Matt Taibbi

Rank 32 of 47

Score -20

@long_shot_45 No, I’m saying Congress just passed a draconian anti-speech bill, and shouting people down or deplatformimg or forcing people to sign on to a cause to get to a cafeteria will tend to undercut your demands for first amendment rights, which you unfortunately now need. I don’t…

5/2/2024, 11:18:34 PM

In reply to:

And1

@long_shot_45

502d

@mtaibbi Matt is comparing antiwar protesters protecting their encampments from outside agitators, to Congress, which is bought and paid for by APIC, censoring the speech of American students for a foreign government.

A lot of people warned me about Taibbi, this just confirms it.

Matt Taibbi

@mtaibbi

503d

I think it’s not a numerical contest and when you’re respectful of others’ rights, you’re doing something for you, not for them. You’re protecting something that belongs to you as well as them.

TonyBoloney

@TonyBoloney4

503d

@mtaibbi you think Zionists and pro-Israel folks have their rights neglected in America?
Is it even close to be a fair game between the 2 positions?

The statement in question is part of a complex thread discussing the implications of legislative actions on free speech and the conduct of protests. The tone is critical and concerned, focusing on the perceived hypocrisy and consequences of recent legislative actions that the speaker believes are restrictive to free speech. The content addresses significant public issues, namely the balance between free speech and legislative control, making it a part of public discourse.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement aims to highlight potential harms of legislation but does so in a way that could be perceived as alarmist without causing direct harm with words.
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others, focusing on policy critique rather than personal attacks. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
While the statement aims to raise awareness, it lacks a tone of empathy and compassion, focusing more on criticism than fostering understanding.
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 constructive criticism of legislative actions, though it could be seen as somewhat confrontational. It avoids personal attacks and sticks to the issue at hand. [+1]
Principle 6:
I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
The speaker uses their influence to critique and potentially better societal understanding and policies regarding free speech. [+1]
Principle 7:
I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
The statement upholds principles of free speech by critiquing legislation that the speaker views as limiting this right, using the platform responsibly to raise public awareness and debate. [+2]