Candace Owens Twitter account suspended for racist tweets, hahahaha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Trump routinely questions the intelligence of black people.

Trump questions the intelligence of anyone who does not agree with him--he is an equal opportunity offender on this--he has questioned the intelligence of people of all colors. Do you think black people should be exempt? That would be racist.

.

Yep. Black people (and minorities in general) are never to be criticized, for any reason. Never. That would be racist and is not allowed. Right, liberals? Right, Jeff?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:This discussion is making me question how much of the outrage about Jeong's tweets is manufactured for partisan purposes and how much is really a result of acute snowflakeism. Are you folks really this threatened by someone picking fun of you? She is basically turning a mirror on you and you are having a heart attack. It's astonishing.

Kind of like how all the outrage about Trump's tweets, statements and policies is manufactured for partisan purposes, and how much is really a result of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Trump routinely questions the intelligence of black people. Yet, you support him. Jeong compares the opinions of a few white people to dog droppings and you want her fired. Tell me again who is deranged?

DP. Exactly who are these white people you claim she’s comparing to dog sh!t? We’ll wait while you continue to spin.

They were people participating in a Twitter discussion. She was mostly reacting to other tweets. Sorry, no need to spin. Reality works fine. You should look into it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Here is a good example of what I mean by Jeong turning a mirror on white people:

December 22, 2014, Andrew Sullivan defending "The Bell Curve" -- "...Airing taboo stuff and examining and critiquing it has been a running feature of this blog from its beginnings. It is an axiom of mine that anything can be examined and debated... So I responded to the race and IQ controversy exactly as I would any other: put it all on the table and let the facts and arguments take us."

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "G O T T A H E A R B O T H S I D E S" —Andrew Sullivan"

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?"

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "Let's hear both sides!"

Ironically, the second tweet was used by Sullivan last week to show that Jeong was racist.

The problem with this, is she incriminated all white people rather than just Sullivan. Do all white people think exactly like Sullivan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is a good example of what I mean by Jeong turning a mirror on white people:

December 22, 2014, Andrew Sullivan defending "The Bell Curve" -- "...Airing taboo stuff and examining and critiquing it has been a running feature of this blog from its beginnings. It is an axiom of mine that anything can be examined and debated... So I responded to the race and IQ controversy exactly as I would any other: put it all on the table and let the facts and arguments take us."

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "G O T T A H E A R B O T H S I D E S" —Andrew Sullivan"

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?"

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "Let's hear both sides!"

Ironically, the second tweet was used by Sullivan last week to show that Jeong was racist.

The problem with this, is she incriminated all white people rather than just Sullivan. Do all white people think exactly like Sullivan?

She isn't incriminating anybody. She's examining amd critiquing the idea for debate, just like Sullivan did with the Bell Curve. Don't you want to hear both sides? You don't want to live in an echo chamber.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is a good example of what I mean by Jeong turning a mirror on white people:

December 22, 2014, Andrew Sullivan defending "The Bell Curve" -- "...Airing taboo stuff and examining and critiquing it has been a running feature of this blog from its beginnings. It is an axiom of mine that anything can be examined and debated... So I responded to the race and IQ controversy exactly as I would any other: put it all on the table and let the facts and arguments take us."

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "G O T T A H E A R B O T H S I D E S" —Andrew Sullivan"

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?"

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "Let's hear both sides!"

Ironically, the second tweet was used by Sullivan last week to show that Jeong was racist.

The problem with this, is she incriminated all white people rather than just Sullivan. Do all white people think exactly like Sullivan?

Exactly! That's the same thing as when a black guy commits a crime, and racists say (or imply) that all blacks are criminals. It's what racists do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is a good example of what I mean by Jeong turning a mirror on white people:

December 22, 2014, Andrew Sullivan defending "The Bell Curve" -- "...Airing taboo stuff and examining and critiquing it has been a running feature of this blog from its beginnings. It is an axiom of mine that anything can be examined and debated... So I responded to the race and IQ controversy exactly as I would any other: put it all on the table and let the facts and arguments take us."

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "G O T T A H E A R B O T H S I D E S" —Andrew Sullivan"

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?"

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "Let's hear both sides!"

Ironically, the second tweet was used by Sullivan last week to show that Jeong was racist.

The problem with this, is she incriminated all white people rather than just Sullivan. Do all white people think exactly like Sullivan?

She isn't incriminating anybody. She's examining amd critiquing the idea for debate, just like Sullivan did with the Bell Curve. Don't you want to hear both sides? You don't want to live in an echo chamber.

We've heard both sides. Jeff has put forth one weak argument after another - with it basically boiling down to "it's OK to be say awful things about white people - like they should be "cancelled" - because they are not in actual danger of being cancelled (with the further ridiculous implication that black people are).

if the NYT wants to keep an anti-white racist on the editorial staff (while firing an anti-black racist for the identical infractions) and liberals want to twist themselves into a pretzel to explain why racism is OK when it's directed against whites, so be it. But they lose a lot of credibility when they turn around and then attack anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal skewed thinking as being racist themselves.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is a good example of what I mean by Jeong turning a mirror on white people:

December 22, 2014, Andrew Sullivan defending "The Bell Curve" -- "...Airing taboo stuff and examining and critiquing it has been a running feature of this blog from its beginnings. It is an axiom of mine that anything can be examined and debated... So I responded to the race and IQ controversy exactly as I would any other: put it all on the table and let the facts and arguments take us."

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "G O T T A H E A R B O T H S I D E S" —Andrew Sullivan"

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?"

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "Let's hear both sides!"

Ironically, the second tweet was used by Sullivan last week to show that Jeong was racist.

The problem with this, is she incriminated all white people rather than just Sullivan. Do all white people think exactly like Sullivan?

She isn't incriminating anybody. She's examining amd critiquing the idea for debate, just like Sullivan did with the Bell Curve. Don't you want to hear both sides? You don't want to live in an echo chamber.

We've heard both sides. Jeff has put forth one weak argument after another - with it basically boiling down to "it's OK to be say awful things about white people - like they should be "cancelled" - because they are not in actual danger of being cancelled (with the further ridiculous implication that black people are).

if the NYT wants to keep an anti-white racist on the editorial staff (while firing an anti-black racist for the identical infractions) and liberals want to twist themselves into a pretzel to explain why racism is OK when it's directed against whites, so be it. But they lose a lot of credibility when they turn around and then attack anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal skewed thinking as being racist themselves.

Wow, that went completely over your head. The “both sides” to which the PP referred was not the debate here. She was reiterating the point Jeong was making. Andrew Sullivan thought the topic of whether black people genetically have low IQs was worthy of discussion because both sides of the issue should be debated. Jeong mocked him with the absurd suggestion that both sides of whether white people were genetically predisposed to live underground should be discussed. Jeong was using absurdly to illustrate how ridiculous Sullivan was being.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is a good example of what I mean by Jeong turning a mirror on white people:

December 22, 2014, Andrew Sullivan defending "The Bell Curve" -- "...Airing taboo stuff and examining and critiquing it has been a running feature of this blog from its beginnings. It is an axiom of mine that anything can be examined and debated... So I responded to the race and IQ controversy exactly as I would any other: put it all on the table and let the facts and arguments take us."

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "G O T T A H E A R B O T H S I D E S" —Andrew Sullivan"

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?"

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "Let's hear both sides!"

Ironically, the second tweet was used by Sullivan last week to show that Jeong was racist.

The problem with this, is she incriminated all white people rather than just Sullivan. Do all white people think exactly like Sullivan?

She isn't incriminating anybody. She's examining amd critiquing the idea for debate, just like Sullivan did with the Bell Curve. Don't you want to hear both sides? You don't want to live in an echo chamber.

We've heard both sides. Jeff has put forth one weak argument after another - with it basically boiling down to "it's OK to be say awful things about white people - like they should be "cancelled" - because they are not in actual danger of being cancelled (with the further ridiculous implication that black people are).

if the NYT wants to keep an anti-white racist on the editorial staff (while firing an anti-black racist for the identical infractions) and liberals want to twist themselves into a pretzel to explain why racism is OK when it's directed against whites, so be it. But they lose a lot of credibility when they turn around and then attack anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal skewed thinking as being racist themselves.

Wow, that went completely over your head. The “both sides” to which the PP referred was not the debate here. She was reiterating the point Jeong was making. Andrew Sullivan thought the topic of whether black people genetically have low IQs was worthy of discussion because both sides of the issue should be debated. Jeong mocked him with the absurd suggestion that both sides of whether white people were genetically predisposed to live underground should be discussed. Jeong was using absurdly to illustrate how ridiculous Sullivan was being.

+1. PP and some others of you would be stringing up Jonathan Swift for eating babies back in the day.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is a good example of what I mean by Jeong turning a mirror on white people:

December 22, 2014, Andrew Sullivan defending "The Bell Curve" -- "...Airing taboo stuff and examining and critiquing it has been a running feature of this blog from its beginnings. It is an axiom of mine that anything can be examined and debated... So I responded to the race and IQ controversy exactly as I would any other: put it all on the table and let the facts and arguments take us."

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "G O T T A H E A R B O T H S I D E S" —Andrew Sullivan"

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?"

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "Let's hear both sides!"

Ironically, the second tweet was used by Sullivan last week to show that Jeong was racist.

The problem with this, is she incriminated all white people rather than just Sullivan. Do all white people think exactly like Sullivan?

She isn't incriminating anybody. She's examining amd critiquing the idea for debate, just like Sullivan did with the Bell Curve. Don't you want to hear both sides? You don't want to live in an echo chamber.

We've heard both sides. Jeff has put forth one weak argument after another - with it basically boiling down to "it's OK to be say awful things about white people - like they should be "cancelled" - because they are not in actual danger of being cancelled (with the further ridiculous implication that black people are).

if the NYT wants to keep an anti-white racist on the editorial staff (while firing an anti-black racist for the identical infractions) and liberals want to twist themselves into a pretzel to explain why racism is OK when it's directed against whites, so be it. But they lose a lot of credibility when they turn around and then attack anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal skewed thinking as being racist themselves.

Wow, that went completely over your head. The “both sides” to which the PP referred was not the debate here. She was reiterating the point Jeong was making. Andrew Sullivan thought the topic of whether black people genetically have low IQs was worthy of discussion because both sides of the issue should be debated. Jeong mocked him with the absurd suggestion that both sides of whether white people were genetically predisposed to live underground should be discussed. Jeong was using absurdly to illustrate how ridiculous Sullivan was being.


If that were the only tweet, this would not be the issue that it is. There are hundreds of others, though, which are really ugly. And before you reply how funny these tweets are, and how humorless I am, consider that you are using the same defense as Trump around his p*ssy grabbing comments. “Locker room talk!” “Don’t be so dour!”
But anything to win your argument, right?
But

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is a good example of what I mean by Jeong turning a mirror on white people:

December 22, 2014, Andrew Sullivan defending "The Bell Curve" -- "...Airing taboo stuff and examining and critiquing it has been a running feature of this blog from its beginnings. It is an axiom of mine that anything can be examined and debated... So I responded to the race and IQ controversy exactly as I would any other: put it all on the table and let the facts and arguments take us."

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "G O T T A H E A R B O T H S I D E S" —Andrew Sullivan"

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?"

December 23, 2014, Jeong -- "Let's hear both sides!"

Ironically, the second tweet was used by Sullivan last week to show that Jeong was racist.

The problem with this, is she incriminated all white people rather than just Sullivan. Do all white people think exactly like Sullivan?

She isn't incriminating anybody. She's examining amd critiquing the idea for debate, just like Sullivan did with the Bell Curve. Don't you want to hear both sides? You don't want to live in an echo chamber.

We've heard both sides. Jeff has put forth one weak argument after another - with it basically boiling down to "it's OK to be say awful things about white people - like they should be "cancelled" - because they are not in actual danger of being cancelled (with the further ridiculous implication that black people are).

if the NYT wants to keep an anti-white racist on the editorial staff (while firing an anti-black racist for the identical infractions) and liberals want to twist themselves into a pretzel to explain why racism is OK when it's directed against whites, so be it. But they lose a lot of credibility when they turn around and then attack anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal skewed thinking as being racist themselves.

Wow, that went completely over your head. The “both sides” to which the PP referred was not the debate here. She was reiterating the point Jeong was making. Andrew Sullivan thought the topic of whether black people genetically have low IQs was worthy of discussion because both sides of the issue should be debated. Jeong mocked him with the absurd suggestion that both sides of whether white people were genetically predisposed to live underground should be discussed. Jeong was using absurdly to illustrate how ridiculous Sullivan was being.

+1. PP and some others of you would be stringing up Jonathan Swift for eating babies back in the day.

Please, she is no Jonathan Swift.

[Anonymous]

To the PP right above, your very good response got lost in the quote.

To reiterate, Jeff has cherry-picked a couple of tweets to redirect this discussion away from the fact that this racist went on a 2-year spree of tweeting angry, hostile comments about white people.

And by the way, did Jeff every apologize for telling that poster she was wrong about her 2-year tweeting spree? He said it was a false accusation, and he was proven wrong.

Show us, Jeff, that you can admit when you're wrong.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:To the PP right above, your very good response got lost in the quote.

To reiterate, Jeff has cherry-picked a couple of tweets to redirect this discussion away from the fact that this racist went on a 2-year spree of tweeting angry, hostile comments about white people.

And by the way, did Jeff every apologize for telling that poster she was wrong about her 2-year tweeting spree? He said it was a false accusation, and he was proven wrong.

Show us, Jeff, that you can admit when you're wrong.

It's hilarious that you accuse me of cherry-picking when the entire attack on Jeong has been based on cherry-picking. You do realize that tweet was one that Candace Owens chose to modify and tweet, resulting in this thread. It was also one that Sullivan used in his attack on Jeong, apparently not realizing that it was lampooning him. I guess when Owens or Sullivan select a tweet completely out of context, it is fine with you. When I choose the same tweet, it's cherry-picking.

Moreover, I did not tell a poster that she was wrong about a 2-year tweeting spree. I asked her to present evidence to support her allegation. I did not say it was a false accusation, but rather I said that if she could not support her accusation, I would delete it for being false. So, now you should apologize for making false allegations about me.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP right above, your very good response got lost in the quote.

To reiterate, Jeff has cherry-picked a couple of tweets to redirect this discussion away from the fact that this racist went on a 2-year spree of tweeting angry, hostile comments about white people.

And by the way, did Jeff every apologize for telling that poster she was wrong about her 2-year tweeting spree? He said it was a false accusation, and he was proven wrong.

Show us, Jeff, that you can admit when you're wrong.

It's hilarious that you accuse me of cherry-picking when the entire attack on Jeong has been based on cherry-picking. You do realize that tweet was one that Candace Owens chose to modify and tweet, resulting in this thread. It was also one that Sullivan used in his attack on Jeong, apparently not realizing that it was lampooning him. I guess when Owens or Sullivan select a tweet completely out of context, it is fine with you. When I choose the same tweet, it's cherry-picking.

Moreover, I did not tell a poster that she was wrong about a 2-year tweeting spree. I asked her to present evidence to support her allegation. I did not say it was a false accusation, but rather I said that if she could not support her accusation, I would delete it for being false. So, now you should apologize for making false allegations about me.

You said proved proof that she tweeted over two years or I will delete your post because it is false. She proved it was NOT false, and you are STILL unable to say "sorry, you were right." Have you ever admitted to a conservative that you were wrong about anything, at any time, over all these years?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP right above, your very good response got lost in the quote.

To reiterate, Jeff has cherry-picked a couple of tweets to redirect this discussion away from the fact that this racist went on a 2-year spree of tweeting angry, hostile comments about white people.

And by the way, did Jeff every apologize for telling that poster she was wrong about her 2-year tweeting spree? He said it was a false accusation, and he was proven wrong.

Show us, Jeff, that you can admit when you're wrong.

It's hilarious that you accuse me of cherry-picking when the entire attack on Jeong has been based on cherry-picking. You do realize that tweet was one that Candace Owens chose to modify and tweet, resulting in this thread. It was also one that Sullivan used in his attack on Jeong, apparently not realizing that it was lampooning him. I guess when Owens or Sullivan select a tweet completely out of context, it is fine with you. When I choose the same tweet, it's cherry-picking.

Moreover, I did not tell a poster that she was wrong about a 2-year tweeting spree. I asked her to present evidence to support her allegation. I did not say it was a false accusation, but rather I said that if she could not support her accusation, I would delete it for being false. So, now you should apologize for making false allegations about me.

You said proved proof that she tweeted over two years or I will delete your post because it is false. She proved it was NOT false, and you are STILL unable to say "sorry, you were right." Have you ever admitted to a conservative that you were wrong about anything, at any time, over all these years?

Yes, I frequently admit being wrong. In this case, the original allegation is that she had tweeted hateful tweets for years. Two years is technically "years" I guess, so that part is true. However, I still dispute that the tweets were hateful. I think the tweets were sarcasm and mockery and not motivated by hate, but rather as a means of making a point.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP right above, your very good response got lost in the quote.

To reiterate, Jeff has cherry-picked a couple of tweets to redirect this discussion away from the fact that this racist went on a 2-year spree of tweeting angry, hostile comments about white people.

And by the way, did Jeff every apologize for telling that poster she was wrong about her 2-year tweeting spree? He said it was a false accusation, and he was proven wrong.

Show us, Jeff, that you can admit when you're wrong.

It's hilarious that you accuse me of cherry-picking when the entire attack on Jeong has been based on cherry-picking. You do realize that tweet was one that Candace Owens chose to modify and tweet, resulting in this thread. It was also one that Sullivan used in his attack on Jeong, apparently not realizing that it was lampooning him. I guess when Owens or Sullivan select a tweet completely out of context, it is fine with you. When I choose the same tweet, it's cherry-picking.

Moreover, I did not tell a poster that she was wrong about a 2-year tweeting spree. I asked her to present evidence to support her allegation. I did not say it was a false accusation, but rather I said that if she could not support her accusation, I would delete it for being false. So, now you should apologize for making false allegations about me.

You said proved proof that she tweeted over two years or I will delete your post because it is false. She proved it was NOT false, and you are STILL unable to say "sorry, you were right." Have you ever admitted to a conservative that you were wrong about anything, at any time, over all these years?

Yes, I frequently admit being wrong. In this case, the original allegation is that she had tweeted hateful tweets for years. Two years is technically "years" I guess, so that part is true. However, I still dispute that the tweets were hateful. I think the tweets were sarcasm and mockery and not motivated by hate, but rather as a means of making a point.

I don’t know.
Not only does she have hateful things to say about white people, she has very hateful things to say about cops. She lumps all cops into one bucket as if they are all bad. Pretty hateful, IMO.