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

[CHONGS]

Is bubz a race realist?

[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.

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 .

Fair point about the timing.  I disagree that one of the "jokes" was worse than the other.  And, as sys was talking about above, even if Jeong's joke were a lesser example, would you agree that her jokes are still "bad" in a broad sense?

[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 .

Fair point about the timing.  I disagree that one of the "jokes" was worse than the other.  And, as sys was talking about above, even if Jeong's joke were a lesser example, would you agree that her jokes are still "bad" in a broad sense?

First of all, I'd hesitate to call either "jokes". I admit I know little about the full context of Jeong's tweets, but she seemed to be creating a somewhat flamboyant online persona that at times commented on "white people" as the group in power.

The only tweet that could be construed as truly "racist" and not commenting on white people as a group of people in power was the "goblin" tweet sys referred to. Given more context, it's not bad at all and is definitely much more funny as it's a direct shot at Sullivan and talk of "let's hear both sides" of racist nonsense.

https://twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1025446539987169281?s=19

So no, I don't think that particular tweet is"bad" for a mostly anonymous tech writer. But I think it's probably "bad" for someone writing at the New York Times or a senator or president or something, though.

Roseanne, meanwhile, wrote pure racist trash whole starring in the highest rated show on tv, comparing a black woman to an ape. It was completely unfunny, and probably even more inexcusable BECAUSE she's a comedian.

[DQ12]

So it’s not racist when someone says “cancel white people” because the writer doesn’t actually mean “white people,” but rather means “those in power” of any race.   

That’s a pretty charitable interpretation.

[chum1]

The dead giveaway that Sarah Jeong is a racist is how she wants all white people to be put to death.

[catastrophe]

So it’s not racist when someone says “cancel white people” because the writer doesn’t actually mean “white people,” but rather means “those in power” of any race.   

That’s a pretty charitable interpretation.

I think I understand you general point, and this may be going in circles, but serious question: As a white person, have you ever been legitimately offended by a joke about white people?  If so, what was the joke?

[sys]

i'm posting this to make fun of michigancat, just to be clear.

https://twitter.com/ohyeah_mamaman/status/1025547366257119239

[DQ12]

So it’s not racist when someone says “cancel white people” because the writer doesn’t actually mean “white people,” but rather means “those in power” of any race.   

That’s a pretty charitable interpretation.

I think I understand you general point, and this may be going in circles, but serious question: As a white person, have you ever been legitimately offended by a joke about white people?  If so, what was the joke?

Me personally?  No, I don’t think so. 

[michigancat]

So it’s not racist when someone says “cancel white people” because the writer doesn’t actually mean “white people,” but rather means “those in power” of any race.   

That’s a pretty charitable interpretation.

That's a sloppy interpretation but pretty much right. It's hard to be a racist when you're not attacking someone with less power than you.

This is an ok read (imperfect but I ain't got time to research the meaning of racism all day!":
 http://affinitymagazine.us/2017/02/19/dear-white-people-your-dictionary-definition-of-racism-is-wrong/


But with your specific quote, I'd suggest reading the thread and tell see if you really think it's the equivalent of Roseanne calling Valarie Jarrett an ape.

https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/534822442079109121?s=19

(I still fully understand context, but it seems to be in response to the reaction to this article: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliacarriew/the-problem-with-serial-and-the-model-minority-myth)

[michigancat]

i'm posting this to make fun of michigancat, just to be clear.

https://twitter.com/ohyeah_mamaman/status/1025547366257119239

Did she say that? I only saw the quote about Battlestar Galactica and Breaking Bad bring about white men being angry. I've never seen Battlestar Galactica- is it not very "white" and that's why it's funny?

Breaking Bad really is about white men being angry and it was mildly funny.

[catastrophe]

So it’s not racist when someone says “cancel white people” because the writer doesn’t actually mean “white people,” but rather means “those in power” of any race.   

That’s a pretty charitable interpretation.

I think I understand you general point, and this may be going in circles, but serious question: As a white person, have you ever been legitimately offended by a joke about white people?  If so, what was the joke?

Me personally?  No, I don’t think so.

Do you personally know any other white people that have? I only ask because I don’t, and I feel like that is worth taking into account when drawing comparisons between jokes about whites vs other races.

[bucket]

So it’s not racist when someone says “cancel white people” because the writer doesn’t actually mean “white people,” but rather means “those in power” of any race.   

That’s a pretty charitable interpretation.

I think I understand you general point, and this may be going in circles, but serious question: As a white person, have you ever been legitimately offended by a joke about white people?  If so, what was the joke?

Me personally?  No, I don’t think so.

Do you personally know any other white people that have? I only ask because I don’t, and I feel like that is worth taking into account when drawing comparisons between jokes about whites vs other races.

The struggles of white people in a country consumed by apartheid and discrimination.

[chum1]

https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/status/1026505134690447360

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

So this was supposedly banned from Facebook as "hate speech"



Pretty fascist-y move

[sys]

https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/status/1026505134690447360

that article, and this thread discussing it, are much smarter than the it's fine because power something something dumb takes from last week.

https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1026594049749204993

[catastrophe]

Wait. Are you telling me this article more eloquently describes the relevance of white power imbalance in racial jokes than the gE pit?

[DQ12]

https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/status/1026505134690447360

That article makes a lot of sense re. people's true motivations.  I've heard it described this way before, but I thought the author did a pretty good job of describing the phenomenon:

It is almost as though we’re living through a strange sort of ethnogenesis, in which those who see themselves as (for lack of a better term) upper-whites are doing everything they can to disaffiliate themselves from those they’ve deemed lower-whites. Note that to be “upper” or “lower” isn’t just about class status, though of course that’s always hovering in the background. Rather, it is about the supposed nobility that flows from racial self-flagellation.

I'm not sure that making (to borrow the author's phrase) "pointed missives" about other racial groups in an effort to fit in is a healthy thing.  More to the point, it's a shame such remarks are a helpful tool in the first place.

Wait. Are you telling me this article more eloquently describes the relevance of white power imbalance in racial jokes than the gE pit?

Ha.  No.  Nobody here put forth the idea that minorities were making anti-white comments because white-elites made the comments fashionable.

[CHONGS]

You guys have cracked the case!

[catastrophe]

No, no one made that argument, which is an interesting spin.  I personally don't find it particularly satisfying because it simply presumes without much explanation that it is ok for white people to make white racial jokes and therefore non-whites can be forgiven because they are trying to mimic behaviors of those in the most influential circles.  The reasoning of the article could also be used to justify a white person trying to make waves in the gangster rap genre by throwing around the n-word.

[Dugout DickStone]

So this was supposedly banned from Facebook as "hate speech"



Pretty fascist-y move

That's ridiculous, but FB can run its business as it chooses.

[Rage Against the McKee]

People don't have to be offended by your joke for it to be racist. I think it's kind of a joke that the New York Times hired her.

[DQ12]

No, no one made that argument, which is an interesting spin.  I personally don't find it particularly satisfying because it simply presumes without much explanation that it is ok for white people to make white racial jokes and therefore non-whites can be forgiven because they are trying to mimic behaviors of those in the most influential circles.  The reasoning of the article could also be used to justify a white person trying to make waves in the gangster rap genre by throwing around the n-word.

I agree.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

So this was supposedly banned from Facebook as "hate speech"



Pretty fascist-y move

That's ridiculous, but FB can run its business as it chooses.

I'm sure Mark Z. wishes that were true.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Bigotry is okay, so long as it serves a purpose.
- The Atlantic

 

[Dugout DickStone]

So this was supposedly banned from Facebook as "hate speech"



Pretty fascist-y move

That's ridiculous, but FB can run its business as it chooses.

I'm sure Mark Z. wishes that were true.

I didn't say Mark Z can run FB as he chooses, sport