It would be impossible to go through all her tweets to see if they were reactionary because she isn't responding to anyone...
No it's not. A time consuming task is not an impossible task. You can take all the time in the world to verify for yourself. You were the one who claimed that Sarah Jeong's tweets were only jokes. Therefore, you have the burden of proof to make sure that your claim holds up to scrutiny. You can start here.
...and the people who tweeted those terrible things at here might have deleted the tweet or were banned...
Which people? What are "those terrible things"? Were each and every one of Jeong's tweets a response to these people's trolling? You will also have to prove that if your answer to this question is yes.
You also contradicted yourself as you said that she was not responding to anyone. Counter-trolling is a response to a person's trolling. You cannot possibly counter-troll if you are not responding. Pick one, you can't have both.
Lastly, two wrongs do not make a right.
So I'm going to trust the person that went through this harassment...
So you're going to trust the person that went through the harassment that I supposedly am supposed to take your word for it with no questions asked. Harassment has a rather specific definition, so you need to verify that what you claimed is true. Sorry, but you're going to have to show me evidence for this. How do you know that she's blameless when she may also have participated in activities that are as reprehensible, especially when many of her tweets were unprovoked and not in response to other people?
because if she was lying I honestly think she would be fired already and since she's not she probably wasn't lying.
This is absolutely laughable logic. That assumes that liars are always fired, which is obviously not true. You're claiming that "if A (Jeong is a liar), then B (she gets fired from her job). Since B happened, therefore A". This is an Affirming the Consequent fallacy. You're also running on a false assumption that there is no "D" outcome (employer keeps her employed anyways). NYT may be as ethically corrupt as Jeong.
Ok so the dictionary isnt objective so why are we using their definition?
I didn't say that the dictionaries aren't objective either. Stop responding to phantom statements. However, I will ask you these questions:
Why do so many people use dictionaries? Why are they published which costs resources and money if they're supposedly not objective in your opinion? In fact, I already explained why and my explanation still stands because...
1) I know what racism is and know about its history (in the US).
This is not a refutation against my first point. In fact, this is an Appeal to Authority fallacy. I know about racism and its history, too. Cool, what now?
2 ) English is my first language so I know about its linguistics.
This is another Appeal to Authority fallacy. English is also my first language and I actually took linguistics courses in college. Again, cool what now?
3) This is basically the same thing as your first point.
No, I specifically mentioned that the Oxford dictionary is a historical dictionary. Stop scraping the bottom of the barrel for whatever miscellaneous infractions I make and get to the point. To recap, your argument against using dictionary definitions was "Dictionary definitions aren't 100% true. Here I'll shove two editorials in your face as I don't even bother to explain how the writers' arguments are valid".