LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 133
0 members and 133 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 08-18-2020, 07:00 PM   #2923
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,084
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
I don't agree that the narrative offered by Taibbi's accuser is a comprehensive description of the facts. I think he was smart to brush it off. Who needs a he said/she said on this stuff? That's designed to trap the accused.
When you read her account, what did you think was missing? What additional facts that she made not have included would make it OK for him to have someone pretending to be a Russian government official call, to print lies about what she said in response, and to print lies about her conversations with a third party?
Quote:
No, we call for boycotts and seek to put him out of business.
I didn't and you didn't, so we didn't.

Quote:
He said something vile. I wouldn't want to work with that jackass either. That is not cancel culture. That's one of the instances in which a person has made himself so toxic, he's got to go.
Not sure I follow you at all. Cancel culture is when someone says something that other people find offensive but that you don't find offensive. If you agree that it's offensive, it's not cancel culture. So all this nonsense about cancel culture is just a way to disagree with people about what is and is not offensive, but in a euphemistic way that makes it sounds like it's a problem with them, not that you are defending speech they find offensive.

Quote:
They weren't intended to harm. They were intended to demean and insult someone Taibbi deemed a pain in the ass with no talent.

Not much there there. Reads like a hit piece trying to take out RS's marquis journalist.

I'm saying sane people don't get all riled about shit like what Taibbi did. Officious people with thin skin are annoyed by it. They're annoyed by everything. They're judgy. As I said earlier, people who like to judge tend to be losers. Moral judgment is the cheapest leverage. It only works in social media circles because an army of officious losers can get together and cry for a hanging. Any one of these twits taken alone would be ignored.

I don't resent the peanut gallery having a voice. But they're aren't mature, they can't see beyond their binary views. They're social justice hammers, and everything's a nail.

Were they to get together and mock Taibbi, perhaps say he has a terrible combover, lousy voice for radio and podcasts, laughs uncomfortably, and thankfully finally made enough money to have his teeth fixed, I'd giggle. It'd be hysterical to see a brutal back and forth where his own form of cheap shot is revisited on him. But no, the scolds of social media are dour, dullards with one thing on their mind - casting moral judgment upon others. How fucking boring is that? How pathetic? Hall monitors of the internet - Torquemadas of their parents' basements.

The internet is a great equalizer in terms of bullying. If a Taibbi slams you, slam the fucker back. If you want to go cry to the principal and demand he gets detention, you're weak. You suck.
I have a hard time understanding why you have a problem with the guy who criticized Dolly Parton but you have none with Taibbi using his publication to lie about another reporter. Baker was at least commenting on a current political controversy, in a way that had nothing to do with his job, and Parton would have had no problem responding. Taibbi told lies designed to hurt his target professionally, with no way for her to respond. I think you have no problem with people who punch down, because you can call the target a loser, but when someone punches up at someone like Parton, he's the loser. You have a soft spot for people with social status, and you don't like it when people with less status criticize them. Your complaints about cancel culture are all about belittling the idea that people should be able to make their complaints on social media about people with more status. None of it has much to do with free speech.

Quote:
The only criticism one can apply to him is that he's whiny and an apologist for a religion that treats him as a second class citizen.
As a matter of simple fact, you can use Google or Twitter and find people making other criticism of him, if you care. I have better things to do.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar

Last edited by Tyrone Slothrop; 08-18-2020 at 07:03 PM..
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:58 PM.