Oh, I thought you made a reprehensible post on purpose to demonstrate how “I was just trolling” doesn’t excuse you from the fact how advocating for killing Jeong isn’t acceptable.

Oh, that's exactly the point I was making. Thanks for helping me prove it. Consequences should be administered when appropriate. 

The tweet I posted earlier is enough evidence. 

Also what about the dictionary definition makes it objective?  Do you have evidence that the dictionarydefinition is objective? 

I don't really care about the criticism. I was just pointing out that saying "Asian Culture " is not the correct term. He should have said "South Korean Culture "

From his post seems like he is giving what the article was about not that he doesn't know that all Asian isn't the same.

Seems more like someone said she didn't know much about Asian culture and she said that the reason is she being to SK only a week. You are making a false correlation on this.

Her tweet i posted earlier is enough proof.

Also what makes the dictionaries definition more objective then mine?

Then the article is in the wrong.

Not really.

If the article talking to her criticized her lack of knlowdge of asian Culture (this could mean all Asia, similar cultural traits to majority of countries, of specific area, etc) and she answers that is because she have only been to SK 1 week she is still being the one wrong and ignorant.

The sole tweet you provided was she saying she is joking. I guess criminals saying they didn't do it is all the evidence we need to have a not guilty on court as well right?

How is the tweet you posted considered to be enough evidence? Does the referenced tweet confirm that all (remember, for Jeong to not be racist, then absolutely zero of her tweets were racist) of her tweets from 2013 through 2016 were just jokes? How so?

I also did not say that the dictionary definitions are objective, so this is a strawman fallacy. The problem is that your definition of racism is subjective and it is based on other people's subjective definitions of racism. You just shoved two editorials in my face expecting me to not question it and then, asked me to prove something I did not claim when you haven't done your due diligence. Stop being intellectually lazy.

Anyways, I would rather use the Merriam-Webster and Oxford's definitions because (1) dictionaries actually take note of the words' historical usages, etymologies, and definitions, (2) their definitions are based on linguistic description, that is the linguists' observations of their own language usage, and (3) the Oxford Dictionary is also a historical dictionary, which go over the words' historical development of their forms and meanings.

She is the Lead writer for technology. So, who cares?

how was what roseanna said racist?

It would be impossible to go through all her tweets to see if they were reactionary because she isn't responding to anyone and the people who tweeted those terrible things at here might have deleted the tweet or were banned. So I'm going to trust the person that went through this harassment because if she was lying I honestly think she would be fired already and since she's not she probably wasn't lying.

Ok so the dictionary isnt objective so why are we using their definition? 

1) I know what racism is and know about its history (in the US).

2 ) English is my first language so I know about its linguistics.

3) This is basically the same thing as your first point.

She called a Black Women am Ape.