2 ms·
I think context is quite important. Andrew Sullivan is notorious for believing in some version of The Bell Curve theory — that differences in academic achievem
by muglug 6y ago
I think context is quite important.
Andrew Sullivan is notorious for believing in some version of The Bell Curve theory — that differences in academic achievement can be at least partly explained by measurable differences in average intelligence between different races. He promoted that view in his role as editor of a major news magazine in the early 90s.
That sets him apart from Quinn Norton, who nevertheless used some racial slurs on early internet message boards. I think her article discussing her friendship with a neo-Nazi was more damaging, though. FWIW I think The Times overreacted there.
Sarah Jeong made some bad taste jokes at white people’s expense while being harassed by actual racist trolls. Only the truly cynical would call those tweets racist, when viewed in context.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Rebelgecko 6y agoI think it's also interesting that (at least in part) Norton's firing was due to using a slur that refers to a group for which she belongs. Imagine if there was a similar cancellation when Barack Obama used the n word on Marc Maron's podcast. She was also pretty upfront about the moral conflict of befriending a person like weev who she considered despicable. I dont think Sarah Jeong actually wants to follow through with her violent racist tweets, but I also don't think that Norton actually hates LGBT people or non-whites. It seems like a double standard to me. wrt Sullivan, the NYT was still happy to publish Professor David Reich's op-ed in 2018 which cautiously espoused the same controversial ideas. Even HN's beloved Scott Alexander wrote a Slatestarcodex article about how some aspects of intelligence might be inheritable.