Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2018 13:17:13 GMT
Are you trying to make me start off my day angry? I'm trying to remember the timeline. What day did PW2 express his skepticism? I think it was minutes after the story was posted. The good reason to believe Jackie was lying was the same reason to believe that Santa Claus was lying. In broad terms, the story didn't ring true. I could go through it line by line and explain why, as PW2 did. PW2, of course, was correct.
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Aug 8, 2018 13:32:27 GMT
She called/compared Trump to Hitler a bunch of times too.
Now, a lot of people have done that, but I'm not sure the NYT's editorial board should want to employ someone who's done so.
Really, she just seems to be immature, and not a deep thinker.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Boom 70 on Aug 8, 2018 13:39:52 GMT
She called/compared Trump to Hitler a bunch of times too. Now, a lot of people have done that, but I'm not sure the NYT's editorial board should want to employ someone who's done so. Really, she just seems to be immature, and not a deep thinker. Ricky Bobby was not a thinker either
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2018 13:40:04 GMT
Really, she just seems to be immature, and not a deep thinker. I wonder what her SJ.com handle is.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Boom 70 on Aug 8, 2018 13:44:09 GMT
Really, she just seems to be immature, and not a deep thinker. I wonder what her SJ.com handle is. I wonder what well known SJ poster who worked at the Times would have had to say about her.
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Aug 8, 2018 13:49:37 GMT
Really, she just seems to be immature, and not a deep thinker. I wonder what her SJ.com handle is. shottie?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2018 13:50:39 GMT
I wonder what her SJ.com handle is. shottie? Oddly her personal best seems to match Gee.
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Aug 8, 2018 13:52:51 GMT
I wonder what her SJ.com handle is. I wonder what well known SJ poster who worked at the Times would have had to say about her. Who worked at the Times?
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Aug 8, 2018 13:59:05 GMT
Oddly her personal best seems to match Gee. She graduated from Berkeley and Harvard Law, but appears to operate on a purely emotional level. I'd like to see some links to articles that she wrote that people think were good. Do these exist? She's a "tech" and internet writer, but doesn't have a background in tech. So, what's she write about? Personalities? Discrimination? I don't really get it, and am not sure what value she adds to the Time's editorial board. It looks like she got the seat originally intended for Quinn Norton, but I'm still not sure why this seat exists.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Boom 70 on Aug 8, 2018 14:04:34 GMT
Oddly her personal best seems to match Gee. To bad she's not a slo eyed sabra woman. It would then be a perfect match
|
|
|
Post by Dr Boom 70 on Aug 8, 2018 14:06:13 GMT
Oddly her personal best seems to match Gee. She graduated from Berkeley and Harvard Law, but appears to operate on a purely emotional level. I'd like to see some links to articles that she wrote that people think were good. Do these exist? She's a "tech" and internet writer, but doesn't have a background in tech. So, what's she write about? Personalities? Discrimination? I don't really get it, and am not sure what value she adds to the Time's editorial board. It looks like she got the seat originally intended for Quinn Norton, but I'm still not sure why this seat exists. It's the Times trying to become relevant with millenials with one swing of the bat
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2018 14:28:15 GMT
Nice discussion of humor in the Slate column that reminds me of some of the discussions we've had about humor at the mothership over the years, particularly trying to explain our own humor to achingly earnest liberals like TF:
For the same reason, it’s not very convincing to point out that defensive inversions of bigotry are often meant to be humorous. While humor was clearly the intent of some—though certainly not all—of Jeong’s tweets, this line of argument conveniently elides what is supposed to make these jokes funny in the first place. If Jeong had tweeted that she gets a lot of joy out of being cruel to little babies, the comedy would have turned on the implicit absurdity, since we presume that nobody has a reason to wish them ill. But as everybody understands, that emphatically was not the nature of the jokes she did make: the reason why it was supposed to be funny when she tweeted that she gets a lot of joy out of being cruel to old white men is that her implied audience does in fact think that they kinda have it coming. So, yes, many of Jeong’s worst tweets were supposed to be funny, but what was supposed to make them funny was the fantasy of inflicting indiscriminate cruelty on a whole group of people—something to which, as liberals and leftists, we have good reason to object.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2018 16:07:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dr Boom 70 on Aug 8, 2018 17:26:59 GMT
Liberals did enjoy the michele wolf takedown of Sarah Sanders. Imagine if similar line of humor was directed at Michele Obama
|
|
|
Post by lcjjdnh on Aug 10, 2018 11:46:25 GMT
Oddly her personal best seems to match Gee. She graduated from Berkeley and Harvard Law, but appears to operate on a purely emotional level. I'd like to see some links to articles that she wrote that people think were good. Do these exist? She's a "tech" and internet writer, but doesn't have a background in tech. So, what's she write about? Personalities? Discrimination? I don't really get it, and am not sure what value she adds to the Time's editorial board. It looks like she got the seat originally intended for Quinn Norton, but I'm still not sure why this seat exists. Bret Stephens recommended a few of her articles in his column this week— www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/opinion/sarah-jeong-tweets-opinion-section.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion-columnists
|
|