Six things that the New York Times probably didn’t think about when hiring and defending Sarah Jeong
I haven’t been able to find any indication of what Sarah Jeong’s middle name is, or even if she has one. But it is clear that as far as the New York Times is concerned, it ought to be Pandora. As Clarice Feldman pointed out, the best thing about her is that the New York Times now is stuck with her after so vigorously defending its hiring of her. Here are six factors that are going to cause a lot of pain and embarrassment for the Times and its allies.
1. Jeong has a history of trashing the New York Times:
After a bad day, some people come home and kick the furniture. I get on the internet and make fun of the New York Times.— sarah jeong (@sarahjeong) November 25, 2013
Attention: Legal Department
You know what IS good? That someone is FINALLY suing the New York Times for libel— sarah jeong (@sarahjeong) May 12, 2017
2. Collegiality with her white colleagues will be awkward, and their critics now have great ammunition:
I feel really bad for the 95% of the New York Times that already seethes with resentment over their horrible columnists— sarah jeong (@sarahjeong) April 30, 2017
Guys, what drugs do you think Paul Krugman does— sarah jeong (@sarahjeong) January 3, 2014
David Brooks wrote a very bad column and the world is again in balance— sarah jeong (@sarahjeong) May 23, 2017
@LJElkins @j_zimms Yeah and I don't think people should publish Thomas Friedman or Nick Kristof or David Brooks. Columns: meh.— sarah jeong (@sarahjeong) October 24, 2013
3. The excuse that she was responding to trolls excuse has created a need to find evangelical Christians, cops, (and New York Times reporters) trolling her. Robert Stacy McCain collects examples of viciousness directed at people that it might be very difficult to find trolling from:
While her new employers have apparently accepted Ms. Jeong’s disingenuous excuse that she was “engaged in what I thought of at the time as counter-trolling… intended as satire,” this cannot explain away her demonstrable habit of deliberately insulting entire groups of people. It is not true, as she claimed, that she merely “mimicked the language of my harassers.”
Consider, for example, Ms. Jeong’s oft-expressed contempt for Christians, including her own parents. She “grew up in a conservative evangelical Christian bubble,” but “became an annoying atheist” as a teenager, when she was “trapped in a fundamentalist Christian school.” After attending the University of California-Berkeley and graduating from Harvard Law, Ms. Jeong pronounced herself a member of the “educated left wing elite.” She says she has now “mostly cut myself off from the conservative evangelical community,”and condemns Christians who “indoctrinate children” with “reality-denying belief systems.” Ms. Jeong’s spiteful denunciation of her parents’ faith was not “counter-trolling,” nor was it “intended as satire.” These anti-Christian remarks appear to express her sincere beliefs, no different from her many similar expressions of contempt for other groups.
Police? “Cops f—king suck” and “they’re f—king horrible,” according to this Harvard Law alumna, who hates the men and women whose job it is to enforce the law. She responded to the 2014 race riot in Ferguson, Missouri, by aiming obscenities at the police and declaring “America is f—king racist.” This rhetoric was not a response to harassment, nor was Ms. Jeong “mimicking” anyone as “satire.” Her anti-police sentiments, like her anti-Christian sentiments, are evidently sincere. These opinions are endorsed by her new employers, who share the same “educated left wing elite” worldview. It’s doubtful the New York Times would hire anyone who wasn’t a cop-hating atheist.
Ms. Jeong has routinely expressed her total contempt for males. In August 2014, she tweeted, “Men are too f–king emotional to be let out in public. Jesus Christ,” and followed that with, “Yo. Men. Just get off Twitter. Every man. All of you. You can’t handle this sh—.” She has repeatedly said “all men are garbage.” In July 2014, she tweeted a question: “hey what’s worse, a man who calls himself a feminist, or a man who refuses to call himself a feminist”? To which she answered: “it’s a trick question all men are equally garbage in my eyes.” She has declared “men are innately, unintentionally garbage” (Feb. 24, 2015) and “men are fountains of meaningless garbage and they see every woman as an open landfill for their thoughts” (April 22, 2015).
4. Democrat politicians can be asked if they agree with her.
CBD at Ace of Spades HQ
How about we start asking some Democrat politicians if they agree with the Washington Post and New York Times that there cannot be such a thing as anti-white racism nor anti-white hate crimes? Would love to get them on the record.
5. The Times has just created evidence of a hostile work environment. One more thing for the Legal Department to consider. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit:
I dunno, the next white guy laid off will have a pretty good “hostile environment” claim….
Given the emphasis at the New York Times to “diversify” its workforce (which means decreasing the number of white males employed there), there will likely be a “disproportionate impact” on white males of any downsizing. Their attorneys now have great ammo.
6. Best of all: The Times has just handed a new, certain-to-elicit-gales-of-laughter bludgeon to the POTUS it loves to hate: Trump reading her tweets at his next rally. Tom Maguire writes:
The Times hired her, they endorsed her, and they should own her. And when Trump reads some of her tweets at his next rally ('Dumbass f***ing white people' and 'groveling goblins' are sure to get mentioned), the Times can explain that they are not enemies of the people.