“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.