Matt Taibbi

Rank 23 of 47
|
Score 29
6/15/2024, 9:29:34 AM
X
In reply to:
Lysergicaciddiet
@JoshuaH18955148
·
602d
@RandompostsonX @briebriejoy @mtaibbi Ok. That has little relevance in my criticism of Matt. He tweeted that she was fired over that “factual mistake” that happened a year ago, instead of admitting why she was actually fired.
Random
@RandompostsonX
·
602d
@JoshuaH18955148 @briebriejoy @mtaibbi Well, she made factual mistakes and acknowledged it in the video…
Lysergicaciddiet
@JoshuaH18955148
·
602d
@RandompostsonX @briebriejoy @mtaibbi

When I said, “blatantly lying”, this is the tweet I’m referring to. In the case of “drumming up drama”, any of his recent tweets can be referenced.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
602d
Step one: make factual mistakes
Step two: don’t admit it
Step three: get fired
Random
@RandompostsonX
·
602d
@JoshuaH18955148 @briebriejoy @mtaibbi So… quoting a tweet that links a specific article is not “referring to a specific article”? Or did you just not bother to read it or listen to the interview it references?
Lysergicaciddiet
@JoshuaH18955148
·
602d
@RandompostsonX @briebriejoy @mtaibbi I never said I was referring to a specific article. In stark contrast to your analysis, I was referring to a specific tweet. Nice word salad, though! And, nice cope. You should look into a career in journalism or politics.
Random
@RandompostsonX
·
602d
@JoshuaH18955148 @briebriejoy @mtaibbi In the article he doesn’t say anything about why she was fired because it is from before it happened. But nice example of the chronological factual errors he tries to point out and she tries to pretend aren’t important.

The statement in question is part of a larger conversation involving multiple users discussing the reasons behind someone's firing and the accuracy of related statements. The tone is defensive and accusatory, indicating a personal grievance rather than a substantive engagement with a public issue. The content focuses on personal interactions and perceived slights rather than broader societal concerns.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not strive to do no harm; it is accusatory and defensive, potentially escalating the conflict. [-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 does not respect the privacy and dignity of others; it engages in a public dispute that could be seen as cyberbullying or harassment. [-2]
  3. 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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue; it includes personal attacks and does not foster a productive conversation. [-2]