It need not be a trick. I subscribed the day Trump won because I wanted to support what is generally considered “left-wing” sources. I am also strongly anti-conservative and anti-libertarian, and generally agree with the NYT stance on most issues.
Weaponizing old, out-of-context tweets is just the new alt-right playbook. James Gunn is the other obvious example.
Yes, these people posted things that were bad ideas. They also apologised, made it clear they were not serious about what was said, and moved past it.
To claim it makes their entire coverage of racism incoherent is... misleading at best. Imitating the masses of people trolling you as a joke may be a bad idea, but it's not comparable to the racism sustained by minorities that regularly damages their quality of life. Pretending the two things are the same is severely downplaying the severity of the latter.
People grow, change and learn. I've known people who used to be racist, and I don't hold it against them, because they have changed and deserve a chance to be a part of society, as long as they don't act like that any more.
Trying to stop anyone on the left who has ever made a mistake from having a voice, long after they made those mistakes is insane. The fact that alt-right voices arguing in bad faith are actively targeting the people trying to change the very issues at hand shows the issue.
Oh, please. "Weaponizing old tweets", writings, or politics is not a phenomenon particular to the alt-right. Examples abound:
Kevin Williamson, formerly of the National Review, was recently fired by The Atlantic for old tweets.
James Damore, a Google engineer, was fired for making controversial statements about gender science that feminists at the company didn't like.
Brendan Eich, a software developer who created JavaScript and was a co-founder of Mozilla, was forced to resign as the CEO of that company after making a political donation.
And there are many more instances of "repressive tolerance" in Big Tech, which Herbert Marcuse and others have described as a tolerance for 'all viewpoints' which actually contributes to social oppression in our culture.
The weaponizing of alternate viewpoints in the interests of "social justice" isn't owned by any one political faction, it's deployed nowadays by all of them, and it leads to a corrosive and toxic public discourse and environment.
There is a big difference between pointing out someone is actively acting in bad faith, and taking content they have apologised for and say they disagree with now when they don't act in that way any more.
> Kevin Williamson, formerly of the National Review, was recently fired by The Atlantic for old tweets.
He spoke with the editor who fired him because that was still his viewpoint, not an old tweet he apologised for or regretted.
> Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg forced to conclude that his new hire did, in fact, believe what he said he believed. “The language he used in this podcast — and in my conversations with him in recent days — made it clear that the original tweet did, in fact, represent his carefully considered views,”
> James Damore, a Google engineer, was fired for making controversial statements about gender science that feminists at the company didn't like.
He stood by his comments, in fact, he doubled down on them.
> Brendan Eich, a software developer who created JavaScript and was a co-founder of Mozilla, was forced to resign as the CEO of that company after making a political donation.
This isn't historic, that's current behaviour.
> And there are many more instances of "repressive tolerance" in Big Tech, which Herbert Marcuse and others have described as a tolerance for 'all viewpoints' which actually contributes to social oppression in our culture.
> The weaponizing of alternate viewpoints isn't owned by any one political faction, it's deployed nowadays by all of them, and it leads to a corrosive and toxic public environment.
Your examples are different things - it's perfectly reasonable, in fact, I would argue a moral obligation, not to accept bad actions and support of abhorrent policy from those around you.
My point was that people can and do change - if any of these people renounced their viewpoints, acted in good faith and changed, I would happily support them in any endeavour. That isn't what happened in these cases - there is a fundamental difference.
Even if this does happen to people on the right (and I'm sure there must be cases of it, as with all things), that doesn't justify the recent spate of cases being intentionally pushed by the alt-right. The particular instance being discussed here is wrong in the same way it would be wrong if it was someone on the right.
> Weaponizing old, out-of-context tweets is just the new alt-right playbook
No, it was the cultural mainstream that made it acceptable to fire people over communication mistakes. See the "Just kidding, I'm white" tweet[1], Tim Hunt getting fired by Twitter before even getting off his plane[2], or in tech: Donglegate, where people on both sides were fired.
NYT should totally hire Sarah Jeong, but as a leftie, I have to agree with the "alt-right" that the double standard is ridiculous. The Verge sums it up pretty well[3]: Nobody should attack our journalists for their tweets, with the implication that firing everyone else was a great idea.
It isn't a double standard, because the standard is consistent:
- People are responsible for what they say and can and should be fired if they support abhorrent policy or abuse people.
- People should always be able to reform and come back into society if they apologise, state they don't support their previous actions, and act differently.
These things are not contradictory.
Right now, there is an intentional effort by the alt-right to dig up these kinds of things from people who fit the latter category and raise them and promote them to try and minimise the voices of people who are now promoting things they dislike. It has nothing to do with the original issue, just the means to an end.
I'm not saying that the problem doesn't exist elsewhere, but that doesn't mean it's right that these people are targeted.
> Weaponizing old, out-of-context tweets is just the new alt-right playbook. James Gunn is the other obvious example.
They merely adopted left's usual tactics.
Personally, I don't support firing people over their private views, but in this case it's blatant hypocrisy. For example, a few months ago NYT fired Quinn Norton for almost the same thing[1]. Almost, because her old racist tweets weren't targeting white people.
>Yes, these people posted things that were bad ideas. They also apologised, made it clear they were not serious about what was said, and moved past it.
Sarah did not apologize. All she did was claiming that she's a victim.
Yes, she was a victim, she also admitted she was wrong, and said she would not do it again, and she has not.
> They merely adopted left's usual tactics.
> Personally, I don't support firing people over their private views, but in this case it's blatant hypocrisy. For example, a few months ago NYT fired Quinn Norton for almost the same thing[1]. Almost, because her old racist tweets weren't targeting white people.
If it was the same, then maybe it was wrong with her too. I can't find an apology, however, so it seems different to me.
Come on, even if what you said wasn't absurd,i.e you can be racist if someone attacks you on Twitter, the NYT fired people for much, much less than the disgusting vitriol the woman posted for years.
> i.e you can be racist if someone attacks you on Twitter
That is not what I said. I said she admitted what she said was wrong, publicly renounced the tweets, and stopped doing it. That is literally the opposite of what you are claiming I said.
Yes, it also matters that her intent at the time was not a belief that white people are inferior but to mimic the style of people abusing her to point out the absurdity. Was it the wrong course of action? Yes, but not all wrong things are equal. As I just said, the fact she has apologised, not repeated the action, and renounced what she did matters.
> the NYT fired people for much, much less than the disgusting vitriol the woman posted for years
Then give those examples, they don't change the facts of this case.
It's not hypocritical to do different things in different situations. You keep stating this, but you still can't show me what they got wrong in this case.
Their stance is Jeong used to imitate the language of her harassers, has since learned that was wrong, and has apologised. We should all be seeking rehabilitation, not retribution, and although I personally don't think her tweets were particularly objectionable, her remorse should earn her a second chance.
