Sarah Jeong and The NY Times

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Oh please. He wouldn't even put his business interests into a blind trust! He said that Nazis were "very fine people"--actual Hitler-hailing swastika-waving Nazis who murdered a woman by ramming a car into a crowd! That is ABSOLUTELY new. He's crass, confrontational, and he loves media outlets that fellate him (like Fox and Breitbart), and if you tell me Fox isn't a major news outlet I've got a bridge to sell you.

I believe that's inaccurate. He never called out Nazis as "very fine people," he just said there were "very fine people" on both sides. The people protesting the removal of the statues were not all Nazis, or even all white supremacists.

If you are in a protest with a bunch of people doing the Heil Hitler salute, chanting "Jews will not replace us!" and you don't say "what the fuck guys?" and drop your tiki torch, you ARE a Nazi. How much more blatant does it need to be?

[Antiboyscout]

Oh please. He wouldn't even put his business interests into a blind trust! He said that Nazis were "very fine people"--actual Hitler-hailing swastika-waving Nazis who murdered a woman by ramming a car into a crowd! That is ABSOLUTELY new. He's crass, confrontational, and he loves media outlets that fellate him (like Fox and Breitbart), and if you tell me Fox isn't a major news outlet I've got a bridge to sell you.

I believe that's inaccurate. He never called out Nazis as "very fine people," he just said there were "very fine people" on both sides. The people protesting the removal of the statues were not all Nazis, or even all white supremacists.

If you are in a protest with a bunch of people doing the Heil Hitler salute, chanting "Jews will not replace us!" and you don't say "what the fuck guys?" and drop your tiki torch, you ARE a Nazi. How much more blatant does it need to be?

I'd call AntiFa communist again, but something tells me you don't think being a communist is a bad thing.

[jadenova]

I don't understand the whole double standard that's going on. James Gunn is fired for his tweets but people are defending this woman for hers.

[Antiboyscout]

I don't understand the whole double standard that's going on. James Gunn is fired for his tweets but people are defending this woman for hers.

They don't think James Gunn should have been fired ether. Gunn has the "right" politics.

A better example would be Alex Jones. Or just the general trend of the Left digging up old twitter posts of conservatives and trying to get them fired.

[LittleRaven]

A better example would be Alex Jones.

Alex Jones is a terrible example. He's either legitimately crazy or plays the part so well that nobody can tell the difference, and either way he leaves nothing but a trail of toxic lies and ads for shady scams in his wake. Even conservatives mostly hate him. Honestly, I'd be hard pressed to think of a worse example of the point you're trying to make. Maybe Milo, since even CPAC decided they couldn't take him. Maybe not, though, since I think CPAC never even extended at invitation to Jones.

Anyway, the example you're looking for is Quinn Norton. Same crime, same stakes, same paper. Different ethnicity - different outcome.

Probably just a coincidence.

[bronnt]

They don't think James Gunn should have been fired ether. Gunn has the "right" politics.

A better example would be Alex Jones. Or just the general trend of the Left digging up old twitter posts of conservatives and trying to get them fired.

James Gunn should not have been fired-his tweets were simply crass attempts at bad jokes, and clearly weren't anything meant seriously. People need to grow some thicker skin.

Sarah Jeong is something different-she's not just some techie person that's working for the blog, she's on the freaking Editorial board for the Times, and it's not very clear that she was joking. Talking about how she's looking forward to the day white people are exterminated sounds like a serious problem because it's painting a lot of people with a very wide brush.

And sure, maybe she had some context for saying that. When I was in 7th grade, I knew a boy who was being bullied and picked on. His family didn't have a lot of money, so he was wearing hand-me-downs that didn't always quite fit, and he was kind of socially awkward. Some kids picked on him because, hey, 13 year olds can be really mean, and several of those happened to be black. So one day, he got fed up, and was found writing "I hate N----s" on the boys' room wall with a sharpie, along with a couple of other things.

Knowing the context didn't help. He wasn't let off with an apology. He was suspended from school for several days and then transferred to a different school. And this was a kid who was a victim that was just lashing out in a misguided way because he felt powerless about the bad things happening to him. Sarah Jeong is not powerless, she's an adult, affluent and an editor of one of the most important publications on the planet, so even given context, her "lashing out" really should have had a bit more appropriate direction than blanket hateful statements.

I'm not saying she HAS to be terminated because NYT can do whatever they want and she didn't break any laws. I just think that learning this should potentially make her unemployable.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

A better example would be Alex Jones.

Alex Jones is a terrible example. He's either legitimately crazy or plays the part so well that nobody can tell the difference, and either way he leaves nothing but a trail of toxic lies and ads for shady scams in his wake.

Confirmed for the latter. When his InfoWars stuff was brought up in the custody battle, he claimed he was just "Playing a character".

[Darth Wedgius]

Oh please. He wouldn't even put his business interests into a blind trust! He said that Nazis were "very fine people"--actual Hitler-hailing swastika-waving Nazis who murdered a woman by ramming a car into a crowd! That is ABSOLUTELY new. He's crass, confrontational, and he loves media outlets that fellate him (like Fox and Breitbart), and if you tell me Fox isn't a major news outlet I've got a bridge to sell you.

I believe that's inaccurate. He never called out Nazis as "very fine people," he just said there were "very fine people" on both sides. The people protesting the removal of the statues were not all Nazis, or even all white supremacists.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... es/537012/

President Trump defended the white nationalists who protested in Charlottesville on Tuesday, saying they included “some very fine people,” while expressing sympathy for their demonstration against the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. It was a strikingly different message from the prepared statement he had delivered on Monday, and a reversion to his initial response over the weekend.

Speaking in the lobby of Trump Tower at what had been billed as a statement on infrastructure, a combative Trump defended his slowness to condemn white nationalists and neo-Nazis after the melee in central Virginia, which ended in the death of one woman and injuries to dozens of others, and compared the tearing down of Confederate monuments to the hypothetical removal of monuments to the Founding Fathers. He also said that counter-protesters deserve an equal amount of blame for the violence.

“What about the alt-left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt-right?” Trump said. “Do they have any semblance of guilt?”

“I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me,” he said.

I wonder who the very fine people protesting against the removal of the statue were was it the ones shouting blood and soil the ones that turned up with guns or the one who rammed a car into a crowd full of protesters?

Did you read down to the part with:

“You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists,” Trump said. “The press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

“You also had some very fine people on both sides,” he said.

You need to read beyond the headline. Also that there were nasty people on both sides does not logically mean that all the people on either side were all nasty, does it? Nor does that contradict "you also had some very fine people on both sides," does it?

Here's how that works. Some cars get above-average gas mileage. That means that there exist cars such that cars get better-than-average gas mileage. That does not mean that all cars get better-than-average gas mileage (which would be mathematically difficult at best). The set of cars that get better-than-average mileage are a "proper subset" of the set of all cars.

On the other hand, if you want to lump everyone sharing a characteristic with the actions of a subset of them, is it OK if I do the same?

[Darth Wedgius]

Oh please. He wouldn't even put his business interests into a blind trust! He said that Nazis were "very fine people"--actual Hitler-hailing swastika-waving Nazis who murdered a woman by ramming a car into a crowd! That is ABSOLUTELY new. He's crass, confrontational, and he loves media outlets that fellate him (like Fox and Breitbart), and if you tell me Fox isn't a major news outlet I've got a bridge to sell you.

I believe that's inaccurate. He never called out Nazis as "very fine people," he just said there were "very fine people" on both sides. The people protesting the removal of the statues were not all Nazis, or even all white supremacists.

If you are in a protest with a bunch of people doing the Heil Hitler salute, chanting "Jews will not replace us!" and you don't say "what the fuck guys?" and drop your tiki torch, you ARE a Nazi. How much more blatant does it need to be?

If you are in a protest with a bunch of people assaulting those with different opinions and you don't take off your mask and go "what the fuck guys?" and drop your bicycle lock, you ARE a totalitarian.

Or we could, you know, try to be rational. It's worked for some people in the past.

[Antiboyscout]

A better example would be Alex Jones.

Alex Jones is a terrible example. He's either legitimately crazy or plays the part so well that nobody can tell the difference, and either way he leaves nothing but a trail of toxic lies and ads for shady scams in his wake. Even conservatives mostly hate him. Honestly, I'd be hard pressed to think of a worse example of the point you're trying to make. Maybe Milo, since even CPAC decided they couldn't take him. Maybe not, though, since I think CPAC never even extended at invitation to Jones.

Anyway, the example you're looking for is Quinn Norton. Same crime, same stakes, same paper. Different ethnicity - different outcome.

Probably just a coincidence.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/09/media/ ... index.html

This is an article of CNN digging through Alex Jone's Twitter account to dig up old tweets in order to get him banned on the last social media sight that hasn't kicked him off yet.

Good Example