Okay, but now you're moving the goalposts. It's completely fair to say that Taibbi is funneling people into right-wing authoritarian echo chambers... big tech can be a piece of that, but it doesn't have to.
Okay, but now you're moving the goalposts. It's completely fair to say that Taibbi is funneling people into right-wing authoritarian echo chambers... big tech can be a piece of that, but it doesn't have to.
...and now you're criticizing an argument I didn't make.
It's the *selective* criticism of left-MSM, without acknowledging the gaping maw of insanity that is their competition, that I object to.
Where exactly does Matt think people should be getting their news? Substack? That's not really what the platform is optimized for... it's a blogging site that doesn't hold its writers to any standard of journalism whatsoever. It's only a competitor to the news in that it competes for the same people's attention.
I don't recall Taibbi telling people where they should get their news, rather, he is pointing out the too-cozy relationship between Big Tech and the government.
Yes, you used my words, but you also used your own words to mis-contextualize them.
Example: how can I take someone seriously, who has such poor attention span and memory that they "don't recall Taibbi" when they're literally commenting on a Taibbi article?
See what I mean? It's called putting words in your mouth, and it's dishonest and lazy.
You clearly have a point of view to defend, though, so have fun with that.
If you had actually read the two sentences you quoted, you would notice they're not the same thing.
It is a totally fair criticism that Taibbi is funneling people into right-wing authoritarian echo chambers, because he is (edit: see this very comment section for a great example). If he wants to frame that criticism soley around what he says, and ignore the conspicuous lack of criticism in the other direction, he's perfectly within his rights to beat that strawman to death.
If the left and right were both up to exactly the same nasty tricks, with no distinction whatsoever in methods or outcomes, then I would have to admit that we live in the matrix.
As it turns out, trying to overthrow the government is also a serious transgression. Who knew!
Okay, but now you're moving the goalposts. It's completely fair to say that Taibbi is funneling people into right-wing authoritarian echo chambers... big tech can be a piece of that, but it doesn't have to.
Pointing out that the government is censoring and actively disinforming the citizenry is now "funneling people into right-wing echo chambers."
Whatever next....
...and now you're criticizing an argument I didn't make.
It's the *selective* criticism of left-MSM, without acknowledging the gaping maw of insanity that is their competition, that I object to.
Where exactly does Matt think people should be getting their news? Substack? That's not really what the platform is optimized for... it's a blogging site that doesn't hold its writers to any standard of journalism whatsoever. It's only a competitor to the news in that it competes for the same people's attention.
I used your own words.
I don't recall Taibbi telling people where they should get their news, rather, he is pointing out the too-cozy relationship between Big Tech and the government.
Yes, you used my words, but you also used your own words to mis-contextualize them.
Example: how can I take someone seriously, who has such poor attention span and memory that they "don't recall Taibbi" when they're literally commenting on a Taibbi article?
See what I mean? It's called putting words in your mouth, and it's dishonest and lazy.
You clearly have a point of view to defend, though, so have fun with that.
"It's completely fair to say that Taibbi is funneling people into right-wing authoritarian echo chambers..."
"Pointing out that the government is censoring and actively disinforming the citizenry is now "funneling people into right-wing echo chambers."
Whatever next...."
You are correct, your arguments are dishonest and lazy.
lol, "I know you are but what am I?"
If you had actually read the two sentences you quoted, you would notice they're not the same thing.
It is a totally fair criticism that Taibbi is funneling people into right-wing authoritarian echo chambers, because he is (edit: see this very comment section for a great example). If he wants to frame that criticism soley around what he says, and ignore the conspicuous lack of criticism in the other direction, he's perfectly within his rights to beat that strawman to death.
If rightwing sources were taking orders from the government to disinform and censor and Taibbi knew and didn't report, then maybe you'd have a point
Or maybe I have a point regardless.
If the left and right were both up to exactly the same nasty tricks, with no distinction whatsoever in methods or outcomes, then I would have to admit that we live in the matrix.
As it turns out, trying to overthrow the government is also a serious transgression. Who knew!
So pointing out authoritarianism is bad when it doesn't implicate those you don'tapproveof.
That's your point, if you want to call it that.
Either you're trolling or you're dumb. Either way, goodbye.