Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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

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.

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."

No, we call for boycotts and seek to put him out of business.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

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 failures. Moral judgment is the cheapest leverage. It only works in social media circles because an army of officious nobodies can get together and cry for a hanging. Any one of these people taken alone would be ignored.

I don't resent the peanut gallery having a voice. But they 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.

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.

Crickets. 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.

You probably like comedians who punch down.

I like any joke as long as it's well delivered. Some punches down can be very clever and so taboo you laugh your ass off thinking, I really shouldn't laugh at that, but god its just so wrong... so fucked up. I can't not. But that's hard comedy to pull off for most humorists.

I think one who decides whether a thing is funny or not based on whether it's punching up or down is a serious freak who doesn't understand how humor works. Everything can be funny if done right. Everything is fair game.