Why they say 7% of a person's message depends on the words. And people wonder why words can be misinterpreted... http://www.rightattitudes.com/2008/10/04/7-38-55-rule-personal-communication/
Yeah we all make mistakes and have said things we would like to take back. A couple tweets years ago or even recently I can understand. However in her case we are talking about hundreds of tweets over years. I personally wouldn’t hire her for a public job like she received.
No, not buying it. Had she posted similar comments (and the sheer volume) about homosexuals or black people or almost any other group, she would be gone.
He is disgusting. He has the body and mannerisms of the concentration camp commander in Schindler’s List.
Not buying that she isn't a racist, or that she shouldn't be fired? Without being personally attacked by those groups, yes she should be fired and it would elevate her words to more than just harsh speech. Since that didn't happen toward her, she didn't post similar comments about those groups.
Would you accept that kind of excuse if the target of her racist tweets were different? I mean, I don't think many people gave Michael Richards that kind of leeway when "counter trolling" hecklers at his show.... I think this all comes down to her racism being culturally acceptable racism.
Racist comments are racist comments. The vast majority of people have said something racist/offensive. The issue here is the volume of comments and the length of time. In my opinion the amount of comments and length of time isn’t excusable. I personally wouldn’t be comfortable hiring her for a national publication.
Lol at libcucks believing and validating her whine excuse. These actions weren't because I was a assjack, muh interwebz was mean to me! 60% sure she has more disparaging tweets about white people than white people actually attacking her on twitter, considering nobody actually cared about her twitter or really followed it at all before nyt. There were few comments or anything sort of traffic from her tweets. A screenshot of two people? Pleb argument. Worse trolling has gone on even here of all places.
In its latest demonstration of political disingenuousness, Twitter temporarily suspended Turning Point USA communications director Candace Owens’ account — after she took racist tweets from New York Times editorial board member Sarah Jeong, replaced the word “whites” with “blacks,” and tweeted them out again. For example, Owens tweeted: Candace Owens ✔@RealCandaceO Black people are only fit to live underground like groveling goblins. They have stopped breeding and will all go extinct soon. I enjoy being cruel to old black women. The above statements are from @nytimes editor @sarahjeong. I simply swapped out the word “white” for “black”. 11:07 AM - Aug 4, 2018 32.5K 16.1K people are talking about this Owens was then suspended. Hilariously, Twitter then backtracked and admitted its mistake: Twitter takes reports of violations of the Twitter Rules very seriously. After reviewing your account, it looks like we made an error. This was our mistake and we’ve apologized to the account owner for the error. So, how exactly did Twitter make that error? Human complaints? Algorithms? We have no way of knowing. But suffice it to say that the double standard in social media just received another piece of bolstering evidence. As Owens stated, Jeong’s comments were “horrifically racist, but somehow we’ve gotten to a point in society where it’s OK to say the exact same thing about white people, and that’s problematic.”
On a personal level, I agree that her apology sounds genuine. That she's getting double shat on for being an Asian woman is also a sense of punishment and active learning. But she's a writer for a well respected newspaper. In the age of tweets and social media reporting, writing standards should still be maintained. As she represents the NYT, sarcasm/satire should be wielded by their experts.
Or once it was clear Owens was being satirical, twitter reinstated her account just like the NY Times gave Jeong the chance after it was obvious she was being satirical as well. IMAGINE THAT! She didn't represent the NYT when she made the tweets years ago. If she had been smart, she's have invented a persona and then counter-trolled. I figured that much out in 2002.
After dismissing this whole thing initially, because the initial stuff wasn't all that bad, she's just indefensible at this point. It's not that she's particularly offensive to me as a well-off white man, she's just not very smart at drawing attention to herself, and really doesn't seem to bring much to the table other than that, or if she does it just gets drowned out because of her tornado of ludicrous bullshit. I will gladly continue not reading or knowing anything by/about her. Yall carry on now.
LOL Nothing brings out the conservative anti racists like a twitterati attack on white guys. It's like a who's who of bigots and the willfully ignorant. Roll call!
