4 ms·

1. Subjective standards should be decided based upon the current fashionable politics. 2. The age of majority in the US is 18, she was 17. If you aren't going

1. Subjective standards should be decided based upon the current fashionable politics. 2. The age of majority in the US is 18, she was 17. If you aren't going to try a 17 year old robber as an adult then why would you try a minor in the court of public opinion as an adult. Oh yeah and basic math doesn't matter if it harms your narrative. 3. Im glad we agree. 4. The principle of forgiveness which you jump over in 5. So yeah kids willful ignorance is cool now. 5. The 'entire' staff did nothing in this case. A minority of the staff voiced a concern. The number mentioned in the article was 20. So its ok to make exaggerations to fit your narrative kids and those that scream the loudest are right. As for experience, she has experience in journalism and Anna Wintour who has plenty experience in fashion thought she was a great fit. So remember kids experience and expertise don't matter only political correctiness. 6. Remember kids only your first offense matters. Apologies nor actions demonstrating maturity, growth, or tolerance don't. Once a sinner always an unclean sinner.

gamblor956 6y ago
1. You're right. She wasn't sincere in her apology, as demonstrated by her cavalier attitude toward these concerns when the staff first brought it up when she was first hired. 2. She was 18 when she made half of those tweets, including all of the homophobic tweets. As she was in line to be in charge of a fashion magazine with a large gay readership, that alone would have led to her termination. 3. We don't agree. I don't even understand the context. 4. No, you're clearly not defending the principle of forgiveness. You've unilaterally decreed that Asians must forgive her because non-Asians do. 5. Well, if you want to be technical about it, a minority (20) of the total work force (including interns and contractors, 45 people) voiced a concern (but that minority was a majority of employees). Moreover, her "experience" in journalism consisted of three years of reporting, during which time she thought it was a good idea to began a relationship with someone she covered. Contrast to the staff at the magazine she would have led, where nearly all of the staff had multiples of her experience in the relevant field and were all objectively and subjectively better qualified to lead the magazine. Even before her racist and homophobic past became an issue again. 6. Multiple offenses. Spread over time. Racist and homophobic. And, based on the other scandal she was involved in within the past 4 months (i.e., related to her relationship with a White House staffer which led to her reassignment and his termination), it's clear that she hasn't demonstrated maturity or growth, and was entirely unsuitable for the lead editor position at Teen Vogue in the first place.

gamblor956 6y ago

1. You're right. She wasn't sincere in her apology, as demonstrated by her cavalier attitude toward these concerns when the staff first brought it up when she was first hired. 2. She was 18 when she made half of those tweets, including all of the homophobic tweets. As she was in line to be in charge of a fashion magazine with a large gay readership, that alone would have led to her termination. 3. We don't agree. I don't even understand the context. 4. No, you're clearly not defending the principle of forgiveness. You've unilaterally decreed that Asians must forgive her because non-Asians do. 5. Well, if you want to be technical about it, a minority (20) of the total work force (including interns and contractors, 45 people) voiced a concern (but that minority was a majority of employees). Moreover, her "experience" in journalism consisted of three years of reporting, during which time she thought it was a good idea to began a relationship with someone she covered. Contrast to the staff at the magazine she would have led, where nearly all of the staff had multiples of her experience in the relevant field and were all objectively and subjectively better qualified to lead the magazine. Even before her racist and homophobic past became an issue again. 6. Multiple offenses. Spread over time. Racist and homophobic. And, based on the other scandal she was involved in within the past 4 months (i.e., related to her relationship with a White House staffer which led to her reassignment and his termination), it's clear that she hasn't demonstrated maturity or growth, and was entirely unsuitable for the lead editor position at Teen Vogue in the first place.