Matt Taibbi

Rank 34 of 47
|
Score -42
5/5/2024, 7:51:11 PM
X
In reply to:
Sandy M
@SandyMoly
·
425d
@mtaibbi Absolutely not OK to make things up about you. Yet Brie has been unfairly smearing, misrepresenting (& now flat out lying about) you for well over a yr, which has diminished her in my eyes.

Of course this should have no bearing on how you are "inclined" to view Israel/Palestine.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
425d
So it’s okay to just blatantly make things up about me on the air because I’m insufficiently outspoken on the Palestine issue? Seriously? And that’s supposed to make me positively inclined to that point of view?
Craig Marcoux
@MichaelMarcou19
·
425d
@MikeK_LA @mtaibbi Re Israel/Palestine and Matt I’m starting to see @briebriejoy ‘s point.

The statement '@SandyMoly Are there other things beyond just the past month? I wasn’t aware.' is part of a larger conversation about the behavior and actions of public figures in relation to their public statements and stances on issues. The conversation touches on the topics of misinformation, personal attacks, and the impact of public discourse on perceptions of individuals and issues. This qualifies as public discourse because it involves a discussion about the integrity and behavior of individuals in the context of public debates, specifically around the topic of Israel/Palestine, which is a significant societal issue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm but lacks proactive harm prevention.
  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 and dignity, avoiding any personal attacks or sensitive personal information. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not actively promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it primarily seeks clarification.
  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 dialogue seeking clarification, which is constructive but does not address disagreement in depth. [+1]