Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. I’m not diminishing by selection. All of it taken together is meh.

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

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

4. What has Sullivan to be concerned about? Sounding too much like David Brooks from time to time?

I don't have time for this.

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.

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.