I could have accepted like a max of 2 tweets or something as her just clapping back, but it's a lot more than that. Besides, counter trolling racists with racism is exactly what they want. These are people that fiend for 'race wars' for any kind. The best way to counter troll racists is to insult them personally. I think she went way past counter trolling, even though I don't deny the harassment she gets, at some point when you are doing it for years and years you're courting it. With that said, it would be nice if the reaction for all racism was the same. Anti-white racism seems to get the right all in a flurry but anti-muslim, anti-mexican, anti-black racism brings out excuses and silence.
Get back into your safe space with your sensitive PC buds and fire off some guns to feel like a man again ok? She was being satirical and obviously doesn't hate white people. You're just too much of an idiot to get that.
Hardly, it's so hypocritical for you to be PC and cry about racism when you don't even know what it is. I'm glad the Times for one doesn't fire an employee for saying something that is clearly satirical even if in bad taste. I always found it strange for companies to fire people for writing stupid things on twitter or social media. I wish the Rockets had the gumption to keep their social media manager in place inspire of a shhhhhhhh it will be over soon post. Doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative, companies have a choice to fire you for what you put in social, but calling for someone to lose their job for it is weak.
You do not know that for a fact. You are drawing that conclusion from some tweets to trolls. On the other hand, we have an President that openly has supported and welcomed support from white suprematist groups and refused to condemn acts of hate done in his name. You like most of your buds has no clue what racism really is because you think you've experiences racism when some Asian woman counter trolls racist on twitter. If someone says, "White people sucks" you think that's the same as an immigration policy targeting at reducing the number of brown legal immigrants coming into this country while not targeting (white) Europeans.
“Are white people predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically only being fit to live underground like groveling goblins” I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but based on you posting history, I deem your opinions (not involving basketball) to be garbage. This statement is pure vile hatred coming straight from the heart. Unbelievable.
Why don't you also condemn the white suprematists and anti-Semitic a-holes who were attacking her with vicious racist language that she was responding to? The same people who are trying to get her fired and create controversy by the way? How is it that you are now siding with racists against her? I respect the NY Times for looking into the full story and not just reacting to things out of context. Maybe you should too.
I see racism and harsh speech being mixed together as the same. I often also see prejudice and stereotyping being elevated to racism level. These are all harmful to others and to self, but there is a big difference between them. Harsh speech is common, prejudice and stereotyping is also common, while racism is not. Racism is when one think one own race is superior. I think in today society, it is rare, extremely harmful and can be very dangerous in those with power. Harsh speech is when one use words that can offend or hurt someone. The intention might even be good and it can still be harsh. Often, the intention is to hurt or harm. It ranges from minor to extremely vile language. Trolling (deliberate language to upset) is always harsh speech. It is unfortunately common. The harm is more far reaching in those with a large audience. Prejudice and stereotyping is when one prejudge someone based on some attribute. I don’t consider prejudice against black people as racism (the superiority aspect is not present). But I think because it is so wide spread and common vs racism, in total it causes the most harm toward groups. Extreme prejudice is very harmful in those with power. This lady is using (trolling) harsh speech, but isn’t racist. Her reference to white people is not uncommon language used toward certain white (you should be able to guess who) and not toward all white. She is engaging in attacking her attackers (white people). She failed to realize that people she didn’t intend to attack can be harm or hurt by her words. But again, this isn’t racism, but harsh speech. With what she has experienced and how she reacted publicly, I think there is fear that there is some stereotyping with her toward white people. Because she is in a position of more power (larger audience), she can cause more harm... She has explained and said she would stop. I’m a believer in giving people chances. I’m against firing her.
If all of the lies, racism and name calling were removed from your posts, the quantity of your writing in this forum would almost certainly be reduced by over 50%, and possibly by 2/3. What is wrong with you?
Whataboutism much? The right way to respond to racists is to HONESTLY and CORRECTLY identify their racist conduct as racism, and call it out as being just that. The answer is not to respond by go full racist yourself. Unless of course you are a racist, that is.
Do you think you'd be making these kinds of excuses for her if she was targeting anyone else with her racist tweets? Are you even going to bother lying about it?
One of the few remaining legal structures actually discriminating on the basis of race (aka systemic racism) is Affirmative Action. Racism against whites (and even moreso Asians) is literally hurting their educational prospects by comparison to blacks and hispanics. An Asian-American has to score far higher on a standardized test than their black or Latinx competitor to get into the same school.
No it isn't. Unless you feel like a random white kid NEEDS to go Harvard over random black kid to get an education. Unless you are looking at the admissions, how are you arguing this? Not only that, most colleges don't consider race, AA isn't something forced on to all colleges. Not only that, test scores are ONE part of an admission, not the entire part. So while a kid could score a few points higher, a kid that came from a crappy situation, got good test scores, and did charity work, is probably going to be considered over the kid who just excelled in school. When you argue that too many blacks are getting into schools like Harvard you are freaking out about a 14% demographic, Latinos makeup 11%, how low does it need to go to please you? Can you prove that these students didn't/don't belong there? How low is good enough? Meanwhile Asians make up 22%, way past their demographic number. Some don't get in but guess what, if you barely missed out on Harvard then I'm sure there would be tons of other schools willing to take you. Whether admissions hold Asians and Whites in higher regard, whatever discuss that but the demographics of these schools tell a different story, plenty are getting in, so are you arguing that less than say 14% blacks and 11% latinos should be at Harvard? What're the numbers here? The AA debate has always brings out true colors it reminds me of Scalia who once did suggest that African Americans should be on a slower track, and man, there wasn't a fuss about that from the right. They defended him. Meanwhile, a random journalist says a few racist things and you'd think white people were being lynched in the streets. Not like we haven't had several racist journalists on the right...like Limbaugh, O'reily, Breitbart, etc.
