Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I know that there are other issues about other things he said. I am just talking about the specific way that he treated a specific reporter. From her article, there's not a lot of room for doubt that he did what she says he did. Why are you trying to diminish what he did?
So fucking what? I'm sure a bunch of morons said dumb stuff on Twitter this morning, but I'm not pretending that you are somehow responsible for what they said.
That's great. I'm delighted to hear that he acted terribly in ways other than the one I was talking about. But so what? Why don't you respond to the thing I'm talking about instead of changing the subject?
It was a first-hand account by the person he treated poorly, and maybe you should read it before you minimize it. He published lies about her.
It's not either/or. In the same way that many of the people who signed the Harper's letter were accused of doing so in order to downplay or evade responsibility for things they have said and done, it's entirely possible that Taibbi sincerely believes that there is a "cancel culture" on the left and that no one else should pay attention to those people. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that discrediting "cancel culture" in that way also minimizes the bad stuff he's done. Or perhaps it's no coincidence at all, and Taibbi is complaining about "cancel culture" to play the victim. But if the Guardian doesn't give its reader more context, it's not informing them.
Oh, you naive, oblivious person.
In short, I think he's an asshole and his inability to apologize for behaving poorly shows it. If he wants to play the victim of "cancel culture," the context of his past is obviously relevant. Did I say anything about "justice"? No.
And you're confused about Puritans.
|
1. I’m not diminishing by selection. All of it taken together is meh.
2. “Live by the sword...” To respond directly, your attempt to force a subjective analysis of each situation does make sense, but it must be noted that when I attempted to defend the accused in the #metoo panic using the same argument with exculpatory facts, most here, probably you, took the other side. Women should be believed first, then possible exculpatory facts adduced. I absolutely agree with you that every situation should be looked at discretely, but you understand that with that, you put the unifying generalizations of BLM and #metoo into scrutiny. #Metoo, BLM, and concerns about cancel culture all share a similar architecture - meaning they are movements which generalize, not infrequently incorrectly.
3. Your argument on Taibbi also fails because (and this is the best argument), he is not complaining about it. He is openly mocking it. He’s not AT ALL worried about blowback, obviously. Hes saying it’s shit and laughing at people who think it’s productive.
4. What has Sullivan to be concerned about? Sounding too much like David Brooks from time to time?
5. Taibbi is not playing a victim. He’s making fun of cancel culture. He’s using it as a punching bag. I see no victimization in his pieces. If anything, he seems bent on getting it to attack him. Which makes sense. It’s cheap and easy copy. Goad moralizers, mock them, publish. Rinse, repeat.
