|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#1 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
|
Matt Taibbi vs. Jon Gold plus Taibbi on WTC7
Hi, I don't post much on this forum anymore but I do check in on occasion, mainly to find material for my 9-11 video blog .
Matt Taibbi, one of my favorite MSM journalists, who has written hilariously on the TM, had a online exchange recently with Jon Gold (whom I admit I detest). The mini debate was instigated by Gold and can be read here. (Hat Tip SLC Blog). Also, Taibbi answered a truther inquiry about the BBC's premature report on the collapse of WTC7 on his blog. The money quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
The Angry Atheist Podcast #112 with Walter Ego |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
|
|
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Philosophile
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 32,916
|
Jon Gold displays all the classic signs of the Truther:
Quote-mining:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin! |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,876
|
I think the operating "theory" is that there needed to be a spectacular finale to that day's events. By announcing the story ahead of time, they made sure that plenty of cameras were focused on the building when it really came down. Of course, the building's demise had been predicted since early afternoon and undoubtedly what actually happened was that the BBC's source heard that and mistakenly thought the building had actually collapsed. Indeed, the Truthers all seem to have forgotten that CNN also reported the collapse early, although Aaron Brown was careful to state that the building either had collapsed or was going to collapse.
|
|||
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |||
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
|
Proving, if proof be needed, that Truthers have no idea of how news of breaking events is gathered and reported or how the real world in general operates. (You can watch news coverage of that day from all the major networks plus the BBC here.)
In any case, if the MSM had the scoop of the WTC7 collapse in advance, they failed to get cameras in place at the appointed time. The only live coverage I know about is from NBC and that only because reporter Ashleigh Banfield was interviewing people nearby on air when the building came down. (Listen also to anchor Brian Williams say, "what we have been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened.")
|
|||
__________________
The Angry Atheist Podcast #112 with Walter Ego |
||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,657
|
I'm a fan of Matt Taibbi from his many visits to Bill Maher's show Realtime. Very intelligent individual with an amazing insight on world events. (If I'm not mistaken, he was interviewed for one of the BBC documentaries on this subject and gave an interesting commentary on the appeal of conspiracies for conspiracy theorists).
Reading the exchange now so it should be interesting. |
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. -Good luck America with President Trump |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Pedantic Bore
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Abandon All Hope
Posts: 6,808
|
A "finale" more "spectacular" than the collapse of the towers? A finale involving a much smaller building with no one inside it? I think the NWO needs to read up on how to construct a compelling narrative, they have it all backwards. I was driving to work the morning of 9/11 while most of the tragedy was unfolding. At one point my local NPR affiliate reported that the White House had been attacked. Did the NWO accidentally hand them an earlier draft of the script? ![]() ETA: I generally try to not mock Truthers too much for the simple reason that I myself believed all sorts of ridiculous things as a child and into my early 20s. The difference was that my beliefs didn't force me to conclude that 98% of the rest of the world was evil and/or stupid. |
__________________
Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand. - Baruch Spinoza You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. - Harlan Ellison |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
|
If snark were actual journalism, Taibbi would be Edward Murrow. But he's not.
Other than spite what could possibly be the logic behind this doozy:
Quote:
The guy has no integrity. |
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,657
|
From Gold:
"I asked Matt for his permission to post this, and never heard from him." Typical trutherism; in the absence of evidence take it as complicity. "which tells me you really don’t know jack **** about this issue" Again, in the absence of evidence, fill in your own. "What I think is childish is a no talent journalist who has no idea what he’s talking about" And when challenged on your beliefs, lash out. There is nothing else. Next is a perfect example of the so-called debate about 9/11: Taibbi:"But I take it you are conceding that there is no evidence of US complicity in these attacks. Can you answer that question directly?" Gold:"9/11 was a crime, and elements within our Government and others have MORE THAN EARNED the title of suspect for that crime." A direct call for evidence and an assertion of facts not entered into the evidence; "the proof that they were involved is that they were involved". Sorry Mr. Gold, we're going to need a little more that that! But my favorite from Matt Taibbi, and should be the headline of every truther website, if nothing more than a proof in advertising disclaimer: "On the other hand, who are you? Have you even once picked up the telephone in your “investigation?” You all think you know something because you surf the Internet. If you had to get your information from the real world, as I do and as all real investigators do, you’d quickly realize how silly the whole thing is." There's a great sentence in the new Dan Brown book The Lost Symbolwhich applies to conspiracy theorists more than any other group: "Google is not a synonym for research" |
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. -Good luck America with President Trump |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
|
Lamest. Finale. Ever. I hope that's not true, because it means Truther expectation are completely ass-backwards. "We've just flown planes into two of the tallest buildings in the country, demolished them in a rather spectacular way, flew a third plane impressively close to the ground, over a busy highway, taking out streetlights before smashing into the very heart of our military, and then crashed the fourth plane into a field to create a rousing hero story. "Now, for our grand finale... We'll collapse a 47-story building in relative silence. Mua-ha-ha-ha!" |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
|
Cause Tabbi was saying that the Government lied about its incompetence and corruption that allowed the attacks to be successful. NOT about being complicit. He says truthers are so stupid and so distracting from actual arguments, the real truths and crimes of 9/11 will most likely never be known.
Good job truthers! You helped the real criminals get away with it! |
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Philosophile
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 32,916
|
That's a good point. He's set up a false dilemma, I would investigate but can't because some people have wild ideas.
John Farmer clearly doesn't think that other people having wild ideas can stop him investigating. Having said that Taibbi does give his answer to the question of why he isn't investigating and that is that there are more important things to get outraged by. I do think Taibbi wouldn't make a good chess player, though, as clearly Jon Gold's next question should be, "Then why do you get outraged about 9/11 Truthers to the extent that your professional time is spent investigating us morons?" Or something along those lines. Fortunately Jon Gold is also not a very good chess player. |
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin! |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
NWO Master Conspirator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
|
|
__________________
![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Pedantic Bore
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Abandon All Hope
Posts: 6,808
|
But what's the tipping point between what is and isn't "worth" investigating? How do you prioritize the order in which the theories should be investigated? Doesn't it all just go back to evidence, that bugbear of the Truth Movement?
Does it necessarily follow that since the "Government lies" (no ****, Sherlock ![]() If an individual who is known for being a liar denies that they were responsible for the Japan Earthquake does then it follow that they must have played some part in the creation of the earthquake? Or do even pathological liars occasionally tell the truth? Is the Royal Family under any obligation to consent to genetic testing because some small subset of the population believes that the Royals are "reptilians"? As others have said, I don't doubt that "the Government" have told either inadvertent untruths (based on false data) or flat out lies about 9/11, but I've seen nothing at all to indicate that such untruths and lies are anything more than exercises in CYA for not following leads that could have foiled the 9/11 plot before it (literally) got off the ground. |
__________________
Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand. - Baruch Spinoza You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. - Harlan Ellison |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 27,984
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
|
Which is precisely why the execrable Jon Gold is so angered that Taibbi won't take the TM seriously. Gold really comes off like a petulant dork in the email exchange whereas Taibbi comes off as completely reasonable.
Consider this:
Quote:
I mean come on Truthers, one piece of real evidence that 9/11 was an inside job! It's been almost 10 years and we're still waiting. |
__________________
The Angry Atheist Podcast #112 with Walter Ego |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Dreaming of unicorns
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
|
|
__________________
![]() Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
Well, I wouldn't go that far. However, I myself have questioned his integrity. His descriptions of Tea Partiers were so one sided or exaggerated that they amounted to not just smears, but absurd smears. Here's a precious Taibbi quote, which shows the character (and/or rationality) of the man.:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,779
|
Why? On of the defining goals of the Tea Party Movement is "adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution" (Wikipedia). In other words, a genuine member of the TPM claims that he is more advocating adherence to the original intent of the framers of the USC than his various possible opponents, whether they be politicians, or journalists like Taibbi. Now here are all possible reasons for why that TPM might make such a claim:
a. He knows the USC and its original intent better than opponent b. Opponent knows USC and original intent as well, but lies about it c. Opponent knows USC and original intent as well, but disagrees with it Option a. is the most benign interpretation, as b. and c. at least hint at treason on the side of non-TPM adherents, or at least too little cherishing America. Now what did Taibbi say in #2?
Quote:
Which is precisely what the core of TPM believes is all about. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
No, I didn't accuse him of being "somewhat over the top". Rather, he's exaggerated so much, or lied, that I can't trust his judgement and objectivity. His integrity is indeed in question, which is not the same thing as saying he has "no integrity". (I believe his work on financial scandals is pretty good, so I wouldn't want to demonize him, completely. You know, basically like how he demonizes the Tea Party participants.)
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,779
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
It's obvious to me that he must be exaggerating. As in grossly exaggerating. Not a valuable tendency in somebody who is supposed to be an investigative reporter.
Hopefully, you have grasped my sarcasm in that previous sentence. "Poetic license" is expected of poets and novelists. And even of political satirists. If that's all he is - a political satirist - I wouldn't have much problem with him. However, it seems to me that he's more of warped commentator, sort of like a Rush Limbaugh, but of the left. Not on every subject, but clearly some subjects. Just because you or I may see through his distortions, and thus take him to be in entertainment mode, doesn't mean that other people do. Even among his target audience that are astute enough to figure out that he's exaggerating, how many of them are astute enough to realize that he's exaggerating a great deal? I'm sure some of Rush Limbaugh's fans realize that he exaggerates and distorts, but they also view it as "poetic license". I.e., minor distortions and exaggerations that don't deflect from an essential truth. I would no sooner swallow yet another Limbaugh pronouncement on liberals, than I would a Taibbi pronouncement on Tea Partiers. Or 911 truthers. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,779
|
So what, exactly, might have been a lie in his #2? And what, really, has he exaggerated too much? Can you point a finger on it? Because yes, I assume that every reader who reads the media he write in is astute enough to figure out that he's exaggerating. Or do you believe anyone takes his #2 as a literal rendering of what TPMs told him? Isn't it obvious to pretty much every relevant reader that he is exaggerating? You think anyone never heard of a little rhetorical device called "sarcasm"? (I hope you are astute enough to realize that I repeated my questions, because you didn't really answer them) |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
A statement can be both a lie and exaggeration, depending on intent. If a man catches a 5 pound flounder, and tells his buddies that it was 40 pounds, knowing that they won't take him literally, it's fair to say that he's exaggerating, but not lying. If, on the other hand, he tell his girlfriend the same thing, expecting her to believe it, he's lying as well as exaggerating.
Taibbi is both exaggerating and lying. Even if the people who are stupid enough to believe him literally are only 1% of his fan base, while the other 99% of his fan base are still stupid enough not to realize he's grossly exaggerating. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much whether he was lying or exaggerating. What matters is that his "exaggeration", if you will, was so extreme that it amounted to a smear. His intention is either to deceive, or else he's so irrational that he believes the things he writes (even understood as slight exaggerations, satire, "poetic license", etc.). His writings in this vein, like Rush Limbaugh's rantings, pander to the lowest elements in the public, confirming them in their mutual and cherished hatreds. Edward R. Murrow, he ain't. Shall I take it that you have no problem with taking Rush Limbaugh's grossly distorted exaggerations seriously, either? And if you do have a problem with doing so, should you all of a sudden grant his opinion of 911 Truthers more value than that of a more objective media person? That'd be really stupid, IMO. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,779
|
Geez - is there a School for Trutherism somewhere, where you all learn how not to answer questions?
I asked "what, exactly, might have been a lie in his #2?". I also asked "And what, really, has he exaggerated too much? Can you point a finger on it?". And I asked "do you believe anyone takes his #2 as a literal rendering of what TPMs told him? Isn't it obvious to pretty much every relevant reader that he is exaggerating?". I could reword the last question as "Do you think Taibbi intended to be taken literally by his readers?", because in the highlighted part of your reply, that intention seems to be what your argument hinges on. When you say do you mean an exaggeration, meant to be understood by the audience to be an exaggeration, becomes a lie the moment one member of the audience is too dull to catch sarcastic exaggeration? Then, by the same reasoning, the guy who "catches a 5 pound flounder, and tells his buddies that it was 40 pounds, knowing that they won't take him literally" becomes a liar not by his own deed, but by one dull friend who didn't get it?
Quote:
Allow me to finish by repeating the questions you so far failed to answer, so that hopefully you will do this time:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I wrote "Rather, he's exaggerated so much, or lied, that I can't trust his judgement and objectivity." And indeed, it is so, regardless of what exactly was going on between Taibbi's ears when he wrote his BS. My best guess is that he knows most of his audience won't take him absolutely literally, but is more than happy to let some smaller faction of his audience do so. In any event, successfully smearing to his audience, as a whole, is good enough for him. I'm done with this thread. If anybody wants to try and make a logical case that Taibbi is a fair and objective commentator on Tea Partiers, I may respond to that laughable absurdity. Then again, I probably won't, having no doubts on the matter. As Taibbi lacks credibility wrt Tea Partiers, I see no reason to assume that he's credible with respect to 911 Truthers. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,779
|
Are you serious?
Ok, metamars, you dodged yet another question, and it applies here. I'll repeat it, with increased font visibility: Isn't it obvious to pretty much every relevant reader that he is exaggerating? I mean, the statement is a contradiction in itself. As soon as "each and every one of them" is more than 1 person, they can't each be the "only person". Isn't this obvious? Dead obvious? Don't you agree that a reader has to be mentally retarded in order not to spot that this is an exaggeration, and it is sarcastic? So you really - really?!? - think this could be a lie??? Since this is obviously an exaggeration, any mildly intelligent reader can easily discern the intended meaning of this: Tea Partiers claim for themselves to personally have superior knowledge of the Constitution. And now pray tell, metamars: Do you think that observation is false? Is it smear? Really? Really?!? You got good grades in Truther Academy in your class Moving Goalposts 101, right? Smear: Possibly. Deceive: No. Tea Partiers do define themselves as the true wardens of the Constitution. FALSE. It is of interest to you, evidenced by the fact that you raised this issue in the first place. Reading comprehension, 8th or 9th grade. At most. [quote=metamars;7030076] I wrote "Rather, he's exaggerated so much, or lied, that I can't trust his judgement and objectivity." Do you think he meant to relate an objective fact, as in exact statistics? I am not going to argue that Taibbi is fair and objective. I am addressing the point you raised, namely that #2 was a lie or an unfair exaggeration, when in fact it is a sarcastic rendering of a benign observation. I say that you lied or exaggerated when you commented on Taibbi's #2, and intended to smear, and deceive your audience. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|