Matt Taibbi

Rank 21 of 47
|
Score 31
11/20/2025, 8:23:39 PM
X
In reply to:
deep_seeK
@long_shot_45
·
10d
@mtaibbi This is the actual truth: Taibbi is a radical zionist and he is protecting his own.

He is playing identity politics of the worst kind.

But remember the Twitter files 🤣
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
10d
Ryan, with respect, none of what you’ve reported is evidence of a Mossad-aided sexual blackmail scheme. It shows high-level contact with Israeli intelligence, and that’s interesting. But it’s a long haul from a Mongolian security agreement to blackmailing the White House
Ryan Grim
@ryangrim
·
11d
@mtaibbi Would recommend these https://www.dropsitenews.com/s/e…

The statement 'Please tell me you’re kidding' is a response to a claim about Matt Taibbi being a 'radical zionist' and engaging in identity politics. This conversation is part of a broader discussion about Jeffrey Epstein's alleged connections to Israeli intelligence, which is a public issue. The tone of the statement suggests disbelief or skepticism towards the preceding claim.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm, but it could be seen as dismissive of the previous claim, which might indirectly contribute to a dismissive tone in public discourse.
  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 engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but it is part of a conversation that includes potentially harmful accusations.
  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, as it is a brief expression of disbelief without further explanation or engagement. [-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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it does not provide reasoning or evidence to counter the previous claim. [-1]