The Signature Significance Of The Left’s Endorsement Of Sarah Jeong (Part I)

Hi, White America! I want you dead! And now, the technology news…

Are you already sick of the controversy over the New York Times hiring Sarah Jeong? Don’t be. The mainstream media and the now officially-derailed progressive establishment want you to move on, as in Move-On.Org’s definition, meaning …

… but there is a lot to see, and it is important to see it clearly.

Are these…

…racist tweets? Of course they are. Denying that they are is Orwellian, but progressives have been tending to 1984 for quite a while now, and denying it all the while. Would any journalist tweeting the equivalent sentiments about any other race have a career left in anything but wreckage? No. Rosanne Barr, a comic, not a journalist, was fired, branded a pariah and non-person, and had her hit ABC show cancelled for a single racist tweet about one woman. These are but a sample of many tweets from Jeong about an entire race (and often an entire gender). Not only is her career not in tatters, it is advancing.

What this means is that the Left, including the mainstream news media that is represented by the New York Times, the traditional exemplar, the role model, the standard-setter, now unapologetically and openly endorses an unethical, dangerous and divisive double standard. Non-whites can engage in hateful, racist speech against whites, and women can use sexist, misandrous rhetoric against men, and that’s not only acceptable, but deserved.

Andrew Sullivan framed this construct while referencing the sociology/pseudo academic/ activist-speak that I have detested since college:

The.. view…of today’s political left is that Jeong definitionally cannot be racist, because she’s both a woman and a racial minority. Racism against whites, in this neo-Marxist view, just “isn’t a thing” — just as misandry literally cannot exist at all. And this is because, in this paradigm, racism has nothing to do with a person’s willingness to pre-judge people by the color of their skin, or to make broad, ugly generalizations about whole groups of people, based on hoary stereotypes. Rather, racism is entirely institutional and systemic, a function of power, and therefore it can only be expressed by the powerful — i.e., primarily white, straight men. For a nonwhite female, like Sarah Jeong, it is simply impossible. In the religion of social constructionism, Jeong, by virtue of being an Asian woman, is one of the elect, incapable of the sin of racism or group prejudice.

This intellectually dishonest political gaslighting has always been screamingly offensive, and yet it not only survives, it is now considered acceptable enough by a critical mass of brain-washed ideologues that the mainstream Left isn’t even embarrassed to endorse it. The contrived defenses of the Times’ standing by its indefensible choice offered by “the team” are instructive. ThinkProgress, for example, never explained why an Asian woman’s voluminous racist tweets shouldn’t be a disqualification for a post requiring fairness and objectivity (perhaps because they should be, and TP has no counter argument that wouldn’t look idiotic in print), other than to claim the tweets were taken out of context (All racist statements by conservatives are defended by protests that they were “taken out of context”) and Rationalization #2, Ethics Estoppel, or “They’re Just as Bad.” But…but…Jeong’s critics posted racist tweets too!

“Welcome to the popular new game Is There A Sarah Jeong Critic Who Hasn’t Tweeted Something Racist?”, TP quotes an ally as writing. What does the hard-left site consider comparably  racist? Tweets like this, in 2013, from Sullivan:

“I’m English by origin. As a people, we will never stop giggling at funny names and Asian accents.”

Of course, that tweet is not racist, but this is the brilliance of  liberal race-baiters blurring the definition of racism so Chris Matthews can call using the word “urban”racist. Now you can get away with falsely calling that obvious self-deprecating tweet by Sullivan the same as Jeong tweeting out “#CancelWhitePeople.

Vox took a different approach, dishonestly attributing the attacks on Jeong to the alt right—you know, crazy skin-heads like Brit Hume—and comparing the exposure of her old tweets to what was done to Disney Director James Gunn, which Ethics Alarms condemned here and elsewhere. This is really outrageous, as the social media attacks on Gunn as a result of his series of black humor jokes about AIDS, gays and sexism were all from progressives and political correctness bullies, intimidating Disney, not that this is difficult, into firing him. Gunn’s job, however, had nothing whatsoever to do with his social and political biases even if the old tweets accurately represents them today, which is highly doubtful. Jeong’s tweets are relevant to her new job and its duties, in which bias is crippling. Moreover, the New York Times must be trustworthy. A newspaper that happily hires editors who have previously opined that “white men are bullshit”—what a funny quip!—cannot be trustworthy. This is materially different from Gunn’s situation: horrible, bigoted can make great art. It may well be that horrible people have created more great art than nice people. Racist, biased, bigoted people, however, cannot make a trustworthy newspaper. The editors of The Verge, the rock from under which Jeong crawled, tried to defend her and could only sputter (in part):

“But as the editors of The Verge, we want to be clear: this abusive backlash is dishonest and outrageous.

This is classic “How dare you!” rhetoric. Neither the Verge. nor any other defender, explains why Jeong’ stating that “white men are bullshit” is any less racist and sexist than a white man tweeting that “black women are bullshit.” They can’t, without sounding ridiculous, so they just assume their audience “gets it,” it being the double standard that Sullivan described.

“The trolls engaged in this campaign are using the same tactics that exploded during Gamergate”

Sure! An incomprehensible videogame journalism controversy over one journalist arguing that that “gamers,” have been overwhelmingly “angry young men” and that they needed to grow up and accept that the demographics were evolving is exactly like the New York Times hiring a flagrant anti-white, anti-male editor! Good argument!

“Trolls” is pure ad hominem, because when lame debaters have no bullets, they default to name-calling.

“…and they have been employed in recent years by even broader audiences amid a rise in hostility toward journalists…”

The fact that bigots and biased activists like Jeong are infesting journalism is why there is that rise in hostility, and why it is 100% deserved.

“So we’re not going to fall for these disingenuous tactics. And it’s time other newsrooms learn to spot these hateful campaigns for what they are: attempts to discredit and undo the vital work of journalists who report on the most toxic communities on the internet.”

And now the time-worn. “I’m not going to distinguish that accusation with a response!” tactic! Isn’t this a perfect and hilarious example of a self-rebutting statement? The vital work of journalists who report on the most toxic communities on the internet by being part of those toxic communities!”

This episode is important and significant. The ugliest, most anti-democratic and intolerant segment of the political left now believes that it can show its real face, and proclaim its divisive ideology openly and without apology, confident that there is now sufficient support for it. The mainstream news media is adopting the Orwellian strategy of  claiming to have one set of principles while actively supporting the antithesis of those principles.

The rest of the news media appears to be uncertain that the mask isn’t coming off prematurely as a tactical matter, and is treating the story as a minor one. In the absence of a single trustworthy, non-partisan news source, we have to rely on the conservative news media to keep this “nothingburger” cooking. The flagship of journalism, and the de facto Prvada of the Democratic Party, has told us that anti-white racism is fine.

That’s signature significance. Trustworthy journalists wouldn’t behave this way.

Ever.

_______________________

One more thing...the progressive readers and commenters on this blog have disappointed and disillusioned me greatly by their unanimous failure to discuss the Jeong fiasco so far. I see only three explanations:

  • They understand what is wrong with the Times conduct, but will not openly criticize their perceived “team”
  • They have decided to follow the Left’s mob on this matter, but know they can’t make a coherent case that Jeong is defensible or that her explanation is credible.
  • They are sitting in a corner somewhere with their fingers in their ears and humming, hoping it will all go away.

None of these are ennobling.

 

 

14 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Race, Social Media, Unethical Tweet, Workplace

14 responses to “The Signature Significance Of The Left’s Endorsement Of Sarah Jeong (Part I)

  1. adimagejim

    Again, we no longer hold many, if any, of the same values or speak much of the same language of the Alinskyite communists masquerading as the American Progressive movement. How do we forge a consensus between us if they will not admit they have a problem.

    As a former Republican, I tell the GOP to go take a leap all the time due to their misdeeds and misrepresentation of the people and the Constitution.

    Finding a middle ground based on a truthful (pointer Ethics Sage) exchange of ideas and solutions within the Constitutional framework is desperately needed.

  2. Rip

    Their is nothing to really say, the left defends this hate speech out of guilt. My grandmother was racist as can be, my dad thought he wasn’t and my uncle once told me he wasn’t when he would not hire a black woman to work in the kitchen as he would lose customers.
    This was on Long Island. Now my current family has come a long way. My nephew is married to a Korean woman my nieces are married the African Americans or Hispanics, my mother still spouts homophobia, but has cleaned up her act on most fronts. Our collective racist past is catching up to us as a society, unfortunatly that means this generation Is paying for it.
    The question is how long do we have to deal with our collective past. I could not control my grandmother when she was alive. And yes their our still bigots out there. Leave the bulk of us alone. If you are working in journalism unless you are doing an opinion colum you are to be neutral. when did they stop teaching this ? It was in journalism 101 when I took it. Her tweets make her unsuited for the job.

  3. JutGory

    Fourth option: they see what is wrong with the Times but don’t feel compelled to condemn what is obviously indefensible. The call to condemn what others perceive as “your team” is oftentimes, itself, a “gotcha” move. For instance, the press deemed it newsworthy that Sanders did not personally disavow Trump’s Enemy of the People remarks.

    -Jut

  4. Glenn Logan

    This episode is important and significant. The ugliest, most anti-democratic and intolerant segment of the political left now believes that it can show its real face, and proclaim its divisive ideology openly and without apology, confident that there is now sufficient support for it. The mainstream news media is adopting the Orwellian strategy of claiming to have one set of principles while actively supporting the antithesis of those principles.

    It is significant, but I’m curious as to what the significance will be? Will America turn its face away, disgusted, or will it embrace the sophistic nonsense of the left?

    This question, actually, is critical to the survival of the country. If the mainstream left actually embraces this position and drags support for it from the center, I suggest this country as we know it is doomed to suffer a major crisis that could result in anything from a civil war to a Marxist takeover. Make no mistake, Andrew Sullivan has it right when he characterizes the Left’s position as neo-Marxist, and combined with the sudden interest of the Left in “democratic socialism,” a major violent conflict of ideologies seems increasingly possible. Most Americans who embrace a pluralistic, capitalist society will not stand for a Marxist takeover.

    One more thing…the progressive readers and commenters on this blog have disappointed and disillusioned me greatly by their unanimous failure to discuss the Jeong fiasco so far.

    Considering the above, it is a fearsome and troubling matter. If even the mainstream left is unwilling to speak out about the worst abuses of their partisans, what remains to restrain them from even worse things?

    Finally, I want to mention that the so-called “alt-right” rallies in Portland yesterday that was fearfully reported to be an opportunity for the next Charlottesville, was relatively peaceful. Apparently, the police were on their guard when it came to the AntiFa counter-protesters, and it went off comparatively well. That’s an encouraging sign.

    But we remain on a hair-trigger for violence. I can feel it.

    • Glenn Logan wrote, “But we remain on a hair-trigger for violence. I can feel it.”

      Progressives have done everything they can to intentionally strip the general population of hope and actively demonize anything that resembles hope. A brainwashed and demoralized general population with little to no hope is much easier to manipulate. Progressives are preparing for their ultimate solution and the results of their efforts will be catastrophic to urban areas of the United States. What was once a grey line is becoming black and white, soon there will be no fence sitters.

      My only question right now is when will Progressives inspire their followers to intentionally push their opposition into a corner leaving only one perceived escape from their onslaught and therefore sacrificing their first real martyr(s) for their cause so they can have a rallying call to unify their violent resistance?

      There is real significance in the fact that I just asked that question. Thanks to Progressives, my hope for civil solutions to political differences is gone, and I do mean gone; these people are a brainwashed cult that will feed their first born to the lions to further their cause. I now think it’s inevitable that Progressives will get their desired violence. I think Progressives want to rise from the ashes to try and transform the United States into their faux social utopia. Progressives should seriously heed the immortal words of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve”, but they won’t, they can’t, to them there can only be one solution.

      As long as I am physically capable, I will fight to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States.

      • adimagejim

        It appears their leadership has been floating trial incidents for some time now and have not been gotten the crucial response they wished.

        Perhaps the resistance realize acting out more violently would be foolhardy or maybe they’re just not as committed as their provocateurs would like them to be or maybe they like the virtue signalling, but aren’t really down with ‘the struggle’.

        So far, they have generally looked like the puppets they are.

      • Yesterday I wrote a rather pessimistic comment above and the more I reflect on what I wrote the more I wonder why I wrote it. 

        Contrary to what some may think, I’m generally a rather optimistic person. Yes I’m a hard man, sometimes very hard, but optimism has always been my rudder through life; however, my view of the future of civility is overwhelmingly pessimistic these days.

        Is this new overbalance towards pessimism a projection of myself upon the world around me or is it the result of the world around me?

        Today I really began to wonder, how did our world turn an optimist into a pessimist?

        I’m going to reflect on this for a while.

  5. The Times certainly put themselves in an interesting position with this. I wonder if any of it is either by design, or is at least now kept in this way now that the story emerged, for the simple act of getting publicity for their paper. At the least, they’ll hope for a large bump from solidly far-left folks. If they figure to tempt in new subscribers who sadly agree with this, more then lose in old remaining subscribers, then they may feel it’s worth it. I would bet a lot of their current subscribers are liberal anyway. Not many far-right folks still follow the paper, so they may not lose as much in terms of money as feared. Now in terms of objective significance, it gives a big shot against any story involving racism by the entire paper in the future.

    To me, one large issue against any defense for them is the firings of others for doing the same thing. Particularly the Quinn Norton firing, which is basically the same act for the same position, with just the races/insults changed. If that had not been done, they could (legitimately) back the reasoning that they’re not punishing people for old quotes, following the band-wagon of attacking others for them that has gone on recently. I could get behind that if that was the reasoning. Granted they can’t then attack others for doing that then (ballplayers, directors, etc), but it’s a defensible position. They also, with that past firing, may be looking to not look awful for having done the same thing twice, and having to fire two people for the same reason in a 6-month span. A bad look for hiring practices in it’s own right.

  6. Wayne

    I really don’t know what this woman’s problem is: Most likely brainwashed at a prestigious university and turning out as the David Duke of the left. Perhaps she would enjoy life better in North Korea where Ii’m sure she would get a warm welcome.

  7. I, an old white man, want Sarah Jeong…I mean, I want her to continue hating, and to hate me and everyone like me more and more with each passing thought, hating ever more unmistakably and loudly, until she suffocates herself with her own hatred.

    Now, I ALMOST lengthened that previous sentence with, “… – but not before I rape her first.”

    But that would have been merely making “a string of words in rhetorical fashion;” I am NOT a necrophile. I draw the line on taking cheap power trips at making comments in blogs. Where’s Charles? Genocide, Charles.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.