Sarah Jeong and The NY Times

[SuccubusYuri]

I know Fox News had to cut to commercial because their guest couldn't stop making racist jokes about her. That was my introduction to the whole bit, and frankly, that's really all I need to know as a normal person who doesn't own stock in the NYT.

Why would anyone look things up? Just go to an outrageous 2 minute clip and make up your mind. Right?

Well, yes? Why do I care about some pissing contest of "Who can be the most racist?" that isn't important enough for the 'opposing' news network to take seriously? Clearly it wasn't that significant if the people who claim to despise it can only crack jokes about it and not deliver information.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

If you flipped races and sexes, would you still be saying the same thing?

That's a classic case of whataboutery. Her tweets have been taken out of context in order to get dismissed from her job.

It's a classic case of illustrating a double standard.

Personally, I would be all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, giving them second chances when they say something stupid, and having a public understanding of a reasonable statute of limitations for relatively minor, non-illegal stuff.

But you're right. Certain people helped to create extremely stringent standards of conduct, to the point that people can tried and convicted in the public sphere (for offenses that wouldn't have anyone batting an eye only a few years ago) and then fired from their real life jobs, literally within hours.

And these same people want to turn around and complain about being "taken out of context" after creating this hysteria in the first place? Sorry, that's now how it works now.

[Karha of Honor]

I know Fox News had to cut to commercial because their guest couldn't stop making racist jokes about her. That was my introduction to the whole bit, and frankly, that's really all I need to know as a normal person who doesn't own stock in the NYT.

Why would anyone look things up? Just go to an outrageous 2 minute clip and make up your mind. Right?

Well, yes? Why do I care about some pissing contest of "Who can be the most racist?" that isn't important enough for the 'opposing' news network to take seriously? Clearly it wasn't that significant if the people who claim to despise it can only crack jokes about it and not deliver information.

I am sure they only talked about it for 2 minutes. I guess you would like if people would make up their minds about an issue you care about based on a bad 2 minuted MSNBC/BBC/CNN segment.

[SuccubusYuri]

I know Fox News had to cut to commercial because their guest couldn't stop making racist jokes about her. That was my introduction to the whole bit, and frankly, that's really all I need to know as a normal person who doesn't own stock in the NYT.

Why would anyone look things up? Just go to an outrageous 2 minute clip and make up your mind. Right?

Well, yes? Why do I care about some pissing contest of "Who can be the most racist?" that isn't important enough for the 'opposing' news network to take seriously? Clearly it wasn't that significant if the people who claim to despise it can only crack jokes about it and not deliver information.

I am sure they only talked about it for 2 minutes. I guess you would like if people would make up their minds about an issue you care about based on a bad 2 minuted MSNBC/BBC/CNN segment.

Well, mathematically, that is how the news works on TV. That's what we train for.

[unknownsample]

If you flipped races and sexes, would you still be saying the same thing?

That's a classic case of whataboutery. Her tweets have been taken out of context in order to get dismissed from her job.

It's a classic case of illustrating a double standard.

Personally, I would be all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, giving them second chances when they say something stupid, and having a public understanding of a reasonable statute of limitations for relatively minor, non-illegal stuff.

But you're right. Certain people helped to create extremely stringent standards of conduct, to the point that people can tried and convicted in the public sphere (for offenses that wouldn't have anyone batting an eye only a few years ago) and then fired from their real life jobs, literally within hours.

And these same people want to turn around and complain about being "taken out of context" after creating this hysteria in the first place? Sorry, that's now how it works now.

Care to list any examples of this?

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

If you flipped races and sexes, would you still be saying the same thing?

That's a classic case of whataboutery. Her tweets have been taken out of context in order to get dismissed from her job.

It's a classic case of illustrating a double standard.

Personally, I would be all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, giving them second chances when they say something stupid, and having a public understanding of a reasonable statute of limitations for relatively minor, non-illegal stuff.

But you're right. Certain people helped to create extremely stringent standards of conduct, to the point that people can tried and convicted in the public sphere (for offenses that wouldn't have anyone batting an eye only a few years ago) and then fired from their real life jobs, literally within hours.

And these same people want to turn around and complain about being "taken out of context" after creating this hysteria in the first place? Sorry, that's now how it works now.

Care to list any examples of this?

"Papa John" John Schnatter's use of the n-word had a context and wasn't a straightforward use of the n-word as an epithet. James Gunn's tweets had a context. Maybe Sarah Jeong's tweets did as well. If the standard is going to be that you can't use the n-word or joke about pedophilia under any circumstance, then for me it's no great loss- I don't do either. But if people turn around and start claiming context while excusing someone's seemingly racist tweets about white people, then there *is* going to be some pushback.

Or take Chris Hardwick. Could he be a serial abuser? I didn't listen to his podcast or follow him, so I really don't know, but it's possible. Could it be that Chloe Dykstra was just getting revenge after coming out of a bad relationship? That's definitely possible as well. But her article alone was apparently enough to get him instantly whitewashed from Nerdist and removed from his AMC show. And apparently there was little enough evidence for him to get his AMC show back a month later.

My point is that there are loads of cases with only hazy information available and veiled statements that there's more information out there that the public doesn't know about. It usually turns into a he-said she-said, with the accused almost always coming out on the losing end. And the pushback from that will ultimately only hurt the overall effort/cause to keep people with a lot of power accountable. Aziz Ansari and #Metoo is a prime example of that.

[Karha of Honor]

I know Fox News had to cut to commercial because their guest couldn't stop making racist jokes about her. That was my introduction to the whole bit, and frankly, that's really all I need to know as a normal person who doesn't own stock in the NYT.

Why would anyone look things up? Just go to an outrageous 2 minute clip and make up your mind. Right?

Well, yes? Why do I care about some pissing contest of "Who can be the most racist?" that isn't important enough for the 'opposing' news network to take seriously? Clearly it wasn't that significant if the people who claim to despise it can only crack jokes about it and not deliver information.

I am sure they only talked about it for 2 minutes. I guess you would like if people would make up their minds about an issue you care about based on a bad 2 minuted MSNBC/BBC/CNN segment.

Well, mathematically, that is how the news works on TV. That's what we train for.

That's what we train for.

I have no idea what that means.

[Robovski]

Sara's tweets make her seem like a toxic, bitter person who if not racist seems like such. A perfect fit for the NY Times and journalism in general in other words.

[Worffan101]

Sara's tweets make her seem like a toxic, bitter person who if not racist seems like such. A perfect fit for the NY Times and journalism in general in other words.

That is a lot of needless hatred of the press. Reporters are just doing their jobs by reporting the truth, it's not their fault that the President is corrupt and his administration run by racists and Isaac "Screw it I'm rich" Perlmutter.

[bronnt]

That is a lot of needless hatred of the press. Reporters are just doing their jobs by reporting the truth, it's not their fault that the President is corrupt and his administration run by racists and Isaac "Screw it I'm rich" Perlmutter.

The President may be corrupt, and I disagree with him on a great number of issues. I see no real evidence that he's any more corrupt than any of the last dozen US Presidents. I do see whalish narcissism (actually par for the course but he hides it much worse than others) and some general incompetence.

The major problem is the huge growth in the in power of the executive branch over the past two decades. Congress seems to keep ceding its responsibilities (budgets/spending, war powers, major matters of policy such as drug and immigration law) to the White House, and has been doing so at an alarming pace.