Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
He's been accused of acting badly. Are we back in that kangaroo court where an accusation is proof? My bad - he's been "credibly accused." That's the new equivalent of proof.
|
Did you read The Washington Post article? You're like a defense lawyer who walks into the courtroom without having learned anything about the case.
Quote:
|
Maybe he thinks she's nuts. Maybe she's a disgruntled crank.
|
Either could be true, but I'm not clear how that would justify what he did.
Quote:
|
He doesn't have to apologize to everyone who asserts they're owed one anymore than anyone else does.
|
He doesn't have to apologize at all. The apology doesn't mean anything if it's coerced.
Quote:
|
When you say Taibbi has to atone...
|
I didn't say he has to atone. Why can't you read? Reading is fundamental.
Quote:
|
...the rule holds that all like him must similarly atone. That's a defining facet of this moral panic. Everybody has sins and must ask the victims for forgiveness.
|
I don't know who is "like" him, and you have invented a moral panic without being able to name a single person involved on the pro-panic side. My view is that each of these cases that are being lumped together as "cancel culture" has different facts, which are important, and that one should look at the actual facts.
Quote:
|
When you say his history should be mentioned, I agree with you entirely. It's relevant.
|
OK, great.
Quote:
When you suggest that he should be held accountable, or atone, you lose me.
That's what struck me so strange about your "he should repent" line. You were rational, and then suddenly, you were arguing for moral judgment. The first camp is where we ought to be. The second is a camp of people who do not deserve respect.
These are your words: "Yes, I think Taibbi should repent, and I don't think he should be heard complaining about cancel culture until he owns what he did."
|
I, as a person posting on the internet, think that Taibbi treated someone poorly and should try to make it right. But if he doesn't want to, that's on him. I haven't tweeted at him about it, or done anything else to "hold him accountable," other than sharing my opinion on a chat board that no one reads. He can say whatever he wants, but the Guardian should be treating him as a bad actor with a history, not as a dispassionate expert. He can talk all he wants, but I don't think people should be listening.
The reason I'm posting about him is less about him, and more about what he reveals about "cancel culture." No one is willing to come out and say, "I'm an asshole, I have mistreated people because of their gender/race/ethnicity/etc., and I'm not sorry -- I'd do it again for kicks if I could get away with it and may even if I couldn't but had been drinking." That's how many people feel, I'd bet, but they can't say that so instead they complain about "cancel culture", like Taibbi to the Guardian.
I've never said that nothing about the complaints about "cancel culture" is true. What I keep saying is that many of the complaints are bogus, and that a lot of people are your bedfellows for the wrong reasons, not out of any kind of principled ideological commitment to free speech. Which destroys the credibility of the whole project.
