Jeong's racist tweets include, but in no way are limited to, the following gems:
"Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins"
“Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get from being cruel to old white men”
"Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants"
“fuck white women lol”
"... cops are a**holes"
"Ice bucket challenge remix: throw ice bucket not on yourself but the nearest cop"
"If we're talking big sweeping bans on shit that kills people, why don't we ever ever ever ever talk about banning the police?"
"I am honestly MISERABLE thinking about what to tell a target of violence. Cops suck, and cops get suckier the more marginalized you are"
She responded to the public shaming by saying that the tweets simply imitated the rhetoric of her "harassers," which she exemplified as people who used a bad word to refer to her Asian heritage. Yet, her tweets seem incredibly complex, original and craftily concocted with creative pride. Moreover, she had no response to the countless racist tweets which were completely unconnected to her defense that someone used a bad word to refer to Asians. And, none of the "out of context" racism could explain Jeong's BLM-reminiscen
Her current employer, The Verge, defended Jeong's racism, calling it "out of context," indicating that there is proper context for racist vitriol. So there is a proper context for "canceling" white people? Like when it benefits liberal agenda? I urge The Verge to explain.
As an aside, compare this vehement defense of "context" with the instances when Donald Trump accused the media of taking his statements out of context. In those instances, the media laughed at Trump and continued to intentionally and deliberately engage in out of context reporting. Context is a matter of convenience, after all, and media only seems to see the context in instances when readers demand accountability. Recall that Trump's MS-13 animal comment was reported to have been spoken of Hispanics in general and was only put into MS-13 context after days of backlash.
The Washington Post joined in and also defended Jeong, under the premise that it is okay to be racist against white people because some white people held racists beliefs for the past 400-500 years and Jeong's statements are "stoked by both legitimate emotions and political motivations."
The New York Times publicly supported their hire, mimicking her statement that the racism was justified by online harassment, but that they do not condone it.
Now, compare Jeong's extensive tweets against whites to the couple of statements made by Quinn Norton, who, just a few months earlier, was fired by the same New York Times that defended Jeong, for using the words “f*g” and “n*gger.” Both women claimed their statements were out of context. New York Times defended the Asian woman who put out a slew of hate messages against whites but fired the white woman who used words degrading to blacks and gay people. What precedent has the New York Times set?
But the New York Times doesn't seem to be the least bit concerned about racism against whites. After all, just days earlier, they tweeted, "New Hampshire is 94% white. It is now trying to figure out how to change that." In fact, most liberal media publications are not concerned with racism directed at whites. Four weeks ago, CNN published a racist article against whites in the Supreme Court, critiquing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh for being white. Moreover, The Verge described the public outrage at Jeong's anti-white vitriol as "malicious agenda."
This is a difficult pill to swallow. After all, the position of the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Verge, and others in the liberal media indicates that it's okay to be racist against white people, but it's not okay to be racist against any other race.
But the media's support of anti-white and anti-police rhetoric is nothing new.
Recall that in 2015, the liberal media was saturated with racism and hatred when the Daniel Holtzclaw rape trial was underway. They couldn't help but be giddy about the story that a "white cop" and his "white rape culture" were finally being tried for all of the ills that black women face in society. (Holtzclaw is actually half-Asian, but that tidbit was conveniently left out to ease the "evil white cop" narrative down our throats.) BLM would put out statements like, "Any conversation about this case in the press, or in public without intersectionality is a passive assault on black women’s lives." (WHAT!?!) But the media would eat it up and serve us seconds on fancy CNN and NBC platinum platters.
The liberal media didn't care that Officer Daniel Holtzclaw unrelentingly maintained his innocence and requested all possible scientific tests to be conducted in order to clear his name (his requests were denied). The media didn't care that he received an unfair trial. Media didn't care that the accusers changed their stories, lied, and had criminal records. Because in the eyes of liberal media, Holtzclaw was a white man, hence assailant by birth, and the women were black, hence victims by birth.
Liberal media has paraded countless articles on the issue of racism, and how white people are inherently racist and horrible, and how black people are inherently victims of white racism. It never registered with anyone in the liberal media that calling white people inherently racist and calling black people inherently victimized is actually 100% racist in-itself. And yet, it is; it is purely racist.
Liberal media has been and continues to be, wrong and inconsistent when it comes to racism.
For the concept of racism to be wrong, it must be wrong across the board. There cannot be conveniently justifiable racism when the victimized race is white - as that justification requires some racism to be right. For me, racism is racism: it is black and white. If a publication believes that racist statements against blacks are worthy of termination, then they should institute an equal policy for racist statements against whites. If a publication believes that a white woman has no right to defend her statements as out of context, then they should equally not give the right to an Asian woman defending on identical grounds.
But my analysis is completely objective and leaves no room for discriminatory application. Liberal publications don't believe in taking objective, indiscriminate stances because to do so would undermine the idea that minority-born individuals are inherent victims. In order to feed their liberal narrative that victimization is determined solely by minority race, the New York Times and others like them will continue to hold inequitable positions on race.
Maybe in 2045, when whites become an official minority in the United States, racism against whites will become a concern for liberal media.