Matt Taibbi

Rank 28 of 47
|
Score 148
5/5/2024, 10:17:24 PM
X
In reply to:
Bama Dude
@BamaDude77
·
13d
@mtaibbi The reason for these discussion about "civil liberties" is to avoid the on-the-ground fact -- one side is protesting Palestinian bombing & deliberate starvation, while the other supports it

And the reason for THAT is because Zionist can never win an argument based on facts.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
13d
This has nothing to do with Gaza and everything to do with defending the speech rights of Americans, which I’d think pro-Palestinian protesters would care about since the House just voted to make many of their slogans illegal. But right, who needs civil liberties advocates?
Bama Dude
@BamaDude77
·
13d
@Dahuuu @mtaibbi Love how people put such civil aesthetics around this atrocity in some ridiculous attempt to seem "balanced". It's so ridiculous.

Like, please kindly STFU

The statement '@BamaDude77 So you don’t want speech rights. Gotcha.' is part of a larger conversation about civil liberties and the Israel-Palestine conflict. The tone is confrontational and dismissive, implying that the other party is against free speech rights without providing a substantive argument or context. This statement is a direct response in a public discourse about civil liberties, free speech, and political issues.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement potentially does harm by misrepresenting another's position in a dismissive tone, which could escalate tensions rather than promote understanding. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy but does not uphold the dignity of the other party, as it uses a dismissive tone that could be seen as demeaning. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It simplifies and dismisses the other party's view, which could hinder constructive dialogue. [-2]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in a form of personal attack by sarcastically dismissing the other party's stance on free speech, rather than addressing the substance of their argument. [-2]