Bret Stephens of the NY Times welcomes Sarah Jeong aboard, sort of.
He explains that he does not favor judging people for their worst tweets and goes on:
Not surprisingly, some on the left pilloried me for that argument. So allow me to apply precisely the same logic in defense of my soon-to-be colleague at The Times, Korean-American technology writer Sarah Jeong, who is joining the editorial board with her own extensive history of unfortunate tweets.
Among these: “White men are bull—”; “#CancelWhitePeople”; “oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men” and “f— white women lol.” She has also bashed the police, called for censoringa fellow journalist, and believed the 2014 University of Virginia rape hoax, in the course of which she lashed out at “white men” and “white college boys.”
We should call many of these tweets for what they are: racist. I’ve seen some acrobatic efforts to explain why Jeong’s tweets should be treated as “quasi-satirical,” hyperbolical and a function of “social context.” But the criterion for racism is either objective or it’s meaningless: If liberals get to decide for themselves who is or isn’t a racist according to their political lights, conservatives will be within their rights to ignore them.
Hmm, with supporters like these who needs critics?
But the real shocker is the NY Times comments section. I clicked on the Readers Choices and copied the most up-voted comments as of roughly 10 PM Thursday. Here we go - pretty uniformly the Times readers who passed by this column are not happy with the Times positioning.
This is the Times so it is no great trick to find readers echoing the "It's not racism if its directed at whites" line of reasoning, but there are many fewer buyers of that logic.
So here's hoping - even though the NY Times editors won't stand up to them (or have become them!) the lunatic fringe is still the fringe.