Tucker Carlson: New York Times Defense of ‘Angry Bigot’ Sarah Jeong ‘so Ugly and Awful’

Tucker Carlson: New York Times Defense of ‘Angry Bigot’ Sarah Jeong ‘so Ugly and Awful’

Trent Baker 3 Aug 2018 Breitbart News.

Wednesday on his Fox News Channel show, Tucker Carlson weighed in on The New York Times’ defense of racist tweets from its newest editorial hire, Sarah Jeong, calling it “so ugly and awful.”

"Judging by what she wrote on Twitter, Sarah Jeong is an angry bigot and not in a subtle way,” . . .


Some examples of her racist Tweets are here.


But don’t go to that link to see (some of) her racist Tweets if your sensibilities are easily offended.

They are so bad, I am not going to repeat them explicitly on this thread.

When I read those Tweets above, even I was surprised the New York Times would hire her.

Dinseh D’Souza was NOT surprised though.

. . . . D’Souza commented on the New York Times‘ recent hiring of Sarah Jeong: “The notion that the New York Times would hire a bigoted editorial writer is only surprising if you think that progressivism and the Democratic Party are somehow anti-racist. If you thought they were anti-racist, then this becomes an anomaly. On the other hand, if you actually know the history of progressivism and the Democratic Party, you realize that bigotry has actually been its unifying glue.”

D’Souza added, “I’m not surprised the New York Times hired a bigot. What’s interesting about the Democratic Party is merely that the targets of its bigotry shift, but the bigotry remains constant.” . . .


I am sure if she had tweeted those same
phrases, replacing white with Hispanic, African American or even Asian, she never would have been considered for a job.


These are the registered Democrats of 2018 pushing identity politics which has pulled down every empire it’s ever got its grips on (this was claimed as up and coming on this forum a year or two ago and the poster was called crazy, yet here it is occurring before our very eyes); are we supposed to be surprised? What surprises me is how anyone claiming to be Catholic could possibly be on their side along with every other and the even worse far-left degenerate.


We’ll see what happens but I don’t think her defense of her actions (I was being ironic?) will stand up to the pressure to fire her.

Here is what she said, applied to another race. How can anyone defend this? Oh wait, Vox, and other progressive publications do. Surely no one here will defend her? Sticky this topic the next time someone expresses outrage over character issues but is silent here.


“…it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old black men.”

“***** ***** black people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs peeing on fire hydrants.”


“Black people have stopped breeding. You’ll all go extinct soon. My plan all along.”


Yeah it seems to be ok to insulted certain groups. Catholics should already be aware of this. “Radical islamic terrorist” is hate speech in some circles, but in those same circles all of the most wretched anticatholic and antichristian speech is considered acceptable. It’s just how it is.

Also is it weird if having thought about it I do smell like dog when I get my hair wet?

Wow, the double standards used to be pretty bad, but this is utterly insane!

In her Tweets, if you remove the term “white peoples”, and insert “Jews”, you have the same mindset at 1930’s Germany.
That is why identity politics is racist. That is why intersectionality is bigotry. That is why it is every bit as evil as white supremacy.
And it is dangerous.

I do not think she should be fired, however. Aside from free speech rights, her being there reveals what the NYT is all about.


Did anyone bother the read the whole article? The tweets in question all occurred in a narrow period of time in 2014. And according to Sarah Jeong herself, they were supposed to be taken as satire, in response to racist tweets she herself received. She admits that the attempt at satire was a mistake, since so many people misinterpreted it. There is no indication that these tweets display any actual belief on her part. Read the whole article and see if you agree. There is no way such stupid tweets could be taken as a serious attempt at racial denigration. It is too over the top.


If a white pundit who speeed this type of bile against black was hired at Fox New, do you think for a moment that the leftist MSM would, for a nanosecond, accept the excuse that it was just stupid satire?
Clearly not, and neither would I.


No offense but I don’t really care if something is satire. People who act like racist trash have no place at respected publications.

Besides, that’s a nonsense defense anyway. We could wave away anything by claiming it with satire or that we were being attacked and harassed online. For most of us it’s not even in our DNA to speak that way even satirically. Obviously it comes very easy to a racist like her and sadly she should be fired. But she won’t because she’s not a white dude.

Anyone being honest with themselves knows if her race or gender were different she’d be long gone. This is affirmative action for bigots and racists. Very progressive indeed.


Some of her tweets don’t make too much sense. For example, she says that white people smell bad when it rains. I think that people of any race will smell bad if they don’t bathe.

Probably because no reasonable person would see it as satire, which it clearly was in this case.


She admitted it was a mistake. But it would be a mistake in our part to think that she really did make those tweets in seriousness. What confirmation can you find of that she really believes those words in any other writing of hers?


It’s the Times, they will stand by her


racial jokes aren’t meant to be serious as well, are they?


Another indicator that these statements might be racist comes from replacing the word “white” with any other racial group. #cancelblackpeople probably wouldn’t fly at the New York Times, would it? Or imagine someone tweeting that Jews were only “fit to live underground like groveling goblins” or that she enjoyed “being cruel to old Latina women,” and then being welcomed and celebrated by a liberal newsroom. Not exactly in the cards.

But the alternative view — that of today’s political left — is that Jeong definitionally cannot be racist, because she’s both a woman and a racial minority. Racism against whites, in this neo-Marxist view, just “isn’t a thing” — just as misandry literally cannot exist at all. And this is because, in this paradigm, racism has nothing to do with a person’s willingness to pre-judge people by the color of their skin, or to make broad, ugly generalizations about whole groups of people, based on hoary stereotypes. Rather, racism is entirely institutional and systemic, a function of power, and therefore it can only be expressed by the powerful — i.e., primarily white, straight men. For a nonwhite female, like Sarah Jeong, it is simply impossible. In the religion of social constructionism, Jeong, by virtue of being an Asian woman, is one of the elect, incapable of the sin of racism or group prejudice. All she is doing is resisting whiteness and maleness, which indeed require resistance every second of the day.


Not true.

Much more recent than that.

Sure, you can interpret them as racist if you do things that strip away the context, which in this case is that it was satire of other tweets.

Assuming what your opponent’s argument is does make it easier for you to argue against them. In fact, I am quite willing to believe that a woman and a racial minority can be racist. I am quite willing to believe that Jeong herself is a racist - if someone would just present some evidence besides these few tweets from 2014.

She has been writing for a long time. It should not be hard to confirm your suspicions.

1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.