That is the problem with Taibibi, right? He "fights". He uses "jokes" to imply and push not exactly true statements. Mostly to insult opponents. Not really to engage or argue, just fight.
He has sometimes good arguments. But plenty of times he does not, so he goes for second best thing to fight whoever he sees as opponenent.
For all his sins Mark Taibbi (not Taibibi) has expressed his views in several books and lots of articles, I doubt all 6 books are nothing but insults.
Look, the truth is there a big gap opened between center-leftists, people who like Hilary, Biden,BWS and all the mainstream democrats, and more progressive inquisitive , hardcore leftist branch like Taibbi or Rania Khalek who wont give a pass to the democrats just because they are "on their team". Like the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks of the Russian Revolution these 2 groups hate each other more vehemently than any right wing side, because they consider the other as traitors. A split is inevitable.
All the rest huff and puff is just a front for this fundamental issue.
I am not taking issue with his general ideological position. I am taking issue with his general style. Also, I am not taking issue with him not givig break to some people.
He is not equal opportunity hit everyone kind of writer. He has friends and ennemies, gives massive benefit of doubt to ones and "attack" others. That would not be unusual, but it ridiculous to then frame him as fair one.
I stopped reading him when I realized the jokes and insults based on made up things or insinuations that someone is ugly and general crap are more memorablable then his actual arguments. He is dismissive in funny way, but he is dismissing straw man all too often or just not actually having any argument beyond insult.
Please don’t do this here. The HN guidelines make clear the kind of community we’re going for is one that resists provocation toward the uninteresting. In particular:
“Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.”
“Please don't sneer.”
“Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.”
I stand by basically everything I wrote back then, unlike Greenwald, who tried comically to weasel out of his PRISM writing, while later striking this "I've never been corrected or retracted" pose.
That both Taibbi and Greenwald have confidently reported out technical stories they were self-evidently not qualified to report, made huge mistakes, and doubled down on them, because truthiness and advocacy is more important to them than accuracy. They're both in their way like that Bloomberg reporter who reported the "Chinese spy chip on motherboards" story.
I'm a recent fan of both of these gentlemen so your comment is very interesting to me. Both seem to position themselves as journalists who value accuracy over advocacy…
Could you point to an example of what you are describing?
I can't really get my head around people stanning Glenn Greenwald, who is both shrill and also a dull, tedious writer. I tend to think people are just giving him credit due property to Snowden (stipulate that Snowden deserves credit), and Greenwald's role in that whole thing was mostly to fuck it up.
But I totally get why people stan Taibbi, who is an obviously gifted writer with a talent for making his advocacy entertaining. I think he's a force for evil, a liberal Ann Coulter, but I get why people like him.
Greenwald's writing does tend to be long-winded and repetitious, but I see both Taibbi and Greenwald as a force for good. They don't turn a blind eye to information unfavorable to either presidential candidate, even as it might be politically advantageous to do so.
I've felt calmer and more centered since I started to read their writing. It's really therapeutic to be able to dissociate and laugh at both sides. I think Biden is a lesser evil, but I don't want to experience cognitive dissonance whenever I see likely evidence of his corruption.
I'm still interested to see some corroboration of this claim:
> both Taibbi and Greenwald have confidently reported out technical stories they were self-evidently not qualified to report, made huge mistakes, and doubled down on them, because truthiness and advocacy is more important to them than accuracy
Taibbi on the technical details of how the finance industry works, Greenwald on the technical issues of the Snowden disclosures. By comparison, good writers on technical finance issues: Matt Levine; the Snowden stuff: Barton Gellman.
No one is perfect, so it's about how you handle your mistakes. Was there anything specific that discredits Taibbi and Greenwald as trustworthy reporters?
I offered (and was subsequently asked) to explain the basis for my comment upthread about those two deserving each other. I didn't offer and am not interested in being cross-examined. I've written in detail about both Taibbi and Greenwald on this site, so if you're interested in details, avail thyself of the search bar beloweth.
I was hoping you would support the argument you are making on this topic in this conversation. I have no interest in wading through your old comments, especially if they are as handwavy as the new ones.
I don’t understand how his comment could be interpreted as having been made in bad faith — I’m sure he made it earnestly.
I made my comment earnestly as well. I want HN to be the kind of community described by those guidelines, and comments like his work against that, all the more when coming from one of this forum’s most prominent members.
