NYT backs itself into a corner as it welcomes newest member of the New York Time's editoral board

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
40,304
3,265
1,420
When for example we talk about protests there are max like 100 people there and thousand or thousands of counter protesters. Same on social media or university you see them way more and being way more aggressive. Attacking panelists disturbing classes etc you do not see this at all from the right. The right is quite until the elections and then vote the left often acts like children loud children
To be fair you are only talking about things that get put on mainstream news TV. It's weird that you say the right is quiet and then vote, whereas the left acts like children and attack panelists. You can't see just how biased that statement is? A few things.

1. You are ignoring when the left elected a black president with an African/Muslim name (in America of all places) because of the polices he was pushing. This same young left voted in record numbers.

2. The right was very loud and vocal during the early Bush years pushing anti-LGBT policies. They were very very loud in the mid 90s when Newt Gingrich hit the national scene. Just because it happened more than 10 years ago doesn't mean it didn't happen.

3. The law abiding citizens on the "so-called" left have been attacked when they were trying to express themselves using their rights as a citizen. It's happened to them too.
 

Dunki

Gold Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,904
6,171
435
To be fair you are only talking about things that get put on mainstream news TV. It's weird that you say the right is quiet and then vote, whereas the left acts like children and attack panelists. You can't see just how biased that statement is? A few things.

1. You are ignoring when the left elected a black president with an African/Muslim name (in America of all places) because of the polices he was pushing. This same young left voted in record numbers.

2. The right was very loud and vocal during the early Bush years pushing anti-LGBT policies. They were very very loud in the mid 90s when Newt Gingrich hit the national scene. Just because it happened more than 10 years ago doesn't mean it didn't happen.

3. The law abiding citizens on the "so-called" left have been attacked when they were trying to express themselves using their rights as a citizen. It's happened to them too.

1. The big problem that you do NOT see this on mainstream media for the most part.

2. And if the right was very loud and aggressive back then I would also have called them out. But I am talking about right here and now and not 10 years before. As I said before the left is becoming more violent and radical and people even celebrate violence now. This is not ok no matter who does it.

3. they were attacked at marches? they were attacked during protests? Where? As much as people do not want to see it but these nazis also have their rights a citizen and this includes their right to protest. If we can not make sure they can do this we are not one bit better than the ones we despise. You do not have to agree ith these people I also do not agree with them but they still have the right to do this without being violently attacked denied service etc.
 

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
40,304
3,265
1,420
3. they were attacked at marches? they were attacked during protests? Where? As much as people do not want to see it but these nazis also have their rights a citizen and this includes their right to protest. If we can not make sure they can do this we are not one bit better than the ones we despise. You do not have to agree ith these people I also do not agree with them but they still have the right to do this without being violently attacked denied service etc.
The marches in Ferguson were crazy bro.
 

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
2,876
462
665
https://www.gq.com/story/andrew-sullivan-white-people-power-dynamics

This article was a bewildering read, also a bad read, and I mostly disagree with her meanderings but this part (there's actually quite a bit) is particularly head scratching/funny: "In previous pieces, [Andrew] Sullivan has decried the absurdity of “microaggressions” and leftist hyperventilating over “an off-color remark.” So, one might think that he could brush off a tweet about “dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet like dogs pissing on fire hydrants,”

That's not an off-color remark or a 'microaggression' no matter how vague the word is, I only note it because I've read similar statements and arguments in articles at publications such as Vox, The Atlantic, Huffington Post, Slate. What is head scratching to me is they do themselves no favors, if indeed they are trying to defend Sarah Jeong from claims of her being a racist, with these ideological (lets call them) arguments I think it just makes people question the state of discourse on the left.

Also, I've said before, this isn't a story about if Sarah Jeong is a racist or not, it's about the New York Times and their double standard. Jeong, I think at worst, is a Berklee educated east coast elite, who happens to be Asian, that thinks she has a sense of humor and these are her edgy jokes.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
40,304
3,265
1,420
https://www.gq.com/story/andrew-sullivan-white-people-power-dynamics

This article was a bewildering read, also a bad read, and I mostly disagree with her meanderings but this part (there's actually quite a bit) is particularly head scratching/funny: "In previous pieces, [Andrew] Sullivan has decried the absurdity of “microaggressions” and leftist hyperventilating over “an off-color remark.” So, one might think that he could brush off a tweet about “dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet like dogs pissing on fire hydrants,”

That's not an off-color remark or a 'microaggression' no matter how vague the word is, I only note it because I've read similar statements and arguments in articles at publications such as Vox, The Atlantic, Huffington Post, Slate. What is head scratching to me is they do themselves no favors, if indeed they are trying to defend Sarah Jeong from claims of her being a racist, with these ideological (lets call them) arguments I think it just makes people question the state of discourse on the left.

Also, I've said before, this isn't a story about if Sarah Jeong is a racist or not, it's about the New York Times and their double standard. Jeong, I think at worst, is a Berklee educated east coast elite, who happens to be Asian, that thinks she has a sense of humor and these are her edgy jokes.
To be fair there's many times when someone like Andrew Sullivan will call something a microaggression, when (like in your example) it's actually something that's pretty bad. When it's happening to white people his "definition" of microaggression has seemed to have changed.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
2,770
3,349
250
To be fair there's many times when someone like Andrew Sullivan will call something a microaggression, when (like in your example) it's actually something that's pretty bad. When it's happening to white people his "definition" of microaggression has seemed to have changed.
I love how the leftist blogosphere have collectively decided to flay Andrew Sullivan, as if he is the only person alive to disagree with what this woman said. They are running away from the real criticism and pretending to act as if beating up a Sullivan strawman excuses their hypocrisy.
 

Geki-D

Member
Dec 6, 2017
1,569
1,350
295
once again hypocrisy rears its ugly head. also what's with this forum and saying the phrase "to be fair"
I actually say "to be fair" quite a bit. Don't see much wrong with it though, I generally say it when I don't agree with someone's overall points but at least on one of them I think they're right and to be fair to them, I'll defend it. It's a sign of nuance, at least to me. Don't really see that as a bad thing.
 
May 15, 2018
2,493
1,598
350
I actually say "to be fair" quite a bit. Don't see much wrong with it though, I generally say it when I don't agree with someone's overall points but at least on one of them I think they're right and to be fair to them, I'll defend it. It's a sign of nuance, at least to me. Don't really see that as a bad thing.
its overused and generally people put it before a very weak argument. so i instinctually hate it
 

Dontero

Member
Apr 19, 2018
1,193
1,046
275
My general view is that Koreans & the Japanese are generally quite pale, like northern Europe white. I'm pretty sure they also have an on-going notion that the whiter you are the prettier, so they actually use makeup to brighten their skin even more.
That was literally for whole world and still is in many places.

But that has nothing to do with superiority of someone's skin color but material wealth of said people.

Tanning. Even black people tan a little. The best way to find out someone status, the fastest, was to look at their skin color.
then hands, then what they wear.

Because you could not hide it. You can see if someone is working hard at the field just by looking at their skin color. On other hand if you are white instead of being tanned it means you or your family is rich enough to not work low paying hard jobs.

And that is also one of reasons skin racism exist. We as creatures are set to look for pattarns so if you live in society where wealth can be measured by looking at someone then if you meet someone from different side of the world and he/she has darker skin your pattern alarm says she/he must be very poor.

Thankfully our society standards started to change and tan has now become symbol of status (if you have tan = you had vacation = you earn enough to have measure time). This also almost exactly matches fall of racism in societies. Naturally it is not whole piece of puzzle "why" but important contributing factor.
 

Dontero

Member
Apr 19, 2018
1,193
1,046
275
its overused and generally people put it before a very weak argument. so i instinctually hate it
People use it because they don't believe in absolutisms. There are very few things in world that can be spoken in absolutes.

Take for example Hitler even he despite being murderous shithead had enough "hearth" to introduce first in the world animal rights. Naturally his evil to good ratio was unbalanced and we categorize him as almost pure evil but we can't say he was wholly evil and there was nothing good about him because to be fair it is plainly untrue.

We like to look for easy answers and nature of written word depends on mind reading it. Which is why forum talk or online talk in general is combative.
 
May 15, 2018
2,493
1,598
350
People use it because they don't believe in absolutisms. There are very few things in world that can be spoken in absolutes.

Take for example Hitler even he despite being murderous shithead had enough "hearth" to introduce first in the world animal rights. Naturally his evil to good ratio was unbalanced and we categorize him as almost pure evil but we can't say he was wholly evil and there was nothing good about him because to be fair it is plainly untrue.

We like to look for easy answers and nature of written word depends on mind reading it. Which is why forum talk or online talk in general is combative.
you looking too hard into it son
 

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
40,304
3,265
1,420
I actually say "to be fair" quite a bit. Don't see much wrong with it though, I generally say it when I don't agree with someone's overall points but at least on one of them I think they're right and to be fair to them, I'll defend it. It's a sign of nuance, at least to me. Don't really see that as a bad thing.
its overused and generally people put it before a very weak argument. so i instinctually hate it
It's used to show politeness and to acknowledge the person you are speaking to that "I understand your point and have thought about it, but". Using "to be fair" is the speaker saying "I don't want to verbally fight over this, but think about this point".

How can anybody hate the phrase "to be fair". It's a super nice way to speak. Is this the social media era where we find things to hate just because? Like is that 3 word phrase really that bad?
 

timberger

Member
Mar 12, 2016
1,333
22
250
To be fair, she is just exercising her right to free speech.

Take for example Hitler even he despite being murderous shithead had enough "hearth" to introduce first in the world animal rights. Naturally his evil to good ratio was unbalanced and we categorize him as almost pure evil but we can't say he was wholly evil and there was nothing good about him because to be fair it is plainly untrue.
I can't
 
May 15, 2018
2,493
1,598
350
It's used to show politeness and to acknowledge the person you are speaking to that "I understand your point and have thought about it, but". Using "to be fair" is the speaker saying "I don't want to verbally fight over this, but think about this point".

How can anybody hate the phrase "to be fair". It's a super nice way to speak. Is this the social media era where we find things to hate just because? Like is that 3 word phrase really that bad?
i already said why. its overused
 

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
40,304
3,265
1,420
why do you want me to like this terms so badly. let me hate on it in peace
This is a great question for you to ask. It is weird that I'm stupidly obsessed with your hate on this phrase lol. Social media and just people on the internet within the last year have just confused the crap out of me. And I'd say within the last 4 or so months that it's hit me. It's not the internet that's making us worse communicators. We were always terrible at communicating and we as a people can just be unnecessary A-Holes.

Twitter is only a cesspool if you curate a terrible follow listing. But many of us just love to be jerks sometimes. I guess it makes us feel better considering that we have to deal with real-world stuff in real life. The internet talk is like a virtual community where things really don't matter.

*Point blank I just wanted you to look at the phrase "to be fair" as just being a neutral thing. Not to like it or hate it. It's just neutral. But I don't mind if you hate it.