Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Liberal journalists furious that Andrew Sullivan called Sarah Jeong’s racist tweets racist

Liberal journalists furious that Andrew Sullivan called Sarah Jeong’s racist tweets racist

Sullivan: “Racism against whites, in this neo-Marxist view, just ‘isn’t a thing’ — just as misandry literally cannot exist at all.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_QsZ4xyJqA

The left is ticked off at New York Magazine columnist Andrew Sullivan and they won’t stop until they get blood! He penned an article that blasted The New York Times for keeping Sarah Jeong despite her history of tweeting out racist tweets against white people.

How DARE he think racism is racism! In his article he stated that he doesn’t think the publication should fire her.

Sullivan wrote:

But the alternative view — that 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. All she is doing is resisting whiteness and maleness, which indeed require resistance every second of the day.

That’s why Jeong hasn’t apologized to the white people she denigrated or conceded that her tweets were racist. Nor has she taken responsibility for them. Her statement actually blames her ugly tweets on trolls whose online harassment of her prompted her to respond in turn. She was merely “counter-trolling.” She says her tweets, which were not responses to any individual, were also “not aimed at a general audience,” and now understands that these tweets were “hurtful” and won’t do them again. The New York Times also buys this argument: “her journalism and the fact that she is a young Asian woman have made her a subject of frequent online harassment. For a period of time, she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers.”

The left has lost their damn mind over this.

https://twitter.com/aedison/status/1025433322246340608

https://twitter.com/tomgara/status/1025026558984159232

https://twitter.com/hels/status/1025047098268545027

https://twitter.com/AdamWeinstein/status/1025420810842988544

https://twitter.com/jonbernhardt/status/1025408485935276039

Sullivan doesn’t think The New York Times should fire her “in part because they largely share her views on race, gender, and oppression.” But he also doesn’t want publications to “give in to those mobs” who call for the firing of people because “they are just feeding a voracious beast.” Sullivan points out “that Jeong has a long record of cheering online mobs when they target people she dislikes.”

Sullivan continued:

The editors of the Verge, where Jeong still works, described any assertion of racism in Jeong’s tweets as “dishonest and outrageous,” a function of bad faith and an attack on journalism itself. Scroll through left-Twitter and you find utter incredulity that demonizing white people could in any way be offensive. That’s the extent to which loathing of and contempt for “white people” is now background noise on the left. What many don’t seem to understand is that their view of racism isn’t shared by the public at large, and that the defense of it by institutions like the New York Times will only serve to deepen the kind of resentment that gave us Trump. Last night, for instance, Fox News made the most of the Times’ excuses for race-baiting.

Yes, we all live on campus now. The neo-Marxist analysis of society, in which we are all mere appendages of various groups of oppressors and oppressed, and in which the oppressed definitionally cannot be at fault, is now the governing philosophy of almost all liberal media. That’s how the Washington Post can provide a platform for raw misandry, and the New York Times can hire and defend someone who expresses racial hatred. The great thing about being in the social justice movement is how liberating it can feel to give voice to incendiary, satisfying bigotry — and know that you’re still on the right side of history.

That is my personal problem with The New York Times. In my blog post about Jeong, I didn’t make too big of a deal about Jeong’s gross tweets. Instead, I blasted the publication over its blatant hypocrisy. They hired and fired writer Quinn Norton in February of this year after her old tweets came to light that included slurs against gay people.

I concluded:

Racism is racism. Harassment or anything of the sort never justifies your racist behavior. Why is it not okay to have racist views towards blacks or Asians, but totally okay with having racist views towards white people? Why is it not okay to hate Muslims, but okay to hate Jews and Christians?

Guess what. ALL racism is bad and sucks. ALL hatred towards any religion sucks.

[Featured image via YouTube]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Yesteryear’s liberal. Dershowitz, too. Been there. Done that.

Comanche Voter | August 3, 2018 at 7:36 pm

So old Milky Glutes is taking flack. Don’t they know that criticizing a gay person is homophobic? What’s a good liberal to do?

IIRC there was a day at some distant point in the past, perhaps right after 9-11, when it was claimed that Sullivan was a conservative.

Jeong is a racist swine, belonging more in the Imperial Japanese war cabinet of World War 2 than in the offices of an American ‘newspaper’ – to the extent the ny times is one.)

Fire her ass -and keep it fired.

The Friendly Grizzly | August 3, 2018 at 8:10 pm

Off topic: So, shutting off a pop-up ad that obscures an article throws you back to the main page? Is this something new, LI?

    JusticeDelivered in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | August 3, 2018 at 9:18 pm

    I had turned off my ad blocker for LI. But recently turned it back on because popups are not acceptable. Static ads down the side I am willing to accept to support the site. I did send a three digit donation about nine months ago, and I will repeat that donation annually.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | August 5, 2018 at 7:12 pm

    New ad unit, I agree it’s bad. Contacting ad manager to put a halt to it.

Autophagy served with popcorn.

So we can’t say Jeong is a racist because she’s “punching up”, so can’t be racist.

We *could* wait 20 years, when white males are a minority and not in power, while immigration patterns bring Asian females to positions of influence and power, and *then* point out her hatred and racism.

But the Left will have then changed the rules and definitions again.

    c0cac0la in reply to mochajava76. | August 3, 2018 at 11:30 pm

    Not gonna happen, just look at South Africa for an example of what happens when whites lose power. There’s even more overt racism against them. And it’s real institutional racism. Unlike the mythic ones bandied about by all the SJWs.

Claiming that non-whites can’t be racist is pure racism. It is saying that race is the ONLY thing that matters.

Is this really the hill the left wants to die on? Because there is no way they can win on such a massive and blatant lie. Sure, go all in, and employers will start saying: “College degree? Bottom of the pile.”

I have to be honest and admit that receiving constant haranguing for being white, being a woman who doesn’t support abortion on demand, and a conservative had pushed me close to thinking that perhaps I will just give in and become the racist homophobic bigot they already say I am.

    At least we can thin the herd.

    Matt_SE in reply to katiejane. | August 3, 2018 at 11:05 pm

    All of this turmoil are the fruits of conservatives not treating Marxist usurpation of the academy like a serious problem for decades.

    You want this shit to end? STOP FEDERAL FUNDING OF EDUCATION!
    Until we’re willing to do that, we’re not serious about the problem.

OMG. I agree with Andrew Sullivan on something. This is weird. Stopped clock, perhaps?

Colonel Travis | August 3, 2018 at 8:49 pm

This racist also went off against her new employer a few years ago, I find that hilarious. She called their columnists “horrible” and Tweeted: “NYT Opinion = Thought Catalog for Baby Boomers.

She is an emotional, intellectual, psychological child. And the NYT begged her to write for them.

Idiots all around….

    HamiltonNJ in reply to Colonel Travis. | August 3, 2018 at 10:24 pm

    I’m looking forward to her first articles.
    What exactly will she be writing about again?
    She’d better know her stuff, considering all the trash talking she’s done about previous NY Times writers…

Hard to believe that I’m more cynical than anyone else posting here but it appears to be the case.

I don’t think for a second that the folks running the NYT are actually stupid enough to believe that facile rationalization. I think they know perfectly well she’s a miserable racist and they’re only pretending to believe her because it gets them several things they want. Those things are:

1. Diversity points (female and asian. A two-fer)
2. It really pisses off Conservatives. Or at least the deplorable white ones but the NYT would consider that repeating myself.

As far as the NYT is concerned, this whole episode is a win!

    c0cac0la in reply to irv. | August 3, 2018 at 11:38 pm

    Based on the new SJW definition of racism, she’s not a racist. So if the NYT is a den of SJWs (high probability), then they see nothing wrong with what she wrote. Their statements pretty much bear that out as they merely justified her tweets. And the fact she hasn’t even bothered to delete those tweets says it all.

    clintack in reply to irv. | August 4, 2018 at 11:53 am

    You missed the big one: 3. It gets them attention.

    The NYT’s circulation is way, way down. They are desperate for attention, and this is a publicity stunt.

      You’re right. And stunt is the right word. As liberals always do, though, they’ve missed the long term consequences of their actions. There is no possibility that that person is going to be an asset whose judgement and competence helps boost sales. Much more likely she’s going to help drive them out of business.

      It can’t happen too soon.

how can an ethnic Chinese be a minority?

last time i looked, there were over One Billion of them wandering around the planet…

A significant portion of this nation has either totally lost their minds [a distinct possibility] or this is the culmination of strategic project designed to destroy the United States of America.

For the last century, Progressives have been working to destroy the greatest strength of this nation, upward social mobility. They have used many tools, socialism, prenatal homicide, the destruction of the African American family, and the imposition of racial discrimination. Until 1964, racial discrimination was directed toward minorities. This, served to limit their upward mobility. After that, a program of federal institutional racism was introduced, which discriminated against the white majority. Welfare and the destruction of the African American family served to limit the upward mobility of the that minority group while minority racial preferences, affirmative action and other programs which discriminated in favor of minorities and against the white majority, served to limit the upward mobility of White Americans. Then, the destruction of the US manufacturing base was designed to kill any chance of upward mobility for most Americans. But, you know who was never affected by any of this? The very rich Progressives. Progressivism has always been the province of the rich. Their wealth insulates them from the effects of Progressive programs. And, as they are already at the top of society, these programs protect their position and status. Progressivism is designed to protect the wealthy, not help the lower economic classes.

But, in order for the Progressive agenda to continue, a significant portion of the population had to be indoctrinated to believe that wide spread racism, sexism and homophobia still existed among White Americans. They had to be indoctrinated to believe that all minorities were angels, that members of the majority population were devils and that it was impossible for racism against the majority to exist. To further this, the educational institutions in this country were co-opted to enhance the indoctrination in the graduates of these institutions. And, it was staggeringly successful. Minorities are now exempt from the societal rules which apply to the majority. Members of any minority are forgiven almost any action. This road leads to civil war. When the majority reaches the point where it comes to firmly believe that it is facing genocide, it will fight back. And, in today’s world, that might very well destroy this nation. That is why Progressives are so invested in Globalism. It is designed to protect them. To give them an out.

It is insane. But, it appears to be working.

    Progressives are right about one thing.

    Drug Prohibition is socialism for criminals. Says Milton Friedman.

    So there is one place Progs hate socialism and Cons love it.

    Go figure.

      Mac45 in reply to MSimon. | August 3, 2018 at 11:25 pm

      Milton Friedman had some good ideas. But, in many areas, he was little more than a utopian libertarian. Not only did he stress that a libertarian economy would work, he actually believed that the world was accurately depicted in his models. He was wrong.

      It turns out that he, as is the case with most utopian libertarians, failed to realize that human beings, devoid of a societal structure which forces them to act in ways which benefit all of society, revert to their birth state; that of a selfish, amoral opportunist.

        clintack in reply to Mac45. | August 4, 2018 at 11:54 am

        Um. The human being as a selfish amoral opportunist is basically the central axiom of free market economics.

    “It is insane. But, it appears to be working…”

    Yes, to the extent of making a lot of trouble. But it won’t prevail.

Harvard is discriminating against asians because too many qualify for admission. And NYT hires her for AA points?

    Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to Petrushka. | August 5, 2018 at 9:14 pm

    Harvard is discriminating against asians because too many qualify for admission. And NYT hires her for AA points?

    Simple. She’s one of the GOOD Asians.

1) The anti-white anti-male Left will not be able to turn White Males into a victim group. We are the reason the West is free, with the highest standard of living ever known to man. White Males shrug off whatever PCBS you try to handicap them with, and still excel.

The Left is inadvertently making White Males look superior.

So, #NotYourVictim. You might as well try taunting Chuck Liddell.

https://youtu.be/cwXSXFpC8ZA

2) Don’t make us pull this car over. It will be the worst day of your life.

After 2 World Wars in Europe, reintroducing Whites to tribalism has to be the Collossol Darwin Award.

There’s an old anecdote from the 1960s. A Black Panther Recruit asks an elder why they don’t just start a race war with Whites, he responded “Did you not learn what they did to the Indians?”.

How did this woman reach this level of hatred and racism? The country took in her parents and herself, she went to the finest schools, did so on scholarships, and hates everyone around her. Is she mentally ill?

    Matt_SE in reply to puhiawa. | August 3, 2018 at 11:13 pm

    She is an ungrateful child of immigrants, the demographic that we always have the most trouble with.

    Undoubtedly, she grew up confused about her identity because she was halfway between worlds, but didn’t have the same reason to CHOOSE this country as her parents did (whatever that was). As a result, she developed oikophobia which was severely exacerbated by her time in higher education.

    By rejecting her upbringing, she simultaneously broke from her overbearing parents while finding a new group identity with her fellow lesbian minorities. The rabid hatred of white males either came from a bad experience or was simply beaten into her by the Marxist feminists in college.

    I assume it was something like that.

      Candid in reply to Matt_SE. | August 4, 2018 at 12:06 am

      Pitiful chile; just a self radicalized doofus head full of nonsense,

      Very good reason for the white beings to express their disdain of the colored people. Equality is right, give as good as you get.

      Look out for plumbers, carpenters, electrician white guys working if the racist twit gets real life problems.

      Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to Matt_SE. | August 5, 2018 at 9:20 pm

      but didn’t have the same reason to CHOOSE this country as her parents did (whatever that was

      That also explain why the second- and third-generation Muslims, whose parents immigrated to the West, are so good at torching French cars and driving trucks into crowds and largely holding a homicidal hatred of the West in general.

      Someone should write a PhD thesis on this syndrome.

Shri isn’t “Asian”, she is American of Asian descent.
Cripes.

The really peculiar thing about this incident is that the SJW hordes have not, until now, considered Asians Orientals to rank in the class of Officially Oppressed Types Who Cannot Be Criticized.

    HamiltonNJ in reply to tom_swift. | August 3, 2018 at 10:33 pm

    Well Miss Jeong has referred to herself as a “woman of color,” so she believes she’s like the other oppressed and marginalized groups out there..
    I wonder how the Black Lives Matter crowd feels about the Linda Sarsours and the Sarah Jeongs adopting the “woman of color” designation…

    Matt_SE in reply to tom_swift. | August 3, 2018 at 11:16 pm

    There’s been a concerted movement in the last 10 years to fold Asians into the victim hierarchy. It’s been much harder than normal because of their relatively high rates of success in society.

    That’s why the ones who have been turned are all the young, dumb kids with a chip on their shoulder about something.

1) Sullivan was right and his article was quite good.
2) He gave the best rationale for not firing Jeong I’ve heard: that the racist NYT would just hire another racist (he’s right).
3) He’s wrong about not firing her: we don’t curtail laws just because people break them. If the left is never punished, they’ll keep doing this. So in the end, Sullivan’s “virtue” will only end up endangering the rest of us.
4) He was more magnanimous than Jeong ever was, but the left doesn’t give a crap about that.

Claims that the term “neo-Marxist” is a dog whistle are in reality an attempt to deflect by again using race, this time as a shield.

Is this retard trying to imply there’s no such political ideology as “neo-Marxism,” outside of a racist context?

    DINORightMarie in reply to Matt_SE. | August 4, 2018 at 5:53 am

    Yeah, I found it astonishing that “neo-Marxist” is now a “dogwhistle” for….anti-Semitism?!?!

    Who knew?! Apparently little blue-check Avery Edison was a good student at the feet of her university masters……

    This is a world turned upside down.

Take any of Ms. Jeong’s Tweets, substitute “black” for “white”, and see how that works out.

Racist, indeed.

don’t often agree with sullivan but in this case he laid out his thought succinctly and espoused my views also.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | August 4, 2018 at 11:25 am

President Trump should stop calling it the “failing New York Times” and start calling it the “racist New York Times”.

“racism is entirely institutional and systemic, a function of power, …”

And the New York Times is not a powerful institution, and Jeong’s position there does not give her more influence far beyond what’s available to all but a few straight white men?

“she is a young Asian woman have made her a subject of frequent online harassment.” Yes, that’s the claim. But where is the evidence to support either that’s she’s been subject to “frequent online harassment,” let alone that this is due to her being young, Asian and female?

Is it even necessary to point out that on the internet you can almost always assume whatever identity you wish to assume? Or to consider that what’s being called “frequent online harassment” might (to the extent it exists at all) consist primarily of pushback against her own obnoxious online behavior?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend