shellac OP wrote (edited )

Well the context of course is that Taibbi had just published that article decrying so called cancel culture, which caused a shitstorm as Taibbi is generally well respected on the left.

His article is filled with examples of things that are not actual threats to free speech. For example, Taibbi is upset that Lee Fang got called out on twitter because he went around asking “what about black on black crime”, that nonsense right wing refrain to BLM. Fang never lost his job and was right to get called out. Taibbi was just mad that people were mean to his friend on twitter.

I think everyone can agree that losing your “at will” employment over your speech is not a good precedent. But Taibbi is extending that to defending NYT Oped Editor Bennet losing his job. Please, that guy was doing an objectively shit job.

Maybe that example you mention in your other comment is an actual legit example of cancel culture gone amok, but even so the issue is greatly exaggerated IMO. I would have liked to see Will and Amber challenge him more on the examples from Taibbi’s article.


shellac OP wrote

Yeah it was really bad. They didn’t challenge Taibbi on anything.

So do they agree with him that firing the NYT editor isn’t good? I mean I don’t think they actually think that, when Taibbi mentioned Bennet they avoided the subject.

I think they respect Taibbi a lot, which they should—he’s normally pretty good, and they didn’t want to challenge him and have a friendly interview.


shellac OP wrote

I have to say, I find it odd that Will and Amber agree with Matt Taibbi here. Taibbi’s examples of cancel culture were pretty weak in his substack post, and the hosts themselves are fine when right wing grifters like Milo, Molyneux, or Baked Alaska get deplatformed.


shellac wrote

Reply to by !deleted27002

Is that lemmy group really pan-left? I thought that he had kicked out people for criticism of Dengism?


shellac wrote

We chapo people are generally nice except to chuds and fash. Really appreciate you all letting us on here and hope we will all get along.

Any primer on what “green nihilist illegalism” is? Seems interesting. Sounds like it’s related to one of the themes of a film I saw last year, First Reformed.


shellac OP wrote

Reply to comment by Wendigalea in reddit bans chapo subreddit by shellac

One interpretation is they wanted to ban the Donald but also wanted to ban a leftist sub so that they won’t be seen to be targeting conservatives. “Both sides” and all that.

More likely IMO is reddit is run by Silicon Valley techbros who are hostile to leftists who just wanted it banned.