Forums

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I think you have a remarkable bent to think that no one should be held accountable for anything, ever.

Let's put it plainly. "Justice" is a gaudy word. It's like cheesecake. If you've a clue you grasp that it's only ever existed enough to make sure markets and property rights were protected, and violent crime was suppressed. The arc of the universe not only doesn't bend toward it; no such arc exists. Power, and random events, dictate most of what occurs.

Wait a second. You are confusing two very different things here. I resist generalizing about "cancel culture" because I keep seeing that term used to refer to situations where no one has been silenced at all or where people are very justifiably paying the price of acting poorly.

This is a genius dodge via limitation of definition. There are of course multiples of both of those exceptions. Unless one assumes the signatories of the Harper's Letter are all deluded.

This is your worst work right here.

There a separate question of, which facts do you believe? In all the conversations we have had so far about "cancel culture," I don't think there's been a "who do you believe" issue. (There isn't one with Taibbi, either, since the stuff he did was all publishe.)

No, there isn't. With cancel culture it's always a judgment call. Do we wreck a baker's career for the acts of his dimwit daughter? Do we fire a statistician for offering data adverse to the effectiveness of riots?

I am willing to believe it in particular cases, but I'm seeing a high proportion of bullshit with "cancel culture," much more than I've seen with others.

Cancel culture paranoia has been stoked by dishonest right wing brokers. But I've cited no Tucker Carlsons. I've cited moderates, liberals, and academics.

I guess you don't follow what I'm saying about Taibbi. He acted like as asshole to other people, in a bunch of ways, as a matter of public record. That is obviously material to his view that journalists ought to be able to "screw up" as he puts it, which is a funny way to put it since it implies that he didn't publish exactly what he meant to. Letting him opine about "cancel culture" essentially lets him launder his reputation. It lets him minimize what he did by suggesting there's something whiny about the people who don't like what he did.

This is sleazily written and jammed full of wiggle words. Let's unpack:

He acted like as asshole to other people, in a bunch of ways, as a matter of public record.

So what. I'm doing that to you right now, effectively. Suppose I tell you to fuck yourself and you have kankles. You give a fuck?

That is obviously material to his view that journalists ought to be able to "screw up" as he puts it,

Agreed.

which is a funny way to put it since it implies that he didn't publish exactly what he meant to.

Incorrect. One can "screw up" by being too on the nose. Ever "won" an argument with your SO and not gotten laid for a week? You're assuming screw up means something Taibbi doesn't. I think he means he made fun of someone nastily and took liberties in what he wrote which may have been over the top.

Letting him opine about "cancel culture" essentially lets him launder his reputation. It lets him minimize what he did by suggesting there's something whiny about the people who don't like what he did.

Name for this: Free speech. You're not the hall monitor. Don't like it? No one gives a fuck.

I don't have time for this.

Translation: "I don't have facts to support this."

What I said to 3. He's "making fun" of cancel culture? Please. That's hiding behind humor. When you say mocking, that's more like it.

I can run with this in two directions. If this is joke on my edit, clever. If you believe there's a difference, eye roll.