So just to clarify, as you may know I just recently dove into these waters, so if there was a thread about Sarah Yeong I wasn't around to see it.
The story itself has only been out a couple weeks, unlike the dates of her tweets.
Here is a small sample of what we're talking about in case anyone "missed it". wink wink
"Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins," she said in December 2014.
The South Korea-born journalist, who was raised in the US, also used the hashtag "#CancelWhitePeople" and complained about "white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants".
The Times this year fired a new writer after old tweets that caused offense emerged.
Quinn Norton was let go only hours after the newspaper announced her hire in February.
Ms Norton had retweeted a slur about African-Americans, had posted homophobic remarks and said she had befriended neo-Nazis.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534
It's bad enough that this "journalist" (Yeong) would post her hate speech for all the world to see on social media.
It's also equally bad that Quinn Norton would re-tweet the slurs above about African-Americans for all to see.
The difference is the ever growing double-standard journalism.
One employee retweets racially offensive material against African Americans and is rightfully fired from NYT, promptly within a few hours.
Another NYT applicant tweets racially offensive material against white people, and rather than denouncing it, the Old Grey Lady hires her to their editorial board!
See the difference?
Make no mistake, the real issue isn't the mean tweets.
It's all about the Times' willingness to endorse one and fire the other.
Many would argue Yeong's body of work far surpasses the retweet by Quinn, but I'd like to know if any of the masterfloyd followers are willing to denounce Yeong's work?
Where's the outcry?
The story itself has only been out a couple weeks, unlike the dates of her tweets.
Here is a small sample of what we're talking about in case anyone "missed it". wink wink
"Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins," she said in December 2014.
The South Korea-born journalist, who was raised in the US, also used the hashtag "#CancelWhitePeople" and complained about "white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants".
The Times this year fired a new writer after old tweets that caused offense emerged.
Quinn Norton was let go only hours after the newspaper announced her hire in February.
Ms Norton had retweeted a slur about African-Americans, had posted homophobic remarks and said she had befriended neo-Nazis.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534
It's bad enough that this "journalist" (Yeong) would post her hate speech for all the world to see on social media.
It's also equally bad that Quinn Norton would re-tweet the slurs above about African-Americans for all to see.
The difference is the ever growing double-standard journalism.
One employee retweets racially offensive material against African Americans and is rightfully fired from NYT, promptly within a few hours.
Another NYT applicant tweets racially offensive material against white people, and rather than denouncing it, the Old Grey Lady hires her to their editorial board!
See the difference?
Make no mistake, the real issue isn't the mean tweets.
It's all about the Times' willingness to endorse one and fire the other.
Many would argue Yeong's body of work far surpasses the retweet by Quinn, but I'd like to know if any of the masterfloyd followers are willing to denounce Yeong's work?
Where's the outcry?
Last edited:
