Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

I thought you were going to put it plainly.

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.

Well, make up your mind. Previously, you agreed that if someone didn't suffer any harm, it wasn't an example of cancel culture. You also agreed that if someone got canned for good reasons, it wasn't an example of cancel culture, even if they also used social media.

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?

One is a question of what fact to believe. The other is a question of what to do about them. Different kinds of judgment.

Also, "we" don't wreck a baker's career. We may express our opinions on social media, and we may choose to buy bread somewhere else. Also, "we" don't fire statisticians, unless the statisticians work for "us."

You may think this episode reflects something broader about the culture, but I see the creators of a TV show not wanting to work with the guy anymore.

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.

Congratulations on not citing the people who are shitting the bed. They are, however, still shitting the bed.

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

"sleazily"? You flatter yourself.

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?

No, but if you print false things designed to harm me in a publication read by my professional peers, then yes, I would give a fuck. Do you really not get that?

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.

He did not just "make fun" of someone. The actual facts are in the WaPo piece you pretend to have read.

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

You give "free speech" a bad name. This has absolutely nothing with whether Taibbi can publish whatever he wants.

And when you say "no one gives a fuck," what you mean is, you don't give a fuck. You are only complaining about cancel culture because other people do give a fuck about things you don't give a fuck about, and you are cranky and resentful that you share a planet with them.

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

There are plenty of people with complaints about Sullivan, but my life is to short to go find their beefs to share them with a Sullivan stan so you can say, I don't give a fuck.

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.

You probably like comedians who punch down.