice + power.
I mean in the UK (where I am) it's illegal without evidence that it will broaden participation of a group with a protected characteristic who are currently under represented. I'm not sure that there's any case law yet though.
So is the goal of broadening participation of a group that is under represented a racist goal?
You can read the parliamentary briefing on it here if you care to.
It's interesting but I'm not sure what part is supposed to respond to the question, "is the goal of broadening participation of a [racial] group that is under represented a racist goal?"
That all depends on whether you look at things in isolation (which is silly) or as part of a wider context. Now, some people will latch on to that and say 'the power is the context' - wrong. The context is about what the actions are trying to do. If you have a racist institution, where a particular group is over-represented due to historical discrimination, it isn't racist to try to undo that, even though it appears in isolation as though you are discriminating against the over-represented group. The definition still holds, because you are - at least attempting to - cancel out the existing discrimination.
People try to extend that to claim racial slurs or jokes directed at white people are doing the same thing - which is of course bullshit. It's not about an eye for an eye, it's about an opportunity for an opportunity. If 2 people do racist things in either direction, they're both racist. If 1 person disadvantages another for racist reasons, and someone else steps in and tries to return that same advantage, only 1 is racist.
So based on that, I would guess the NAACP to not be racist, though I don't know enough about them to be sure. And I've never even heard of the Guatemalan Chamber of Commerce, so who knows?
Were the babies poor and Irish?
I was very close to including Swift, haha. I'm sure several people of that era were calling him genocidal.
All else aside, I'd say the very topic at hand, which is to say her slandering another woman of color to defend a white man, should provide a fair helping of evidence against the "racist against white people" canard.
(Related to which - it seems quite likely that, when she posted those tweets originally, she had numerous white friends & colleagues who saw them, and that none of them felt in any kind of danger, or that she would treat them as lessers because of their race - in short that they saw them as satire, examples of a widely-used form - and moreover none of them decided to raise an objection to her book deal, or her move to the Verge and then to the Times, or her fellowship at Yale, etc.)
I find, as a white person, it's a lot easier to let these kind of statements roll off of you. My girlfriend is ethnically Cantonese, and her twitter is similarly full of posts like Jeong's, talking about how she hates / can't stand / is tired of white people. But at the end of the day I know she's not talking about all white people, instead she's using "white" as a synecdoche for "conservative" which might be unfair, but I don't necessarily consider racist. Jeong might not be going for that exactly, but reading her tweets with even the slightest bit of open-mindedness, you can see pretty quickly that they're not meant 100% seriously.
I'm sorry, but just because it's acceptable to be racist to "white people" doesn't mean that it is not racist. Saying you hate, can't stand or are tired of a group of people because of a characteristic determined by birth and not by choice, is the textbook definition of racism. I don't think it means that your girlfriend is a bad person, but it certainly means she is being a racist.
There is a morally justifiable stance whereby the less powerful group should be excused from, and maybe even encouraged to, put down epithets regarding the more enfranchised group.
Race is a poor choice to define a group, because if you take a close look, it becomes really problematic to clearly define who is in or out of the "race."
But back to my point as to why "asian" folks can inoffensively say something about "white" folks that would be offensive if the races were vice versa, those in power have a responsibility to pay attention to their unearned, institutionalized benefits, and, at the very, very least, acknowledge the benefit and their lack of doing anything to receive it. "Racist" statements can be a valuable mechanism to foment that acknowledgment.
That's a disgusting viewpoint. How do you define power? If white people are a minority in China, how are they the more enfranchised group?
If a white supremacist moves to Somalia and still advocates killing all niggers, should they be excused because they aren't racist anymore, since they're no longer in a position of power? No, they're still a shitty person, and a racist, and we shouldn't be supporting people who spew hate.
"If white people are a minority in China, how are they the more enfranchised group?"
Sarah Jeong is a Korean-born American, so I'm not sure what your point is. If she were to go to South Korea and denigrate white people facing discrimination there, that would be almost indisputably worse than doing it as an American journalist. Let's put semantics and technicalities and pedantics aside for a second. Wouldn't you think one was definitely worse than the other?
"If a white supremacist moves to Somalia and still advocates killing all n*****, should they be excused because they aren't racist anymore, since they're no longer in a position of power?"
Sincerely advocating for the murder of all members of a racial group is horrible. The real question here is whether you think Sarah Jeong is genuinely calling for genocide when she says #CancelWhitePeople.
In any case, yes it would still be more complicated because power dynamics between white people and Africans in Africa is a lot more complicated than the power dynamic between white Americans and African Americans. Much of Somalia was a British colony as recently as the 1960s, for example, and English is still widely taught in schools. I don't actually know anything about Somalia, so I don't know what their relationship is with organizations like the IMF and USAID, whether the CIA was involved in their very recent civil war to oust their communist government, etc. I only got the British colony bit with a good guess and some CTRL+Fing on their Wikipedia page.
Suffice to say, a white supremacist saying "white power" in Somalia would be a bit touchier than a Korean-American journalist making a joke about white people getting sunburnt in the US.
Your logical construct is also going to fail when loosely applying it to different cultures. Race is largely a social construct determined by the powers to be of a given society, and the n-word in particular is a racial epithet with little technical meaning. If you told Somalians to kill n-words (or whatever their linguistic equivalent is) you very well may be telling them to extinguish some underprivileged group. Remember the Hutus and the Tutsis? What you might call a "black" power group committed genocide on a disenfranchised racial group you might also call "black."
This is especially fitting when talking about a country from the horn of Africa because there's a lot of racist anthropology and phrenology bullshit that distinguishes Somalians from "black people."
I would suggest that it's a progressive view that she isn't a racist. I suspect, though I have no evidence for this, that the considerable majority of people on the political center would consider her statements to be racist.
The "considerable majority of people on the political center" can go fuck themselves. I've already decided for myself (based on Naomi Wu's account) that Sarah Jeong is an social climbing asshole devoid of ethics who is willing to suck up to white dudes if it will help her career, while throwing Chinese women living in China under a bus. That's reason enough to hold her in contempt.
Sitting firmly in the center of the political spectrum with a slight lean to the left, why should I go fuck myself? Why do you hate me for not playing the team game of politics and instead, thinking for myself, choosing individuals instead of party, and voting based on the politician, not the team jacket they wear?
In this case, I'm saying "centrists can go fuck themselves" because I don't care what they think about Sarah Jeong. I've updated my opinion based on new information (Naomi Wu's account) and decided that Ms. Jeong is an asshole and unworthy of my support.
Her English and the way she has with words and metaphors is really impressive.
Her English is a hell of a lot better than my Mandarin, that's for sure.
Such an inspiring human being
I like the determination expressed by a quote a few lines later.
SexyCyborg is her online persona and she's so fascinatingly unusual. I enjoy following her on Reddit.
That makes this whole thing so much more interesting to me. She threatened a law suit against me once on reddit because she complained about being meta linked and I wouldn't remove the post (broke no rules in the sub). When I told her to have her lawyers contact reddit's lawyers to contact me, she filled mod mail with lots of profanities.
This is a tad tangential, but I wish people would make up their minds as to whether or not it's okay to discriminate against us Asians. Perhaps it would help if, as the author suggests in passing, we come to grips with the fact cultures vary from region to region and treating the basic ethnicity as a monolith is a problem. But doing so opens us to conceding this also applies to Caucasian cultures and I'm not sure Sarah Jeong is comfortable with that notion.
I find it fucked up that none of the comments about this article, neither here nor on Reddit mention this. That counts as doxxing and I thought everyone had a general anti-doxxing opinion, no matter how you feel about Vice, Sarah Jeong or Jason Koebler.
Maybe it's time to speak about politics and Chinese government censorship?
Okay, so it's definitely time to speak out against Chinese government censorship?
She WAS speaking out about Chinese politics. But now that she has to take sponsorship from a Chinese company, she no longer can. The sections you quoted this support this.
I thought she was working remotely? That part was a bit confusing to me. Thanks for pointing that out.
There was a comment in the article itself, discussing whether posting publicly available information is considered doxxing or not. Apparently his address can be found easily. I am not stating my opinion just quoting from the article, honestly I have no opinion here because the power dynamics are all messed up and I'm a sucker for rebels but at the same time it is a threatening message, but then again, I can threaten a big personality all I want, nothing is gonna happen, meanwhile if a neonazi group finds my info and posts it I'm pretty fucked. So yeah it is a worthy discussion at the very least.
Re. Chinese government censorship, definitely something that should be discussed, I've met Chinese citizens that love their government, others that hate it, others that have mixed opinions... I wish they were free to say their opinions online without fear of retribution.
The power dynamics are especially messed up because she lives in an authoritarian regime that actively censors. That's actually the real source of issues, because without that censorship and their oppressive tactics, she wouldn't have been scared of having certain topics posted in the article.
My opinion is we should focus on the bigger problem; it's a problem that the journalist didn't honour a written agreement (it's called keeping your word, even if it isn't an official contract).
I'm OK with publishing the addresses of people in positions of power/authority. Furthermore, if the system doesn't protect Naomi Wu, why should she work within the system? Why should any individual conform to laws, customs, or social norms that do not protect them, but instead make their lives harder?
Because all societies are a pile of compromises?
I don't find your argument persuasive. Why must one tolerate compromise when dealing with the rules of a foreign and apparently inimical society in which one doesn't even live?
Because this entire mess is due to a bi-directional clash between two societies and their own social norms? She blames VICE for putting her at risk in her own country, and her response is to put at risk he-who-wronged-her?
Sure, she addresses the point of not finding a cleaner way to fight, but that's never a good reason to fight back dirty. There is also a more rational argument ( though I'll concede, it is quite weak ;) ): her relations with VICE are widely asymmetrical, what did she expect would happen by displaying his address publicly? That they would accept it and do nothing, even though they are clearly in a position of power over her?
One could argue she "lives" in it with her YouTube channel and her english-following, sure she is Chinese, she lives there, and doesn't fly to the US, but she relies/relied on that ecosystem / society for a living.
I don't buy it. It seems plain from the evidence Ms. Wu provided that VICE agreed that certain sensitive topics would be off-limits, and they reneged on this agreement.
Seems fair to me.
What is this, the Olympic Games? If somebody messes with your life and livelihood, and you have no recourse through the system, you fight back any way you can. If it's a fair fight, then you did something wrong; the ideal situation is to put the other guy in a position where he has no choice but to back down before the fight even starts.
Didn't you ever read Sun Tzu? I bet Naomi Wu has.
You've never been bullied by somebody capable of kicking your ass without breaking a sweat, have you? I have, so I'm going to write from experience. If you've fucked up so badly that a beatdown is inevitable, it's a hell of a lot easier to live with yourself if you fight back and lose than it is to live with being so abject a victim that you couldn't or wouldn't so much as strike a blow in your own defence. Even if you're up against God himself, you fight back.
Naomi Wu fucked up by trusting VICE. It's obvious she knows that, but her pride didn't permit her to take their treatment without some kind of response, no matter how ineffectual. I don't blame her, because in her position I would have done the same.
Economic ties are the least meaningful ties of all. Ask anybody who hasn't made the mistake of seeking purpose or meaning in the work they do to pay the bills. You think any of them actually give a shit about their employers, or would piss on their bosses if they were on fire?
As fucked up as it is, it's because it's an agreement and not a contract ... our western "social norm" is that we shouldn't trust that kind of written BS, that's where the clash is.
Except it's not in the society you live in ;)
Just to be clear: I don't "blame" her, I'm just indifferent to it all. She played her cards and lost, that's it. It's becoming a fuss because she has a strong following in the English world, not necessarily because it's revolution material imho.
That's what I'm asking as well, except I think we're talking about two different systems. I'm questioning why she doesn't turn her fury against the Chinese government censorship that actively prevents her from earning a living?
Excellent question? How can we support her in her fight against Chinese government censorship?
We can't even fix our own government, and we're going to liberate the people of China? Not likely.