Following up on the previous post…
Prof. Glenn Reynold opined this morning that President Trump should read Sarah Jeong’s racist, anti-male, anti-police tweets at rallies (See Item #4 at the link.)
It certainly would be a powerful and nearly unrebbutable response to the current journalistic assault on the Trump Administration for impugning the news media. What do you call a journalistic establishment that willingly gives power and influence to a young Asian-American who tweets #CancelWhitePeople? Would #CancelJews? be similarly benign? Hiring and defending someone like Jeong certainly creates the rebuttable presumption that the news media is the enemy of at least some of the people, no?
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Is Reynolds right? Should Trump read Sarah Jeong’s Tweets at rallies?
Unlike most Ethics Alarms quizzes, where I ask a question because I am genuinely torn regarding the answer, in this case I made up my mind the second I read Reynold’s comment.
The professor is wrong. There is no way the President can read Jeong’s anti-white, anti-male tweets publicly (or refer to them on Twitter) and not appear to be deliberately stirring up racial hate and division. Indeed, doing so would increase racial hate and division. Even though this is the dangerous path Democrats are deliberately following, his job and ethical duty as President is to avoid just the kind of groups hate and distrust the Left is seeding as its repugnant strategy to regain power. I have no doubt that using Jeong to demonstrate how depraved his opponents are becoming would be politically advantageous, but the risks are too great.
If he wants to note here and there that the Times has hired an editor who is a racist, that is defensible….if he can leave it at that.
Ethics Alarms 
There is a difference between stirring up trouble and letting people know what they are up against. This is a very close call.
This is a difficult question, but I think I agree with your conclusion.
This is part and parcel of the ongoing discussion of Trump “punching down.” While putting the president’s bully pulpit behind the obviously unfair and unethical double standards the press and Left have embraced, and publicizing something which is largely confined to the politically engaged to virtually everyone, it would carry with it the stigma of racial division, no matter how he characterized it.
Coming from the pinnacle of power, anything that embraces the politics of racial division is a Bad Thing. It was bad when Obama did it implicitly in the Zimmerman train wreck among other things, and it would be no better, and arguably worse, if Trump did it given the current environment of racial politics.
I understand where Reynolds is coming from — this deserves to be unremittingly exposed, and nothing would accomplish that better than the President assailing it from the hustings. Unfortunately, the damage to our society far outweigh the benefits of exposing the ethical bankruptcy of the press and their leftist allies.
There are some things, while desirable in a partisan sense, are simply too destructive to our social fabric to contemplate. Yes, it’s unfair that the Left has couched Trump’s attempt to stop illegal immigration and terrorist entry from radical countries as racist. But responding with an even more divisive attack, which the Left would surely see as “white supremacy,” surely cannot be rationally countenanced.
And unfortunately, if whites begin to see themselves under attack on a widespread basis from racial minorities, a toxic form of racial distrust is almost certainly the next step. We should be trying to minimize this division, not exacerbate it. Regardless of what the press and Left do, Trump constantly talking about the left’s characterization of “toxic whiteness” in any terms will only pile on anger and loathing. We, the people, don’t need that.
Is it more damaging to the fabric of our society to point it out from the highest pulpit than to allow it and its justifications to continue? Not sure. I see both sides, but fear letting it continue and fester will only make things much worse in the future than the punch down aspect.
Is our society as wise as it was in the 1950s and 1960s to see injustices and address them with policies as socially quickly as possible? Again, not sure, but fear it is not and is based on retribution and incivility.
I see your point, and it’s definitely valid.
I guess I’d rather deal with the potential consequences of leaving it to the right-leaning media and congressional candidates than the President. You may be right, which is why it looked like a closer call to me than Jack, but the consequences of Trump highlighting it just look too unpleasant to contemplate to me.
Agreed. Others highlighting is preferred. The lesser reach of the frequency of the highlighting is the issue. (Trump tweeting or speaking publicly in careful detail about almost anything scares the hell out of me. Maybe this is something Vice President Pence could do.)
“…and the frequency of the highlighting”
“…if whites begin to see themselves under attack on a widespread basis from racial minorities,…”
I would contend that many already do see themselves under that attack. The evidence is right before our eyes, every single day.
Trump should simply say that any evidence of overt racisim or gender prejudice evidenced by recording or in writing will not be tolerated within the White House. At which point he rescinds the Times press credentials based on one of the editor’s tweets. Then let the press publically defend the Times’ decision to hire Ms. Jeong.
Clever political ploy.
jvb
“If he wants to note here and there that the Times has hired an editor who is a racist, that is defensible….if he can leave it at that.”
And the odds of Trump doing that are……..slim and none. And I think I saw Slim booking it….
Who else can speak out about these toxic attacks on whites, then? Allowing them to blather for the last several years has emboldened them, like some kind of warped test marketing. I know whites who are afraid to say anything because of the virulence- not that they have shown any evidence of racism, but harassment from people like this woman is not balanced or fair. Yes, Trump should not, but no one dominant seems willing and able to step up and take the heat.
A good point. It is in some ways akin to the same phenomenon that led to Trump’s election — perhaps very few really, really wanted Trump to be elected. However, enough had had enough of the alternatives or were willing to take the leap that Trump would actually do what he said he would do — and thus the great upset.
So…….not Trump, but if not Trump then who?
Is Reynolds right? Should Trump read Sarah Jeong’s Tweets at rallies?
My opinion is that an entire *construct* about race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality and many other things needs to be unraveled, disassembled, and then things need to be put back together again. This is no light affair. My idea is that this process needs to be as radical, and as thorough, as possible. These *constructs* as I call them are in many senses false, and they are *impositions* on people. When such constructs and impositions are disassembled there is naturally a degree of conflict and angst. It is hard to say what will come of this process. Where and when has there been such a civil crisis in the modern First World? That this is happening in America has great meaning. The ramifications are huge.
Present day America, that is Postwar America, is a *construct* that was achieved through sophistry and trickery. Social manipulation, PR and propaganda techniques, an imposition from top-down. Society’s *managers* and technicians significantly constructed the present that is, to all appearances, unraveling. Certainly many regret and fear that this is happening, and each one has his or her story as to what is happening and why (and what is needed, in *the best of all possible worlds*, to remediate things), yet significant things are unraveling.
Trump is not the cause of this. Trump (I have thought) is a social and social-psychological manifestation of something occurring in the ‘unconsciousness’ of America. My analysis is, I suppose, Jungian. The turmoil of the Interwar Period, in Europe 1920-30, brought forth various national actors, the names I do not need to mention. These people were actors but they were also ‘puppets’ of psychological forces. I see Trump through this lens. He is, sort of, the *perfect* figure for such a strange juncture as disunion begins. He is the *ugly* side of America, the vulgar side, the crass and unsophisticated side which has been, shall I say, beaten down by the cultural managers. Trump, I came to see digging up old articles, was the ridiculed and condescended figure of NY high culture: they hated him. But they also hate, and they fear, the common man of the hinterland, the flyover-country man. There is a huge story that is told when the cultural managers *love* Obama and *hate* Trump, and there is something deeply psychological being played out strangely and darkly. Trump is America’s *self-hatred complex*, yet America’s self-hatred complex needs to be overcome, and it is the white demographic that must do this. How hard this will be!
There is a power-struggle going on in America right now. It has to do with race and ethnicity, but it really has to do with a great deal more. It has to do with who *owns* and who is capable of carrying forward what we refer to when we use this complex and loaded term ‘America’. Those who look on this problem do so through a small opening in the wall. A chink. Their vision is very very limited. They cannot see the whole problem. Lack of knowledge is lack-of-power. Until the full problem is seen, things will remain in mire. Usually, at least speaking of individuals, when they cannot or won’t *see* their problem or circumstance, the circumstance rises up to *teach* them. That is what Fate is: knowledge that waits to be revealed to the blinded person.
Throw off these insidious ideological and psychological chains. Once seen, they do not have the same power. Once seen, then everything will begin to fit into place. Start with small and immediate things and then move on up the line.
I find it really hard to believe that Trump says what he says to *the media*, and yet it is strangely fitting, and oddly satisfying. That is the beginning of ‘telling the truth’. *They* will use all the tools at their disposal to bring him down, and perhaps they will succeed, but I do not think they will be able to stop the process that is beginning. It is not Trump’s.
I don’t know that I could summarize the situation better myself. That’s about as accurate an overview as I’ve seen.
As far as unraveling constructs goes, I’m confident in my ability to help with that, but the process requires the participation of the people whose constructs are to be unraveled and recreated. I can’t identify and overhaul a people’s identity without their feedback or commitment. However, the power struggle is something I can shed some light on.
At this very moment I am working on an article enumerating the tools with which people can make sense of large-scale problems, including culture-clashes. Once we know where we stand, we can figure out where to go from there.
Is there any possibility that The New York Times did not vet Jeong appropriately? It’s not as if it hasn’t happened before. Would they be willing to admit they made another huge mistake? I don’t know much about Twitter but if The Times did see these tweets they had to have known they would cause a huge negative reaction. Why wouldn’t they at least ask Jeong to delete those tweets (is that possible) or close her account instead of just leaving those tweets hanging there waiting for someone to find them? It seems they left her exposed to massive retaliation by hiring her. Her Twitter account is up and running and I’m sure any harassment she had before being hired by The Times is nothing compared to what she is getting right now.
As far as Trump reading her tweets out loud at rallies? Absolutely not. I think her safety should be a priority at this point in time. Her life just dramatically changed for the worse.
Personally, I don’t accept the suggestion that our first priority is her safety. That suggests that her belief system is valid such that white males are dangerous to minorities.
Ms Jeong should fully own her beliefs. Her flacid apology/rationale saying she was mimicking people harrassing her is just what it is – a giant F You to the world. How can we believe that a tech blogger is being harrassed based on her commentary on tech issues. I expect that any blowback she received was in response to some social commentary in which she laid her beliefs bare regarding whites and males.
Her beliefs should be on full display and anyone that rationalizes her comments is every bit the racist/misandrist as she.
You forgot anti-police
Disagree with Jack.
Trump should, in large part because he’s the only one who will, and, strange as it is, the only one with credibility, gravitas, pick your adjective, to get it widely distributed.
Republicans talk in muted, respectful tones, and as they are now known for, do nothing of substance. They will be roundly ignored, even by most in their own party (there is a reason Trump beat all the republicans to get the nomination).
Leftist democrats and the media (if you’ll pardon the redundancy…) defend it, justify it, and make excuses for it.
The best way to make it past the siloed halves, where it would otherwise die in obscurity, and in to the (true) “mainstream”, the people tired of the ass-hattery of the political/ media culture, is to have Trump say it.
With all the madness that may entail.
The truth of that columnist’s warped views demand she be exposed in the way that draws the most attention to her madness.
My belief is it will not happen except for Trump, the thumb in the eye of “business as usual” swampers.
Bad Bob
I agree with much of what you are saying but even Trump will need to have his flanks protected by people of good faith who cannot be identified by their own record be tarred as racists.
Aliza makes good points regarding the gestation of collective white guilt and how it is being weaponized to advance the progressive agenda.
Perhaps the most strategic method of finding a middle ground is to start in the middle and not at the extremes. If we start an ignore the rhetoric campaign that exposes those whose words seek to create conflict or traffic in it, and promote those that offer intelligent debate then maybe we can get somewhere.
The more time we spend pushing Sarah Jeong into the limelight the more power she will amass. The worst thing in the world for a FB or Twitter persona is to have no audience.
Instead of ignore the rhetoric it should be reject the rhetoric.
To late, she’s at The Times.
Flanks and evidence or not, anybody not “them” IS racist. Facts don’t matter, narrative does.
Nor will intelligent debate work among that same crowd, for the same reasons. If instead you mean debate for the sake of the wide middle – i.e. those not on the coasts or news junkies – they generally can sense the gist of the absurd – as long as they know about it. Most people I know (and I’ve seen stats as well) tend to be low dose consumers of the political. As noble as a good dialogue of the issues are, most will say of the writer “that’s crazy” and move on; unless they hear it’s from the NYT, then it might get more credence, even if intuitively it doesn’t make sense.
For all we may think of Mr. Trump, our government (and media) is/was far enough ahead of him in the absurd category that he was considered the saner of alternatives – and elected.
That’s a bit frightening, and I’m a Trump guy.
But he gets the job done, and therefore should just put the tweets out there.
I’m just not clear on a few points. Is this woman really a lesbian, man hating, Korean supremacist who really thinks all non-Asians are inherently inferior and men are evil personified? She really believes those things? Anyone? Anyone? Beuhler?
OB, I, personally, think that she does believe in this manner. But, as a conservative, I also believe that she has a right to hold these beliefs, without the threat of physical violence being held over her. For a sitting President, if somewhat ungentlemanly, to read these posts, which are already public domain, could almost certainly be seen as a call for such violence.
As opposed to Maxine Waters, who actually called for harassment?
It would give a larger audience insight in to the NYT, et al, and what they really believe.
I don’t know that the NYT is what it used to be, but that type of brand holds sway even as it slowly dies.
So she really thinks that way. Interesting. And very nasty. But the left is just fine with that sort of thinking. Interesting. And pretty shocking and eye opening. Signature significance indeed. Yikes. She certainly hasn’t said she didn’t mean any of it. Maybe she has but in such an obscure, insider, hipster way I sure missed it.
“Is this woman really a lesbian, man hating, Korean supremacist who really thinks all non-Asians are inherently inferior and men are evil personified?”
She has a Vagenda (H/T Aaron Burr @diogenesmiddlefinger.com)
She has a niche. Just as it would not surprise me to find out the Ann Coulter is a closet Democrat and that James Carville voted for Trump, it would not surprise me if Jeong has a hoard of white and male friends who find her posturing hilarious. To many people, integrity is an impediment to profit.
Right. Next thing we know, she’ll be marrying a Goldman Sachs partner and moving into his house in Chappaqua and summering on Martha’s Vineyard.
“Ann Coulter is a closet Democrat and that James Carville voted for Trump”
Those are just too juicy, too funny. It would explain a lot.
Okay, poll time!
What are white feminist progressives thinking in backing Jeong?
{A} They are deliberately pushing Jeong forward as a stalking horse to see how the liberal left will react, – they are not interested in the right’s (expected) response – trusting that backing these extremes will scare them into further silence, and hoping they will remain inert-until-activated minions.
{B} They are so sure of their ability to retain power in the movement — come the revolution! (after all, who allowed or made possible non-white success in the first place, eh??) that they are becoming reckless.
{C}They are truly breast-beating political masochists who wish to martyr themselves to The Cause.
{D} In their minds’ mirrors, they are so madly identified with the non-white population that they are convinced their ancestors were either plantation slaves, died at Wounded Knee, or were secretly offended and humiliated beyond endurance by having their cultures appropriated by children in Hallowe’en costumes.
{E} [related to, but not the same as C or D] They wish some Person of Color – preferably of multiple minorities – would come along and remove the burden of their superior authority and responsibility, so they too could sit back and let others do all the annoying work of having to defend every reckless loud/textmouth like Jeong until they get where they’re going … which is to discover that no-(straight) man’s island nation, Themiscyra, where Diana Prince was born, and die happy.
[F}They aren’t thinking, just following a linked chain of #metoo’ers.
I have no idea what exactly to make of her, PA, as noted above.
TRUMP ab-so-lute-ly MUST read Sarah Jeong’s tweets, over and over, re-tweeting them, re-reading them out loud at every campaign stop.
That would not be punching down; that would be speaking truth to power – plus, it would be speaking truth ABOUT power. Power that must be eliminated, exterminated. Power that must die. Power that MUST be OVERpowered, conquered, destroyed, made extinct – and with effect that creates sufficient terror, doubt, and shame among survivors such that in the future not one person will even be tempted to think such thoughtcrime. Such power-elimination would constitute a humanity-saving spree of true love.
But, of course, rape will live on forever.
Speaking truth to power. Hah. Now there’s a lefty slogan that deserves to be stood on its head. The power is in the lefty media and the elites. It’s not in silk had wearing, cigar chomping Monopoly millionaires. The lefties are the one who need to be defanged and disempowered. Amen.
”rape will live on forever.”
And why shouldn’t it? It’s being insidiously nurtured by an omnipotent Rape Culture exemplified by (and this is where it gets good) the UCONN Huskie mascot.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/why-is-uconns-mascot-a-po_b_3165756.html
Please tell me you’re saying Whiskey Tango Foxtrot…
Pretty much. Not sure I see the relationship. If you have a Husky sitting next to you, you will NOT be raped, be that Husky Alaskan or Siberian. Both breeds form relationships of extreme loyalty, so potential rapists tend to get eaten.
”Not sure I see the relationship.”
You’re not yet woke…
Got that right! And proud of it.
Clearly the authors of the article are new to this whole “internet meme” thing. Perhaps they should visit knowyourmeme.com to brush up. The “popular rape memes” feature the “threatening image” of Insanity Wolf. When people put words in the mouth of Insanity Wolf, they are indicating that those words are insane (in some sense of the word usually associated with testosterone poisoning). They do not live by nor advocate those words–quite the opposite. It’s brightly flashing sarcasm.
As for the people harassing the person who criticized the mascot revamp and the people who created the tasteless-sounding ads for the emergency phone system… They need some sort of positive role model, because evidently their families did not properly raise them to behave like respectful adults.
[Reply to Paul W. Schlecht’s Aug 6 at 8:01 pm]
What’s The Fuss?(?)
Wolves Test Feelz?(?)
It was inevitable that Rape Culture went to the dogs…
Ug
Oh so wrong. That would be interpreted in the news media as pure racism. In today’s NYT SPORTS page, there is an essay claiming that it is obvious that the President attacks black athletes because he’s a racist. Of course, Trump attacks anyone who attacks him, but this is the narrative. If he reads the tweets, he will be accused of trying to incite a race war. We will see statistics about increasing “hate crimes.” The Far Right will use the tweets to justify white supremacy.
It’s a trap.
Once the hollow, bull-shit bromide has been tweeted (This isn’t who I am!) can we let the healing begin?