Matt Taibbi

Rank 34 of 47
|
Score -42
5/7/2024, 6:33:28 PM
X
In reply to:
Chairman Runks
@acmonks
·
428d
@mtaibbi Imperfect analogy but it’s like Hitler being a source on British anti-semitism. It wouldn’t have aged well either
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
429d
We acted throughout on the assumption that we didn’t and couldn’t know what (if anything) was being left out. The reports focus on things found that were newsworthy in themselves. No matter what you think of a source you still have to check. Trust in Allah, but tie your camel etc
Chairman Runks
@acmonks
·
430d
@mtaibbi @WSWS_Updates @StatusCoup @DemSocialists @Consortiumnews I just noticed it was you I was replying to-sorry You can’t believe Musk was being honest with you still?

The statement in question is part of a Twitter conversation about the integrity and implications of the 'Twitter Files' and the biases in media and information dissemination. The tone of the statement is confrontational and somewhat aggressive, particularly with the use of profanity and a dismissive attitude towards the comparison made by another user. The content directly addresses issues of media bias, source credibility, and public perception, which are relevant to public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The use of profanity and aggressive tone likely does harm by escalating the conversation's hostility rather than fostering a constructive or respectful dialogue. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    While the statement does not directly invade privacy or dignity beyond the public figures involved, its aggressive tone and language could be seen as bordering on harassment, which does not respect the dignity of the conversation partner. [-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. Instead, it dismisses and belittles the opposing view. [-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 the dialogue about the issue but fails to do so constructively. It includes a personal attack ('What the fuck are you talking about?') and does not attempt to understand or critically engage with the analogy provided by the other user. [-1]