Matt Taibbi

Rank 22 of 47
|
Score 35
6/16/2024, 5:06:19 AM
X
In reply to:
Tashe
@Tashe28
·
597d
@mtaibbi @Lucy13254841 @ggreenwald Personally, I’m just curious as to how come rest of post-left heterodox r so pro-pal (GG, Zaid, Tracey, Max Blumental, Mate, Katie, Jimmy Dore), & ur not. And u don’t think the asymmetry of power & corporate censorship is obvious here.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
597d
@Tashe28 @Lucy13254841 @ggreenwald I’m against the antisemitism law. I think it’s crazy. But I can’t back any movement where people hold up “I stand with Hamas” signs.
Tashe
@Tashe28
·
597d
@mtaibbi @Lucy13254841 Isn’t there a difference in scale here? I understand why u focus on Dems bc ur niche is free speech & Dem r worse there. But Israel-pal isn’t so I’m wondering why like @ggreenwald ur unable to see the asymmetrical nature of where censorship falls in this issue?
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
597d
@Lucy13254841 Demanding people issue condemnations or declare themselves not Zionists or say anything at all is against the spirit of the First Amendment. Not letting people into school cafeterias without pro-Palestine bracelets is totally against the First Amendment, but so also is the insane…
Lucy
@Lucy13254841
·
597d
@mtaibbi Firing someone for criticizing a foreign nation is less complicated than firing someone for “medical misinformation”. If you take the side of the 1st amendment you’ll end up sounding like an enraged leftist. Just like reporting on russiagate made you sound like a trumper.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
597d
@Lucy13254841 My honest opinion is I think this issue is complicated, don’t want to get involved, and can’t stand the way people on either side react to any hesitation to take their side completely. So I’m staying out of it, which interestingly seems to enrage leftists (who iassume I’m being…

The statement by @Tashe28 engages in a substantive discussion about the asymmetry of power and corporate censorship in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which constitutes public discourse. The tone is inquisitive and somewhat confrontational, aiming to challenge the opinions of others in the conversation.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but the confrontational tone could potentially escalate tensions.
  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, as it does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it does seek to understand the reasoning behind differing opinions.
  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 dialogue and seeks to understand differing opinions, but the confrontational tone could be seen as a minor violation of constructive criticism principles. [-1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform to engage in a public issue responsibly. [+1]