Agreed. And it's amazing how liberals, in an attempt to deflect from this, are attacking those who point out the double standard as having some devious motive.

It's also a given, among liberals, that one cannot say a critical word about a POC, no matter how justifiable it is given his or her behavior, without being called a racist.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we're being told to ignore white supremacists today, and let them practice their free speech. But when someone exercises their free speech by tweeting insulting things about white people, we're supposed to go apoplectic? That doesn't make a lot of sense, unless you're a white supremacist.

Free speech, yes. Being appointed to the NY Times editorial board, no. There are many talented young, minority women who could offer a fresh perspective, but they chose her. Obviously no white supremacist should be granted a position on that board, either. But that goes without saying.

Agreed. And it's amazing how liberals, in an attempt to deflect from this, are attacking those who point out the double standard as having some devious motive.

It's also a given, among liberals, that one cannot say a critical word about a POC, no matter how justifiable it is given his or her behavior, without being called a racist.

Anonymous wrote:So we're being told to ignore white supremacists today, and let them practice their free speech. But when someone exercises their free speech by tweeting insulting things about white people, we're supposed to go apoplectic? That doesn't make a lot of sense, unless you're a white supremacist.

Free speech, yes. Being appointed to the NY Times editorial board, no. There are many talented young, minority women who could offer a fresh perspective, but they chose her. Obviously no white supremacist should be granted a position on that board, either. But that goes without saying.

Anonymous wrote:Hateful is hateful, no matter the target’s race. Sarah Jeong’s tweets spanned years, and, while a few were satirical, they were mostly offensive and hate-filled. The NY Times is either too incompetent to have done its due diligence on her, or it implicitly accepts her stance. Either way, it loses its credibility.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Sarah Jeong’s tweets spanned years, and, while a few were satirical, they were mostly offensive and hate-filled.

Yeah, I’m going to need some facts to back that up.

Google is your friend. She had years of anti-white tweets. However, some say that is not racism because whites are "in power." I disagree.

Sarah Jeong’s tweets spanned years, and, while a few were satirical, they were mostly offensive and hate-filled.

Yeah, I’m going to need some facts to back that up.

So we're being told to ignore white supremacists today, and let them practice their free speech. But when someone exercises their free speech by tweeting insulting things about white people, we're supposed to go apoplectic? That doesn't make a lot of sense, unless you're a white supremacist.

Anonymous wrote:Hateful is hateful, no matter the target’s race. Sarah Jeong’s tweets spanned years, and, while a few were satirical, they were mostly offensive and hate-filled. The NY Times is either too incompetent to have done its due diligence on her, or it implicitly accepts her stance. Either way, it loses its credibility.

Would we even be talking about these tweets if someone hadn't dug them up?

Where's the fairness in that? These were made years ago, and no one was aware of them until someone went back and found them. At some point, you have to stop focusing on what someone said years ago and start focusing on the motives of those who went back to the past and brought all this out.

What were THEIR motivations for doing this? Isn't it with those people that the real racism is found here? They went back to the past to find stuff to attack someone in the present.

That's inexcusable.

Hateful is hateful, no matter the target’s race. Sarah Jeong’s tweets spanned years, and, while a few were satirical, they were mostly offensive and hate-filled. The NY Times is either too incompetent to have done its due diligence on her, or it implicitly accepts her stance. Either way, it loses its credibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Much like DCUM, a lot of Twitter's moderation is a result of user reports. If the original tweets were not reported, but Owens' were, that would account for the disparate actions on Twitter's part. I would not be surprised if Owens' own followers reported her tweets in the hope that they could provoke Twitter into exactly this response. But, sure, let's keep up the charade that Twitter and the NY Times are anti-white.

Mia the it a moderator‘s job to review the situation? That’s what moderating is. Knee jerk decision making has no place in moderation

Plus, the issue with the NYT isn't so much that it is anti.-white, but that it applies different standards to its writers depending on whether they tweet anti-white racist crap or anti-black racist crap. I really wish we could explore this fully, and without the moderator or any other liberal accusing us of being alt-right racists simoly for pointing out the discrepancy.

Oh, please. White people have enjoyed special privilege and standards for hundreds of years in this country. Most of those protections were enshrined into LAW for most of this country's history. Would it kill you to just shut it for once and stop complaining about things not being 100 percent exactly the same? You are an effing embarrassment to white people.

- white person

....and I think you are an embarrassment to white people. If you are opposed to racism, as you claim, call it out wherever it occurs. Not only when it's against the specific groups liberals shouldn't be subjected to hate speech.

Again. It's super easy to call for equality when you're now the aggrieved party. White fragility, aka snowflake syndrome. Don't you dare do unto me what we did unto you for all those centuries.

And again, you lose standing when one group complains about specific reprehensible actions against them, and then members of that same group commit the same reprehensible action they are objecting to. And then, to make it worse, liberals - blinded by bias - defend, deflect, make excuses, attempt to justify, whatever, that same reprehensible behavior committed by their side.

But I understand why you're doing it. If the "morally superior" liberals can't hang racism on the other other side because they're side is guilty too (and you guys prove it every day with the "demented whites" and other remarks), it makes it pretty hard to push the racist! racist! lie we've been hearing ad infinitum.

And everyone knows it. Venture off this site and onto a balanced forum, and see how people are viewing this type of double-standard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Much like DCUM, a lot of Twitter's moderation is a result of user reports. If the original tweets were not reported, but Owens' were, that would account for the disparate actions on Twitter's part. I would not be surprised if Owens' own followers reported her tweets in the hope that they could provoke Twitter into exactly this response. But, sure, let's keep up the charade that Twitter and the NY Times are anti-white.

Mia the it a moderator‘s job to review the situation? That’s what moderating is. Knee jerk decision making has no place in moderation

Plus, the issue with the NYT isn't so much that it is anti.-white, but that it applies different standards to its writers depending on whether they tweet anti-white racist crap or anti-black racist crap. I really wish we could explore this fully, and without the moderator or any other liberal accusing us of being alt-right racists simoly for pointing out the discrepancy.

Oh, please. White people have enjoyed special privilege and standards for hundreds of years in this country. Most of those protections were enshrined into LAW for most of this country's history. Would it kill you to just shut it for once and stop complaining about things not being 100 percent exactly the same? You are an effing embarrassment to white people.

- white person

....and I think you are an embarrassment to white people. If you are opposed to racism, as you claim, call it out wherever it occurs. Not only when it's against the specific groups liberals shouldn't be subjected to hate speech.

Again. It's super easy to call for equality when you're now the aggrieved party. White fragility, aka snowflake syndrome. Don't you dare do unto me what we did unto you for all those centuries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Much like DCUM, a lot of Twitter's moderation is a result of user reports. If the original tweets were not reported, but Owens' were, that would account for the disparate actions on Twitter's part. I would not be surprised if Owens' own followers reported her tweets in the hope that they could provoke Twitter into exactly this response. But, sure, let's keep up the charade that Twitter and the NY Times are anti-white.

Mia the it a moderator‘s job to review the situation? That’s what moderating is. Knee jerk decision making has no place in moderation

Plus, the issue with the NYT isn't so much that it is anti.-white, but that it applies different standards to its writers depending on whether they tweet anti-white racist crap or anti-black racist crap. I really wish we could explore this fully, and without the moderator or any other liberal accusing us of being alt-right racists simoly for pointing out the discrepancy.

Oh, please. White people have enjoyed special privilege and standards for hundreds of years in this country. Most of those protections were enshrined into LAW for most of this country's history. Would it kill you to just shut it for once and stop complaining about things not being 100 percent exactly the same? You are an effing embarrassment to white people.

- white person

....and I think you are an embarrassment to white people. If you are opposed to racism, as you claim, call it out wherever it occurs. Not only when it's against the specific groups liberals shouldn't be subjected to hate speech.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Much like DCUM, a lot of Twitter's moderation is a result of user reports. If the original tweets were not reported, but Owens' were, that would account for the disparate actions on Twitter's part. I would not be surprised if Owens' own followers reported her tweets in the hope that they could provoke Twitter into exactly this response. But, sure, let's keep up the charade that Twitter and the NY Times are anti-white.

Mia the it a moderator‘s job to review the situation? That’s what moderating is. Knee jerk decision making has no place in moderation

Plus, the issue with the NYT isn't so much that it is anti.-white, but that it applies different standards to its writers depending on whether they tweet anti-white racist crap or anti-black racist crap. I really wish we could explore this fully, and without the moderator or any other liberal accusing us of being alt-right racists simoly for pointing out the discrepancy.

Oh, please. White people have enjoyed special privilege and standards for hundreds of years in this country. Most of those protections were enshrined into LAW for most of this country's history. Would it kill you to just shut it for once and stop complaining about things not being 100 percent exactly the same? You are an effing embarrassment to white people.

- white person

More excuses for a minority who tweets disgusting anti-white hate speech. If you call that type of behavior racist if a white person tweeted the same crap about a minority, then it's racist in the reverse too. Can't have it both ways, and all the posturing and excuse-making just don't cut it.

But as I said, it's not just this one racist. It's the bias of the NYT, echoing the bias of liberals such as yourself, that racist hate speech is forgivable or excusable when it's anti-white, but deserving of termination when it's anti-black.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Much like DCUM, a lot of Twitter's moderation is a result of user reports. If the original tweets were not reported, but Owens' were, that would account for the disparate actions on Twitter's part. I would not be surprised if Owens' own followers reported her tweets in the hope that they could provoke Twitter into exactly this response. But, sure, let's keep up the charade that Twitter and the NY Times are anti-white.

Mia the it a moderator‘s job to review the situation? That’s what moderating is. Knee jerk decision making has no place in moderation

Plus, the issue with the NYT isn't so much that it is anti.-white, but that it applies different standards to its writers depending on whether they tweet anti-white racist crap or anti-black racist crap. I really wish we could explore this fully, and without the moderator or any other liberal accusing us of being alt-right racists simoly for pointing out the discrepancy.

Oh, please. White people have enjoyed special privilege and standards for hundreds of years in this country. Most of those protections were enshrined into LAW for most of this country's history. Would it kill you to just shut it for once and stop complaining about things not being 100 percent exactly the same? You are an effing embarrassment to white people.

- white person

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk were also accosted yesterday when eating breakfast in Philadelphia. This is becoming the tactic of the left.

I love Charlie Kirk’s tweet in response to this attack:

"My favorite part of the last 24 hours has been seeing white liberals tell a black conservative @RealCandaceO she is a white supremacist because she was praising a black police force against white liberals trashing a city that is 44% black"

All you guys talk about is identity politics. Why don't you do something useful besides navel gaze about how aggrieved you are?

We'll stop talking about identity politics when the left stops turning issues into identity politics.

No you won't, because the left doesn't do that.

The left doesn't turn everything into identity politics?

Slavery, Jim Crow laws, the KKK, the Southern Strategy, and Charlottesville were all birthed by the right. The left tries to fix the mess you created.

Are you being sarcastic? A Republican president fought a war over slavery that southern Democrats fought to maintain, and they were the big racists in lots of ways back in the day - including the KKK. And keep Charlottesville out of your list. It's a one-off by some extreme fringe element, just like the extreme Antifa on the left.

Jim Crow, also - enacted by Democrat legislatures.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

It's not Republican vs. Democrat, it's right wing ideogies vs. left wing ideologies. Today's Republican has nothing in common with the Republican of 1864, and more closely resembles the Democrat of 1924. See: Steve King.

How many times does this have to be repeated to you? Or, you're just playing dumb because you don't want to own up to the truth.