A modestly postmodern proposal

The New York Times has seen fit to place an apparent racist, Sarah Jeong, on their editorial board. I describe her as such on the basis of numerous tweets of hers that surfaced immediately after the NYT appointment. One of them reads “it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” Another proclaims “Cancel White People”.

These examples are among the least hateful. But, don’t worry, dear readers. We are assured this all of this is actually white peoples’ fault. Subsequent to Ms. Jeong’s hatred being propagated to a wider audience, the NYT informed us that as “a young Asian woman” she has been “a subject of frequent online harassment” and that she was merely “imitating the rhetoric of her harassers”. In other words, the same “Don’t blame me, HE started it!” of any pre-adolescent row. Jeong herself is reported as saying her missives were merely satire, a word that now applies to both everything and nothing [1].

Anyway, in the rush to excuse Ms. Jeong’s toxic effluvia, a fundamental opportunity has been missed. Think about it: why shouldn’t racists be represented on the editorial board? As loathsome as they might be, racists are citizens, too. They pay taxes, they ride the subways, and Lord knows many of them vote for Democrats, even before they’re dead. Aren’t progressives always preaching about inclusivity? What is inclusion without the least and worst of us?

And even if Ms. Jeong isn’t a racist herself (heh), she can certainly represent this constituency faithfully after seeking to imitate them with such vigor and for so long.

So, I wish Sarah Jeong a long and productive stint on the NYT editorial board. Nothing is beyond the pale(face), just as long as she does not sleep with her sources. Oh wait, Ali Watkins has shown that’s acceptable at the Times, too. Ah, the Times, they are a-changin’.

[1] Including this post.  Dime, we need a satire tag.

[Inspiration for the post title here.]

5+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

20 thoughts on “A modestly postmodern proposal”

  1. I thought I was thoroughly whipsawed before, but now I am just frozen by indecision. Some conservatives have been treated unfairly, and either we have one set of rules for everybody or no rules at all. Since “no rules at all” isn’t an option then I suppose I’m with the group which is demanding her scalp just as much as Kevin Williamson’s scalp was demanded. Plus, I really don’t want a genuine nazi or soviet to have a perch at the NYT editorial page, so we do need some precedent for cutting such people out.

    Honestly, though, if I were king or otherwise in charge of deciding these issues, I just wouldn’t care so much; it would have to be especially egregious for me to favor shunning of this sort. Most of this nonsense is over jokes or flashes of anger. Some of it is simply misunderstood either sincerely or maliciously. A few are victims of changing times and mores. A handful have weird views and takes. Some amount are actually hateful bigots. And I say: “so what?” to all of it? You know what would drive my decision to hire or fire someone for the editorial page? Ability to write; relevance; preference for truth and understanding over preference; willingness and ability to debate and defend ideas; circulation; page clicks; demonstrated ability to attract a sizable audience.

    I’m troubled deeply by the modern trend toward the taint rule. One shortcoming and “you” are a bad person. Not flawed in some ways or mistaken or complex – you are all bad. Tainted by one thing. It isn’t Christian, that’s for sure. I think it’s downright dangerous.

    Can a misogynist be a good political leader? Well, if you think we’ve had good leaders then the answer is yes because by today’s standards every single one has been a misogynist. What about slave holders? Er, our founders were a slave holding bunch, and they were pretty good weren’t they?

    I suppose I understand having a higher bar for political leaders, but why writers? A crude and vulgar person can’t have intelligent things to say about economics? Or a promiscuous person about the proper approach to North Korea? I say confront the ideas, not the writer.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  2. PhCheese:
    Boy she is lucky she didn’t satire a white transgender.

    Or an anything-but-white anything-but-male.  That would require courage to go with her intolerance.

    The evidence available to us suggests Ms. Jeong is a racist.  But there’s nothing in her public screeds that suggests she has any courage whatsoever.

    5+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  3. Forgive me, but I see no humor here.

    This woman wasn’t even born in the United States, yet sees fit to demean and attack the very people who made it possible for her to live as something other than a starving slave in Korea.

    I’d like to remind everyone that absent the tens of thousands of Americans who died to make part of Korea free- mostly white males- every bit of that country would be a starving s******* like the North.

    If this woman finds it too odious to be around white people, get out. Go to Hell, or go elsewhere, but stop pretending you just have to remain in a country stuffed full of the people you despise, especially when you weren’t even born here.

    Go back to your birthplace. Thanks to white people, a great part of your nation has avoided communist tyranny, and has thus become a prosperous and free country.

    Not dominated by the white people you hate, either.

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  4. Ed G:
    “…  preference for truth…”

    I did not get  much of a preference for truth in her tweets.  At least I hope I didn’t.

    Besides that, i would add to your list of traits for consideration … doesn’t promote violence

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  5. TempTime:

    Ed G:
    “…  preference for truth…”

    I did not get  much of a preference for truth in her tweets.  At least I hope I didn’t.

    Besides that, i would add to your list of traits for consideration … doesn’t promote violence

    Oh I don’t claim that Jeong satisfies my “if I were king” wishful thinking, only that tweets likely wouldn’t faze me. I wouldn’t go looking for them and I would likely not pay much attention to them if they were thrust in my face.

    0

  6. The crux in all of these tempests over old Tweets is: are they reflective of who the person is today? In Jeong’s case, they absolutely are, and she and the NYT deserved to be dragged through the coals for this. They made the rules, now they have to live by them. I have no sympathy for someone who is unapologetically, virulently racist and thinks they can excuse it because someone else was also racist.

    However, if someone has sincerely repented and changed, to continue to pull up every bad or stupid thing they have ever done shows no compassion or awareness that we are all people who make mistakes, sometimes horrific ones, and it denies them the chance to atone for those mistakes that we would surely demand for ourselves were our past faults dragged into public scrutiny. We are more than the sum of our worst moments, and we could all use a strong dose of humility in recognizing that none of us have cornered the market on moral consistency.

    5+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  7. Xennady:
    Forgive me, but I see no humor here. […]

    I agree with everything you say.  There is no inherent humor in the NYT putting an unrepentant hater in a position to push them even farther to the left of reality.

    You can push back, with anger or mockery.  They feed off your anger.  In some bizarre fashion, they can use it to justify themselves.  And anger is taxing, it takes a toll.

    But they hate mockery. It drives them insane.  It hits them where they are most vulnerable – right in their smugness.  And it isn’t taxing.

    So, let’s mock them.

    5+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  8. Cyrano:

    Xennady:
    Forgive me, but I see no humor here. […]

    I agree with everything you say.  There is no inherent humor in the NYT putting an unrepentant hater in a position to push them even farther to the left of reality.

    You can push back, with anger or mockery.  They feed off your anger.  In some bizarre fashion, they can use it to justify themselves.  And anger is taxing, it takes a toll.

    But they hate mockery. It drives them insane.  It hits them where they are most vulnerable – right in their smugness.  And it isn’t taxing.

    So, let’s mock them.

    Conservatives need to play the angles better. A banked shot softly played gets the point in. Switching to a different sport, look at this video and tell me what you think.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  9. Dime:

    Cyrano:

    Xennady:
    Forgive me, but I see no humor here. […]

    I agree with everything you say.  There is no inherent humor in the NYT putting an unrepentant hater in a position to push them even farther to the left of reality.

    You can push back, with anger or mockery.  They feed off your anger.  In some bizarre fashion, they can use it to justify themselves.  And anger is taxing, it takes a toll.

    But they hate mockery. It drives them insane.  It hits them where they are most vulnerable – right in their smugness.  And it isn’t taxing.

    So, let’s mock them.

    Conservatives need to play the angles better. A banked shot softly played gets the point in. Switching to a different sport, look at this video and tell me what you think.

    With the net so large and the kicker so close, I have to ask: do they ever miss?

    This is like flinging barbs at a “progressive’s” sense of superiority.  You can’t miss. So who needs aim?

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  10. Cyrano:

    Dime:

    Cyrano:

    Xennady:
    Forgive me, but I see no humor here. […]

    I agree with everything you say.  There is no inherent humor in the NYT putting an unrepentant hater in a position to push them even farther to the left of reality.

    You can push back, with anger or mockery.  They feed off your anger.  In some bizarre fashion, they can use it to justify themselves.  And anger is taxing, it takes a toll.

    But they hate mockery. It drives them insane.  It hits them where they are most vulnerable – right in their smugness.  And it isn’t taxing.

    So, let’s mock them.

    Conservatives need to play the angles better. A banked shot softly played gets the point in. Switching to a different sport, look at this video and tell me what you think.

    With the net so large and the kicker so close, I have to ask: do they ever miss?

    This is like flinging barbs at a “progressive’s” sense of superiority.  You can’t miss. So who needs aim?

    The kicker completely misses the goal at times. They aim for the far corner and over shoot. The goalie guesses right and blocks the shot.

    These are “Republican” soccer players.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  11. So, let’s mock them.

    Oh, I certainly want to mock them- and this silly, vile woman deserves plenty of mockery.

    But I’d also like to note, at least every so often, just how loathsome these sort of people are.

    I think it’s important to point that out, lest these wanna-be tyrants and mass murderers become mere jokes, until it’s too late.

    They aren’t.  I presume anyone likely to read my comment here already knows that, but I wish many others would read and take heed of the warnings Col. Schlichter has been writing about the left.

    I’m thinking of you, nevertrumpers, btw. No, I’m not going to hold my breath.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  12. A white oligarch deigns to explain to us heathen, brought to our attention here.

    I understand now:  BIGOTRY IS FAIRNESS.  This goes along so well with WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH that I simply don’t see how Orwell could have missed it.

    0

  13. Cyrano:
    A white oligarch deigns to explain to us heathen, brought to our attention here.

    I understand now:  BIGOTRY IS FAIRNESS.  This goes along so well with WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH that I simply don’t see how Orwell could have missed it.

    The sad thing is,  people actually believe #1.

    0

  14. 10 Cents:

    Cyrano:
    A white oligarch deigns to explain to us heathen, brought to our attention here.

    I understand now:  BIGOTRY IS FAIRNESS.  This goes along so well with WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH that I simply don’t see how Orwell could have missed it.

    The sad thing is,  people actually believe #1.

    Even worse, in this (and many other) cases, #1 is inverted. Joachim is clearly a one-percenter, as is Jeong. They have far more power than those they are engaging or condescending. (Which is why I called him an oligarch.)

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  15. Cyrano:

    10 Cents:

    Cyrano:
    A white oligarch deigns to explain to us heathen, brought to our attention here.

    I understand now:  BIGOTRY IS FAIRNESS.  This goes along so well with WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH that I simply don’t see how Orwell could have missed it.

    The sad thing is,  people actually believe #1.

    Even worse, in this (and many other) cases, #1 is inverted. Joachim is clearly a one-percenter, as is Jeong. They have far more power than those they are engaging or condescending. (Which is why I called him an oligarch.)

    More often than not a strange tweet is projection.

    0

Leave a Reply