The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look

[sys]

the "she was joking, you dumbfucks" defenses are good.  the "even if she wasn't joking, the tweets are fine" defenses are bad.

[Kat Kid]

One other point of irony is she went after/celebrated Matt Bruenig getting fired for a tweet.

she did that aids joke flight woman too.

people that know her all seem to like her tho.  afaik, i've never read anything she's written.

yeah I am agnostic to her in general and as the "victim" of her tweets I think I am able to assert my own right to not be offended.

[michigancat]

sys what about her cop tweets

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1025409145418252288?s=19

[sys]

sys what about her cop tweets

good and valuable social commentary.

[star seed 7]

The cop ones seem much more sarcastic 

[chum1]

There truly is a striking contrast here.

https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/1025402158223568898

[DQ12]

the "she was joking, you dumbfucks" defenses are good.  the "even if she wasn't joking, the tweets are fine" defenses are bad.

I keep seeing that the tweets were jokes and are being taken out of context, but I haven't seen anyone describe the humor in the jokes or try to contextualize them.

Is she just doing race related troll stuff?

EDIT: Found it.  The explanation appears to be that whites are proper punching bags:

Making jokes about white people isn’t the same as making racist jokes about black people, or Asian people, or Jews, or gay people, or any other historically oppressed minority. This is a very simple principle, but one that many aggrieved whites find difficult to accept. You can’t say, “Well, imagine if you replaced ‘white’ with ‘black’ in those tweets,” because those two things are not equally replaceable. As much as you might find it desperately oppressive to not be able to use the n-word when you sing along to rap songs, there has never been a government-endorsed legal or societal campaign of oppression against whites. White people can be oppressed by other means, such as through gender or economics, but whites in the U.S. have never been systematically oppressed on the basis of their race alone.

https://splinternews.com/the-new-york-times-really-mumped-this-one-up-1828061129

That article is linked to by Rusty's article in which the writer said the tweets were jokes.

[sys]

I keep seeing that the tweets were jokes and are being taken out of context, but I haven't seen anyone describe the humor in the jokes or try to contextualize them.

i dunno if it's possible to recover the context into which she tweeted her tweets.  one of the ways good old fashioned message boards are superior to twitter.

but if you read a bit of her recent (precontroversy) tweets, you get a sense of her personality and thinking.  when you do so, it becomes pretty apparent that she must have been joking.

[chum1]

Do people really need the difference between Sarah Jeong and Richard Spencer explained to them? I know I don't have the energy to deal with that level of willful ignorance.

[DQ12]

I keep seeing that the tweets were jokes and are being taken out of context, but I haven't seen anyone describe the humor in the jokes or try to contextualize them.

i dunno if it's possible to recover the context into which she tweeted her tweets.  one of the ways good old fashioned message boards are superior to twitter.

but if you read a bit of her recent (precontroversy) tweets, you get a sense of her personality and thinking.  when you do so, it becomes pretty apparent that she must have been joking.

And I concede that she may have been joking and may not really harbor any feelings of hatred or dislike of white people generally.  But somehow, I don't think the "I was kidding!" excuse would fly if the butt of her jokes were any race other than white people.

We've hashed this out ITT before, but i think the double standard is pretty indefensible.

[Kat Kid]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

[sys]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

good evidence for how stupid the narrative that the first amendment is a tool of the right is.

[DQ12]

 I think the vox article overstates the significance of the data analysis.  The Vox author keeps coming back to the relatively small number of incidents analyzed by the data analysis in light of the thousands of colleges across the country.  But the data analysis clearly states "Some disclaimers are warranted here: The selection of incidents documented on the Free Speech Tracker is by no means comprehensive and never will be. The results thus far are anecdotal, and despite efforts to avoid it, there could be a selection bias in the incidents chosen. And the classification of people whose expression is compromised as being on the “right” or the “left” may well be subjective and arbitrary." 

In other words, I think it's wrong to look at the raw number of "speech incidents" included in the data analysis as if it's anything other than a representative sample.  Whether or not it's actually "representative" is also not clear given the author's qualifier re. selection bias.

That said, I do think it's important to note that people on the left are also having their rights threatened and violated.  Hopefully that wakes the left up to realize that protection of speech rights is a bipartisan issue.

[bucket]

This is their idea of payback for having their favorite TV show cancelled.

[michigancat]

Do people really need the difference between Sarah Jeong and Richard Spencer explained to them? I know I don't have the energy to deal with that level of willful ignorance.

Yes, they do. (Or rather, they dlew)

[DQ12]

I understand the difference between Spencer and Jeong.  A better question would be the difference between Jeong and Rosanne -- other than one's an actual comedian and the other is on the editorial board of the New York Times.

[michigancat]

I understand the difference between Spencer and Jeong.  A better question would be the difference between Jeong and Rosanne -- other than one's an actual comedian and the other is on the editorial board of the New York Times.

Could you explain what the difference is between Jeong and Spencer?

Could you explain the difference between Roseanne and Spencer?

[sys]

former almost presidential candidate d french had a nice article that articulated the difference between different examples of racism without engaging in the sophistry that lesser examples are benign.  can't recall if he also mentioned the joking aspect of the jeong tweets, but if he didn't, i would also add that in as important.

[DQ12]

I understand the difference between Spencer and Jeong.  A better question would be the difference between Jeong and Rosanne -- other than one's an actual comedian and the other is on the editorial board of the New York Times.

Could you explain what the difference is between Jeong and Spencer?

Could you explain the difference between Roseanne and Spencer?

Spencer is militant and doesn't profess to be kidding about his racist remarks.  He couches his statements in a warped sociological philosophy.

Jeong and Roseanne aren't militant and both professed to be kidding about their remarks.  I think the differences between Jeong and Roseanne are more subtle (to the extent they exist at all), which is why I brought Roseanne up.

I'm certainly not here to defend Roseanne.  I don't give a crap about her and I think she's probably does hold some ugly views about black people regardless of whether she gave the "just kidding!" defense afterward.  The thing is, I think the same thing about Jeong with regard to white people.  I don't care that Roseanne got fired, and I don't care about the NYT response.  Those entities can navigate their brands how they see fit.

I just can't reconcile how someone could call for Roseanne's head but go to bat for Jeong.

[chum1]

former almost presidential candidate d french had a nice article that articulated the difference between different examples of racism without engaging in the sophistry that lesser examples are benign.  can't recall if he also mentioned the joking aspect of the jeong tweets, but if he didn't, i would also add that in as important.

Not innocent in virtue of being a lesser example. Innocent in virtue of appearing so without need for further articulation. Like I said, if it appears otherwise to someone else, I'm not interested in hearing about it. I'm similarly not interested in hearing about why the sky is actually green.

[steve dave]

https://twitter.com/harrythop/status/1025526444472979456?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[michigancat]

https://twitter.com/harrythop/status/1025526444472979456?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL

[michigancat]

I understand the difference between Spencer and Jeong.  A better question would be the difference between Jeong and Rosanne -- other than one's an actual comedian and the other is on the editorial board of the New York Times.

Could you explain what the difference is between Jeong and Spencer?

Could you explain the difference between Roseanne and Spencer?

Spencer is militant and doesn't profess to be kidding about his racist remarks.  He couches his statements in a warped sociological philosophy.

Jeong and Roseanne aren't militant and both professed to be kidding about their remarks.  I think the differences between Jeong and Roseanne are more subtle (to the extent they exist at all), which is why I brought Roseanne up.

I'm certainly not here to defend Roseanne.  I don't give a crap about her and I think she's probably does hold some ugly views about black people regardless of whether she gave the "just kidding!" defense afterward.  The thing is, I think the same thing about Jeong with regard to white people.  I don't care that Roseanne got fired, and I don't care about the NYT response.  Those entities can navigate their brands how they see fit.

I just can't reconcile how someone could call for Roseanne's head but go to bat for Jeong.

Because one is clearly worse. Like, it's not even close.

Roseanne also had a higher profile when the tweets were sent, which is relevant. As awful as it can be, the Times Editorial board wouldn't stand for Jeong making those tweets today .

[bubbles4ksu]

https://twitter.com/harrythop/status/1025526444472979456?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i don't think he said that but there's some science that does?

[sys]

LOL

i didn't figure out the connection based on sd's cartoons, for some reason.  i had to look elsewhere on twitter.  if anyone else was similarly slow, someone figured out the context of one of the 2014 tweets - it was making fun of sullivan.  4 years later, hilarity ensued.