You really need to read it to get the full impact, but essentially Naomi agreed to Vice running a story on the condition that they don't mention her relationship or sexuality topics - topics that are not only very touchy in China but also have no place in a technology/maker article.
Vice thought this agreement was worth the paper they didn't print it on. Things escalated from there, but I can't really summarise the following parts, dirty tactics from those in a position of power IMO.
Not to mention that a significant portion of the Vice article was based on rumours and scuttlebutt from 4chan and Reddit.
The article was very clearly a hit piece intended to portray Naomi as a fraud because as far as Vice, Motherboard or Koebler are concerned pretty women can’t be makers.
Vice breaks an agreement and puts a Chinese woman at risk for their story, then does everything they can to stifle her attempts to seek legal help, most notably starting with the original journalist, Jason Koebler, and aided and abetted by Sarah Jeong, who used blatantly underhanded tactics in order to undermine Naomi's credibility.
Koebler was not the original story author, but he was the editor who contacted Naomi to 'give her the opportunity to' respond to the messageboard accusations.
I love much of the stuff Vice creates and Sarah Jeong is a important voice I follow. But it seems both could not see past the appearance of Naomi Wu, could not understand her circumstances and putting her at risk to make a minor point in a story.
If you think that Jeong's tweets are equivalent to actual racism, you don't understand what racism is and how it affects people.
Racism is not just a matter of politeness. It is not arbitrary rules of decorum that you have to follow. It is not a semantic property of a sentence in isolation. Racism is a systemic problem that threatens people and limits their opportunities.
When Sarah Jeong snarks at Andrew Sullivan for being an old white man, old white men are not actually threatened.
Yes, this means you can switch races in a comment and it will change from racist to not racist, or not racist to racist, and that's because there's context, it's not just arbitrary rules about words.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I don't mean for this to be too uncharitable to your point of view, but I do find it fairly presumptuous to assume the poster you're responding to doesn't understand what racism is or how it affects people simply because they have a different view on exactly what kind of language, and in what context, can be considered racist.
Based on my direct experiences with racism and discrimination due to my skin tone and national origin, I'd find it fairly insulting for you or any other poster here to lecture me on what racism is and how it affects people. I like to think I have a pretty good understanding of it, and not just from academic studies, but from my own experiences. For the record the tweets I've read from Sarah Jeong seem wholly unacceptable to me, and quite racist.
Your argument buys into the core of identity politics, namely creating a hierarchy of oppressors and victims, where the supposed victims can do no wrong. I find this an incredibly patronising worldview.
Do you want it to be symmetric? Then it would not be the thing we know as racism.
Again, this isn't an abstract rule of a game, it does not get its validity from applying the same way to everyone. Racism in our society doesn't apply the same way to everyone, that's the whole point.
What if I'm old and white, but from eastern Europe, where I'm disadvantaged? What if I'm white trash, am I allowed to insult rich black basketball players? Is there some sort of guideline that tells me when it's ok to generalize and insult a race and when it's not? Sorry, this is getting convoluted.
If you think that Jeong's
tweets are equivalent to
actual racism, you don't
understand what racism is
and how it affects people.
If you think that Jeong's tweets are NOT equivalent to actual racism, you don't understand what racism is and how it affects people.
limits their opportunities.
Ask yourself: would Jeong have been accepted to Harvard and Berkeley if she was white, or male or as old as Sullivan? You know that the answer is negative.
Given that elite US universities like Harvard and Berkeley are known actively to discriminate against whites (and even more against asians in the context of technical subjects -- in other words asian men), males and old people, you your 'definition' of racism is in direct contradiction with the rest of you claims.
old white men are not
actually threatened.
Old white men are
actually threatened.
Different ethnic groups always fought each other (contemporary examples: shiites vs sunnis, jews vs palestinians, croats vs serbs, muslims vs US (Iraq, 9/11), buddhists vs muslims, hindus vs muslims ), but in the past US whites had numeric superiority over other races (and -- arguably -- other advantages like better education), which gave security, but with demographic changes, this security is withering away, which makes it more likely that the annihilatory phantasies ethnic groups have of each other (but usually don't express too publicly, or only obliquely ... have a look at Rastafarianism ...) will be acted out.
just arbitrary rules about words.
I recommend those rules as a heuristic: if by swapping <you own ethnic group> to <other ethnic group> you turn a statement S into a statement S' such that you feel S' is racist to <you own ethnic group>, then you should strongly assume that S will be perceived as racist against <other ethnic group>. Therefore it is prudent not make statement S.
That's a good rule to follow in life.
It's pretty clear that Jeong understands this. The reason she made these sexist, racist, and agist tweets are also very clear: being controversial on Twitter brings attention. Indeed nothing but extremes bring attention on social media. Sufficient attention on social media brings money. Jeong monetises sexism, racism and agism to get a cushy job at the NYT, because the NYT know very well -- like any journalist -- that racism brings outrage, brings clicks, brings money.
That’s a very weak argument. You are asking us to interpret hundreds of unambiguous tweets in a light that you prefer them interpreted in. But since there is little ambiguity in them, and I don’t know her, I’m taking them at face value.
'prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.'
It seems to me that there's an attempt to shift the definition of racism towards something different from above in order to facilitate the spread of consequence free hate speech.
I've seen a whole lot of tweets from Sarah Jeong throwing shit at white people. I've not seen any yet of white people throwing shit at her based on her race.
If there are tweets like that, I'd genuinely love to see them - I'd rather have my knowledge updated than continue being wrong.
By her tweets I saw two orientations, anti white, female superiority. You can research and find them, in the world of tech, if I see someone with a lot of bias I tend to doubt of his/her quality as a journalist.
Vice thought this agreement was worth the paper they didn't print it on. Things escalated from there, but I can't really summarise the following parts, dirty tactics from those in a position of power IMO.