Matt Taibbi

Rank 23 of 47
|
Score 29
6/7/2024, 3:02:42 AM
X
In reply to:
Patti 🤬Slayer of Dragons she/her ☮
@aerogirl59
·
614d
@mtaibbi Fortunately, disrupters of hearings don't charge around the building looking for the Speaker's office nor 💩 on the floor
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
614d
He didn’t go in, and the scarcely audible “take it” and “go, go” were the crimes.

People actually go into Congress and disrupt hearings all the time. Yes, they often get charges, but we don’t consider them terrorists who rshould be barred from all online services for all time.
Schlemiellionaire
@ShalremainThaGo
·
614d
@ICallahan1966 @TheNihilistKing @mtaibbi Most trivially, Taibbi said Straka was arrested "for being outside the Capitol on January 6th."

In fact, here's what he was arrested for: interfering with police during civil disorder, unlawful entry into a restricted building, with intent to disturb a congressional hearing

The statement by @aerogirl59, 'Funny, neither did Brandon Straka, but I guess we’re in collective-punishmentville,' is a response to a discussion about the actions and consequences faced by individuals involved in the January 6th Capitol events. The conversation involves multiple participants discussing the nature of the charges and the perceived fairness of the consequences. The tone of the statement is sarcastic and critical, suggesting a belief that the punishment is overly broad or unfair.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but could contribute to a polarized and contentious atmosphere. It does not promote violence or direct harm but could be seen as dismissive of the seriousness of the events being discussed. [-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 the privacy of individuals but engages in a public debate about a highly sensitive and divisive issue. It does not engage in cyberbullying or hate speech but could be seen as dismissive of the concerns of those who view the events of January 6th as serious.
  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 uses sarcasm to criticize what the author perceives as collective punishment, which may not foster constructive dialogue. [-1]
  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 criticism but does not do so constructively. It uses sarcasm rather than reasoned argument, which may not contribute to a productive discussion. It does not engage in personal attacks but does not foster constructive dialogue either. [-1]