Matt Taibbi

Rank 22 of 47
|
Score 35
6/16/2024, 3:02:36 AM
X
In reply to:
Jonathan Kadmon
@JonathanKadmon
·
598d
@mtaibbi Matt you've been vomiting admissions of it all over this app since this morning. You're even delusional enough to believe you caused it and gloat about it even though your letter was ignored months ago when they saw you were acting like an infant.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
598d
When do I ever advocate censoring anything?
Jonathan Kadmon
@JonathanKadmon
·
598d
@mtaibbi My man you've become a living, breathing parody of what you once were. It all comes out now! You're perfectly fine with censoring the kind of stuff that makes YOU mad.

The statement and the surrounding conversation involve a public debate about professional conduct, accountability, and the consequences of public actions. The tone is defensive and aims to clarify the intent behind previous statements, specifically addressing accusations of advocating for censorship.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement strives to clarify a misunderstanding and does not appear to intend harm. However, the surrounding conversation includes personal attacks and harsh language, which could be harmful. [-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 and dignity of others by clarifying that the speaker did not call for punitive actions. However, the surrounding conversation includes accusations and potentially defamatory comments, which could be seen as disrespectful. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by clarifying the speaker's position and intent. However, the overall tone of the conversation is confrontational rather than empathetic or compassionate.
  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 constructive dialogue by addressing a specific accusation and providing clarification. However, the surrounding conversation includes personal attacks and ad hominem arguments, which detract from constructive criticism. [-1]