Those two deserve each other.
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.
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.
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.
I would rather remember latter then former.
“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.”
Greenwald was on the right side of history regarding the Snowden revelations... but your own posts from that era, however, have not aged well.
Could you point to an example of what you are describing?
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.
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
EDIT: Greenwald not Gellman
In my mind, his comment doesn't go against the guidelines, but yours seems to not presume good faith. He has offered to amplify what he said.
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.