3 ms·

Sarah Jeong would the most obvious example of Twitter's bias. Candace Owens was suspended for just two tweets copied from Sarah Jeong. Sarah Jeong made hundred

Sarah Jeong would the most obvious example of Twitter's bias. Candace Owens was suspended for just two tweets copied from Sarah Jeong. Sarah Jeong made hundreds of such tweets without consequence...and the left defended her.

pvg 8y ago
Sarah Jeong is not a 'visible far-left figure'. Candace Owens was not suspended for tweets 'copied', she changed the tweets. This bizarre and tediously repeated idea that you can change the actual words of something and not change the meaning and degree of offensiveness doesn't meet the logical argument standard of most toddlers. It's worse than unconvincing, it just makes you sound like an idiot - I'd reconsider using it.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  No one is changing the meaning of anything. You're the one making personal attacks against someone who was just answering a question. Plenty of people would see the editorial board of the NYT as "visible" and Jeong is certainly far-left (unless it's a moderate opinion to blast white men publicly for years on end). You should try to stick to arguing the facts and leave the personal attack nonsense out of it. Calling other users "toddlers" doesn't help your argument.
  - pvg 8y ago
    If you change the words, you've changed the meaning. That seems like it should be uncontroversial and straightforward. If your argument is based on that not somehow being the case, I think we can safely say it's a dumb argument. This isn't a personal attack, and I haven't called anyone a toddler. Although if one then takes it as a personal attack, I'd be inclined to think that person is a bit of a snowflake. But I wouldn't say it because that would be namecalling. Sarah Jeong is not 'far left', nor is writing silly tweets about white men. That's neither a left, nor a right nor a swift uppercut to the jaw.
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      What words have been changed? > Sarah Jeong is not 'far left', nor is writing silly tweets about white men. It sure sounds like it's you changing the meaning of words. Is it a right wing trait to attack men and white people or is it left wing? That statement seems straightforward and uncontroversial.
      - pvg 8y ago
        Candace Owens changed 'white' to 'Jewish' and got suspended. So those words. As to Jeong's tweets, I don't think they're attacks on men or white people. If you think they are and find them rude and offensive, fair enough, that's a matter of taste. What is not a matter of taste and what I am claiming is an obviously poopy argument is insisting that replacing 'white people' with 'Jews' produces statements of equivalent offensiveness and appallingness. That is not the same ballpark, league or even sport [1]. [1] [1994 V. Vega, J. Winnifield]
        malvosenior 8y ago
        > That is not the same ballpark, league or even sport A lot of people will tell you that it actually is equivalent because attacking someone's gender or race is always bad. That seems to be the fundamental disagreement in both sides of this argument.
        pvg 8y ago
        Thirty Helens will tell you that the quality of an argument is not a function of the number of people repeating it and the quality of this one, even the way you just described it above is plainly miserable. Not all bad things are equivalent. Calling someone a butthead is rude, calling someone a racial slur is also rude but also much worse. If your argument was that you find her tweets offensive and rude I'd try to convince you you might be misinterpreting them but at the end of the day, it's your feelings and your reaction and it doesn't require any great feats of empathy on my end to acknowledge some might find this stuff bothersome or to nod along at the suggestion that casual generalizations are fraught and the habit of them is to be avoided and is probably just not a great thing to begin with, in almost all contexts. But that isn't the argument. The argument is that this is the same and deserves identical opprobrium as, say, anti-semitism. You know, anti-semitism, the prejudice with a long history of actual oppression that was also a fundamental tenet of an ideology that perpetrated the industrial extermination of millions of people for their ethnicity, that still exists, the effects of which still reverberate through our culture and society, etc. Compared to some people being miffed at some tweets. To call an argument drawing a parallel between these merely dumb and ignorant is bend-over-backwards polite and charitable.
- leereeves 8y ago
  Now you're changing words. The root post describes Sarah Jeong perfectly: > caustic tweeters on the other side of the isle can often be found with blue verification checkmarks (and unchecked aggressive tweets). She copied everything except the race/ethnicity the tweets were attacking. And the number of left-wing media outlets that rose to defend her makes me think it's fair to describe this as an issue of bias based on side of the political spectrum, as the root comment said: > What happens is one side of the political spectrum gets their worst actors banned while caustic tweeters on the other side of the isle can often be found with blue verification checkmarks (and unchecked aggressive tweets). In short, much of the left-wing defends anti-white racism and Twitter allows it.
  - pvg 8y ago
    I've got a zillion reply thread here explaining at length why this 'replacing just the race/ethnicity' is not remotely the rhetorical killshot you seem to think it is. You are just repeating it to me. I'm not sure what else to tell you at this point.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - leereeves 8y ago
      And I'm not sure how to communicate with someone who dismisses racism as 'silly tweets'. Our points of view simply do not intersect. But when you say this isn't a left-wing issue, I think you fail to consider the number of people in the left wing who've argued that "racism against white people is impossible" and the support for Sarah Jeong in the left wing media.

pvg 8y ago

Sarah Jeong is not a 'visible far-left figure'. Candace Owens was not suspended for tweets 'copied', she changed the tweets. This bizarre and tediously repeated idea that you can change the actual words of something and not change the meaning and degree of offensiveness doesn't meet the logical argument standard of most toddlers. It's worse than unconvincing, it just makes you sound like an idiot - I'd reconsider using it.

malvosenior 8y ago
No one is changing the meaning of anything. You're the one making personal attacks against someone who was just answering a question. Plenty of people would see the editorial board of the NYT as "visible" and Jeong is certainly far-left (unless it's a moderate opinion to blast white men publicly for years on end). You should try to stick to arguing the facts and leave the personal attack nonsense out of it. Calling other users "toddlers" doesn't help your argument.
- pvg 8y ago
  If you change the words, you've changed the meaning. That seems like it should be uncontroversial and straightforward. If your argument is based on that not somehow being the case, I think we can safely say it's a dumb argument. This isn't a personal attack, and I haven't called anyone a toddler. Although if one then takes it as a personal attack, I'd be inclined to think that person is a bit of a snowflake. But I wouldn't say it because that would be namecalling. Sarah Jeong is not 'far left', nor is writing silly tweets about white men. That's neither a left, nor a right nor a swift uppercut to the jaw.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    What words have been changed? > Sarah Jeong is not 'far left', nor is writing silly tweets about white men. It sure sounds like it's you changing the meaning of words. Is it a right wing trait to attack men and white people or is it left wing? That statement seems straightforward and uncontroversial.
    - pvg 8y ago
      Candace Owens changed 'white' to 'Jewish' and got suspended. So those words. As to Jeong's tweets, I don't think they're attacks on men or white people. If you think they are and find them rude and offensive, fair enough, that's a matter of taste. What is not a matter of taste and what I am claiming is an obviously poopy argument is insisting that replacing 'white people' with 'Jews' produces statements of equivalent offensiveness and appallingness. That is not the same ballpark, league or even sport [1]. [1] [1994 V. Vega, J. Winnifield]
      - malvosenior 8y ago
        > That is not the same ballpark, league or even sport A lot of people will tell you that it actually is equivalent because attacking someone's gender or race is always bad. That seems to be the fundamental disagreement in both sides of this argument.
        pvg 8y ago
        Thirty Helens will tell you that the quality of an argument is not a function of the number of people repeating it and the quality of this one, even the way you just described it above is plainly miserable. Not all bad things are equivalent. Calling someone a butthead is rude, calling someone a racial slur is also rude but also much worse. If your argument was that you find her tweets offensive and rude I'd try to convince you you might be misinterpreting them but at the end of the day, it's your feelings and your reaction and it doesn't require any great feats of empathy on my end to acknowledge some might find this stuff bothersome or to nod along at the suggestion that casual generalizations are fraught and the habit of them is to be avoided and is probably just not a great thing to begin with, in almost all contexts. But that isn't the argument. The argument is that this is the same and deserves identical opprobrium as, say, anti-semitism. You know, anti-semitism, the prejudice with a long history of actual oppression that was also a fundamental tenet of an ideology that perpetrated the industrial extermination of millions of people for their ethnicity, that still exists, the effects of which still reverberate through our culture and society, etc. Compared to some people being miffed at some tweets. To call an argument drawing a parallel between these merely dumb and ignorant is bend-over-backwards polite and charitable.
leereeves 8y ago
Now you're changing words. The root post describes Sarah Jeong perfectly: > caustic tweeters on the other side of the isle can often be found with blue verification checkmarks (and unchecked aggressive tweets). She copied everything except the race/ethnicity the tweets were attacking. And the number of left-wing media outlets that rose to defend her makes me think it's fair to describe this as an issue of bias based on side of the political spectrum, as the root comment said: > What happens is one side of the political spectrum gets their worst actors banned while caustic tweeters on the other side of the isle can often be found with blue verification checkmarks (and unchecked aggressive tweets). In short, much of the left-wing defends anti-white racism and Twitter allows it.
- pvg 8y ago
  I've got a zillion reply thread here explaining at length why this 'replacing just the race/ethnicity' is not remotely the rhetorical killshot you seem to think it is. You are just repeating it to me. I'm not sure what else to tell you at this point.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - leereeves 8y ago
    And I'm not sure how to communicate with someone who dismisses racism as 'silly tweets'. Our points of view simply do not intersect. But when you say this isn't a left-wing issue, I think you fail to consider the number of people in the left wing who've argued that "racism against white people is impossible" and the support for Sarah Jeong in the left wing media.