Mainstream Media

Sure, you can say it’s wrong or unfair, but that’s not the question. The question is whether it is racist or ageist if I, an old white man, say it.

Megan McArdle is the best argument for not paying the Washington Post one thin dime.

Well, Marc A. Thiessen, but McArdle is up there.

Don’t forget Hugh Hewitt.

That’s absolutely part of it. But I think it’s also because people genuinely understand that a work of fiction is different. They may not think in terms of parody, satire or the differences between, but simply say, “It’s a movie!” (I loved Get Out, btw. I always thought Key was the more talented one, until that movie).

Ultimately, I think this whole thing is effing stupid. Sure, racism against white people exists. So what? As a white male, how many times have I been denied a job, promotion or mortgage because of my race? How many times have the police pulled me over because of my appearance. Never, not once. Some woman making dumbass remarks on twitter represents a ‘problem’ with almost no real-world impact.

Yeah, racism is always bad. But when it’s truly confined to namecalling, the old “sticks and stones” rhyme applies.

Agreed. And smear campaigns directed at Jeong, Dan Harmon, Patton Oswalt, James Gunn, etc do have real-world impact. That’s the goal anyway.

And as I believe Scott asked above, why can’t a Tweet be a work of fiction? Why do people have a hard time understanding that? Is it because so many Tweets aren’t works of fiction?

I guess it’s the difference between longer form narratives and, say, stand-up comedy. I found the Michael Richards comparison upthread helpful. I guess if people look at Jeong’s comments without much context, they might look like Richards’ weird onstage meltdown.

-Tom

I think you answered your own question. Using myself as an example, the people I used to communicate with on Twitter were telling me things. Facts. I spoke to a guy who was pro fracking. He worked in the industry. I spoke to another person about picking locks. I actually sent him an MTA lock to work on. My father had a few in the basement.

OTOH I spoke, twittered to, comedians and actors. Hey, Margaret Cho even follows me.

I never questioned the meaning of anyone’s twerps. OTOH I don’t twut anymore. I don’t follow Jeong, so I don’t have the background, the framing, for her twings.

Edit: I guess I was searching real hard for the word context, and failed.

I don’t think he did. People tweet non-serious stuff all the time. People tweet jokes all the time. People tweet hyperbole and parody and sarcasm all the time. I posted an example fromYglesias upthread.

But people do. Or this whole argument would be moot.

It’s because the NYT still has some cultural cachet and still acts as a bellwether to social mores.

Don’t forget there was that woman Quinn Norton fired by the NYT for functionally the same thing (but in the opposite dimension where goatees are everywhere) just a few months ago. Of course rose isn’t always a rose, and Quinn’s tweets were certainly bad enough out of context and not the same thing. I checked her recent tweets for like 20 seconds, and looking over tweets literally posted or RT’ed over the last few hours (of this post date) she doesn’t seem to be the raving alt-righter she was painted as. But i’m not exactly checking real hard.

It’s the same kind of logic of that Ruth Bader Ginsburg quote “”[W]hen I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the supreme court]? And I say ‘When there are nine.'" It’s becoming more acceptable to say we’re not looking for “balance” but to put the hammer on the scales to correct for the imbalances of the past, and people defend this asymmetric standard out of their own understanding of historic or cultural justice. Maybe the mistake is not recognizing it as an asymmetric standard, tbh.

But the NYT also can’t give in to tweet trolling. Since everything you’ve ever said ever online is going to be saved, we’re going to have to get to a place where not every statement preserved in crystal forever is hanging over your head Damocles style for the rest of your life.

Yes, sure, but the why question remains unanswered.

Why? Because people perceive the written word differently. How deep do you (general you) have to go? What answer would satisfy you (you specifically)?

I’d like to hear a thoughtful answer, I guess. A movie is different isn’t a thoughtful answer, because we see parody in every medium. In the absence of that, I’m left with people see what they want to see. That may be true, but it’s unsatisfying.

Is unsatisfying a good reason to go round and round? I mean, I guess I can see it. You may, sincerely, wish a better answer. Or do you just want to argue?

By responding to me, or to Tom about my example, are you hoping that I’ll stop arguing, or do you just want to argue?

I can’t speak for Scott, and I’m not necessarily asking that anyone explain it to me, but it does seem weird that people hold Twitter or stand-up comedy to a different standard than movies or books. I’m pretty sure it’s because movies and books are self-contained, so they provide their own context. Tweets and a five-minute sets don’t. They’re easier fodder for manufacturing outrage.

-Tom

Hell no.

I don’t actually use Twitter enough to speak on that. I think I’ll leave this discussion now.

Or maybe, just maybe, we’re going to have to get to a place where people understand that it’s not a good idea to post every single hot take, snarky comment, or brain fart that passes through their head in the first place.

Well, for the record, I think you spoke on it just fine. For you, Twitter is a place where people share information, and that makes sense for why someone might be uncomfortable with racists Tweets that were intended as satire.

Also, how did you get Margaret Cho to follow you? My only claim to fame is that I got Shohreh Agdashloo (who?) to “like” one of my Tweets.

-Tom