These would be completely uncontroversial if they were written about European or white people: "Stupid white TA" "Like an old white woman" "Wake up with swollen white eyes" "Outdone by White #whatsnew"

(And these clearly were not sufficiently controversial about Asian people coming from her until literally yesterday and probably won't be sufficiently controversial after like next weekend).

Not to say this is unfair to her. "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword"

The difference is that the first two times, no one cared because most people don't care about racism against Asians in America. They only cared this time because 6 Asian women lost their lives this week in Atlanta. If that hadn't happened, she would probably still have her job after her token apology.

It's the concept of punching up vs. punching down. Except in some cases like, Saddam Hussein's minority Sunni dictatorship over mostly-Shia Iraq, historically majority populations do better than minority ones. So they have less to lose when offended.

I recommend watching the excellent BBC documentary World At War (1973) -- You can watch it on Daily Motion (c.f. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3p7c46). They had western reporters interview Nazi officials asking them to explain all the anti-jewish policies, and the answer is basically "We're punching up." They argued that jews were overrepresented and had too much power in German society; "we are merely righting the balance".

In fact, if you talk to any racist, they will give you plenty of reasons explaining why the group of people they hate deserve to be hated and that he is merely "righting the balance". Everyone believes they are acting in the name of ultimate justice and that the hated group is deserving of the abuse.

So I would recommend some self-reflection before making excuses for hate. None of these excuses are valid, they have all been tried before, and all these ideas such as "punching up" have been discredited since the 40s. Those sympathetic to Hitlerian race theory should not be sources of moral or ethical guidance.

But if you think a numerical majority is the sole basis for "punching up", then the Peninsulares must have been punching up against native born citizens in Gran Colombia. Or the Jacobins must have been punching up against the peasant-farmers in France. Or the urban Chinese Communists must have been punching up against farmers in the provinces. So of course, these criteria are picked when convenient and discarded otherwise.

That said, I never said I subscribe to the theory, I’m simply explaining it. Perhaps you should save your half-arguments for someone who’s espousing it.

And the weeping and gnashing of teeth has nothing to do with making remarks about a "particular minority group." If she were studying abroad in China and said the same things about a "particular majority group," I doubt it would save her back in the US.

Of course the point is moot because most Western social media is blocked in China anyway.

The tweets are in the third image in the Instagram post, transcribed here:

"Outdone by Asian #whatsnew"

"now googling how to not wake up with swollen, asian eyes..."

"give me a 2/10 on my chem problem, cross out all of my work and don't explain what I did wrong..thanks a lot stupid asian T.A. you're great."

Not sure if there's more, but that seems to be the main basis of the reaction.

1. Sincere apologies don't mean anything.

2. You will be judged by your actions as a child.

3. He who wins is the one who narcs the most on their peers.

4. It is better for you acquiesce to the will of an aggrieved mob than to stand for a principle.

5. Forgiveness is not as important as supporting the current moral panic.

6. Only the most pure and most aggrieved should lead.

1. don't forget to delete your tweets

2. if there's no proof it happened, deny

For example, during recent internal conflicts at the NYT (like the one that forced out Bari Weiss), it was the Style section where the staunchest supporters of one faction lived. It's obvious enough if you compare the Style section to other parts of the newspaper.

I believe there were some earlier squabbles at Teen Vogue as well.

The role of fashion publications is even reflected (knowingly, I assume) in phrases like "not a good look".

2. In 2011, she was an adult. Not a child.

4. I do not understand what "principle" you are defending here. The right to make racist tweets and ignore them?

5. Forgiveness is one thing. But why she lost the respect of nearly the entire staff of the magazine she was supposed to run. Also, she had literally no experience in fashion, and there are questions about the hiring process that led to her being hired over more qualified candidates with relevant experience.

6. Really, no. Just don't expect to be a boss if your history demonstrates you don't respect a large portion of your staff.

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.

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.