Sarah Jeong racism allegations

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
Renée Bagslint
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Renée Bagslint » Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:04 pm

Proabivouac wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 3:32 pm
So, bearing in mind that I am not attorney litigating against BBC, you expect me to produce a research paper with at least five examples of miscaptioned photographs to support a single post which summarized my anecdotal experiences reading BBC news over the years, and if I do not produce this for you I am a "liar." I did search my gmail for a conversation I had about this with a colleague but after some half an hour have not yet been successful in finding it, maybe it predated my gmail account – it was about a small California town which had been picked up from a wire and illustrated with a stock photograph of a different California location, which I recognized since I am from California and had been there. Beyond this, I am not prepared to embark upon the full scale research project and indictment that you demand, not the least because no one is paying me to do so, and even I did this would be no guarantee that you would shut up. As the WMF correctly discerned, your goal is to cost people money by wasting their time.
You made these assertions, and so it's up to you to support them. If you find the task of providing evidence to support your public utterances too onerous then I suggest that you do not make them. Don't start whinging about about awful it is that you're being expected to support the statements you make. If you made those assertions knowing that you were unable to support them, then you being dishonest. The pathetic best you can do is to come up with one example where you think you remember that a website illustrated a story about a town with an incorrect picture, but can't remember, or find your notes, or refuse to say, or whatever, when and where. So in other words your case that the BBC does these things as a continuing practice is that we should just believe you that they did it once because you can't be bothered to do the research to support what was obviously at best a wild generalisation and at worst a plain lie.
Meanwhile, a very simple question that you could answer with no new research at all you continue to evade: You claimed to be a retired academic scholar who had published dozens of papers and served as a trustee for various scholarly journals, later amended to learned societies which publish said journals. Far from asking you to substantiate this claim, I asked only what your field was. You responded in classic Essjay style, stating that you won't answer because it might help others track you down and kill you. You still have not answered, most likely because, as with this "Renée" crap, it's just part of your latest online persona.
"Evade" -- no. I'm refusing to answer. There's a difference. The business about killing is just something you made up, not something I said -- not the first time you've played that little trick.
You began dogging me across threads when I posted in the social justice warrior thread that socioeconomic justice is completely different from the sexuality and gender issues which drive liberal activists. I believe that your real motivations are to be found in the latter. Certainly that's the post which lit your flame. You said to yourself, "he is socially conservative, I must troll him!" So you picked an arbitrary fight over a single comment about BBC, the central claim of which isn't even in dispute. And you made up shit about your background in the service of this arbitrary argument. That is the simplest explanation.
No, when you claimed to be a communist: that is to align yurself with one of the two totalitarian movements which brought catastrophe, death and evil to millions of people across the world. You then proceeded to support your position intellectually by a view of history which is so simplistic as to be laughable and wrong in almost all the caes where it can be examined. Be socially conservative if you wish, I don't care. But you align yourself with mass murderers on the basis of intellectual garbage, and you make up stuff about organisation you don't like and you then complain about being challenged on it. Well, if you don't want to be challenged, don't write rubbish.

Proabivouac
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Proabivouac » Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:01 pm

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:04 pm
If you made those assertions knowing that you were unable to support them, then you being dishonest.
That is nonsense. Honesty does not mandate that one maintain a library of links to everything one reads and sees in order to make a casual observation about it. I don't even dislike BBC, but simply pointed out that the frequent lack of attribution is problematic in the context of "reliable sources." Are you a mailroom clerk in a BBC office or something? One might think I'd besmirched your fair lady's honor.
Renée Bagslint wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:04 pm
The business about killing is just something you made up, not something I said -- not the first time you've played that little trick.
Give me a fucking break. Any reasonable person reading what I'd written would understand from context what was meant: your Essjay-like hand waving about possibly being identified was just that.

You claimed to be a retired academic scholar who had written dozens of papers and served as a trustee of learned societies. I didn't believe you then, and I believe you even less now.

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Renée Bagslint » Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:29 pm

Proabivouac wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:01 pm
It is not "dishonest" to maintain a library of links to everything one reads and sees in order to make a casual observation about it.
I didn't say that, so it isn't particularly relevant. I said that it is dishonest to make assertions that you know you are unable to substantiate: that is what you did, and that is what was dishonest.

Proabivouac
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Proabivouac » Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:43 pm

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:29 pm
Proabivouac wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:01 pm
It is not "dishonest" to maintain a library of links to everything one reads and sees in order to make a casual observation about it.
I didn't say that, so it isn't particularly relevant. I said that it is dishonest to make assertions that you know you are unable to substantiate: that is what you did, and that is what was dishonest.
Having read BBC news' website since around the time of its creation, I've no doubt it would be possible to substantitate in great detail. I am not willing to put in that work to placate an internet troll.

An internet troll who won't even say in what field he claims to have been a scholar in.

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Renée Bagslint » Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:45 pm

Proabivouac wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:43 pm
Having read BBC news' website since around the time of its creation, I've no doubt it would be possible to substantitate in great detail. I am not willing to put in that work [...]
Of course ... what's the phrase I'm looking for here ... ah yes! I didn't believe you then, and I believe you even less now.

Proabivouac
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Proabivouac » Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:49 pm

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:45 pm
Proabivouac wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:43 pm
Having read BBC news' website since around the time of its creation, I've no doubt it would be possible to substantitate in great detail. I am not willing to put in that work [...]
Of course ... what's the phrase I'm looking for here ... ah yes! I didn't believe you then, and I believe you even less now.
You left out "…to placate an internet troll."

https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/2017/0 ... rolls-wmf/

User avatar
The Joy
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:08 am

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by The Joy » Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:53 am

Mod Note: Please calm down everyone. Take a break.
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Really, what we want now, is not laws against crime, but a law against insanity. That is where the true evil lies." -Mark Twain

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Auggie » Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:28 pm

I missed whatever started this but yes let's chill out.

Cool Essjay reference though. That takes us back.

Proabivouac
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Proabivouac » Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:10 pm

Auggie wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:28 pm
I missed whatever started this but yes let's chill out.

Cool Essjay reference though. That takes us back.
He's been hopping from thread to thread to post long-winded screeds about how ignorant and dishonest I am. In support of this narrative, he claimed to be a retired academic scholar who had written dozens of papers and served as a trustee of several academic journals, later amended to learned societies which publish said journals. I asked him in what field, and he refused to answer, saying that it would help identify him. Hence the Essjay references.

Essjay's description of his academic accomplishments didn't help to identify him at all. It wasted loads of Daniel Brandt's time combing through faculty lists for someone who did not exist. He identified himself when he had to as part of accepting a job with Wikia.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Auggie » Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:24 pm

Well we know you're not ignorant or dishonest.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests