If the topic is political or economic and likely to provide a runway for some sort of frustration-at-establishment chatter, I regularly expect you to appear and engage in some sort of character-assassination, poisoning-of-the-well job as you've done here.
That second para is especially representative of the in-character mode of your responses: one of a reasonable, empathetic, "hey, I don't like it either!" stance followed in short order by some content-free opinion shaping.
You're clearly capable of more insightful commentary in technical matters (a minor understatement) but beyond that the risk of your comments going tabloid editorial increases quite a bit.
All quite odd behaviour when you combine it with your tendency to guide others in appropriate commenting approaches (as you've done further down this thread.)
What's especially telling is that 5 (admittedly short) grafs, you've failed to address a single point I actually made, but rather tried to summon a gestalt of all my comments so you could tackle them in the abstract.
Want to take another stab at responding? I'm all ears.
Why not make your argument more credible by taking down my supposedly superficial comment? Wouldn't that be a much more interesting and constructive argument?
You didn't challenge any of his points or reasoning there either. Interestingly enough you did exactly what you seem to be condemning the above poster for: summon a gestalt of his points in the article and attack them in the abstract.
Would you like to stick up for Taibbi's financial reporting? I think I've set you up nicely for a takedown comment: as someone observed downthread, all I've done is make a bunch of assertions without supporting evidence.
Who they are and the difference caliber or prestige has nothing to do with the argument. I only mentioned that situation to further illustrate the trend justsee was pointing out, which you still have not bothered rebutting. You're still using worthless ad hominem attacks, just as you do whenever an article promotes a crowd vs. establishment discussion.
To be honest his comment is pretty accurate; you regularly come along for these types of articles as some sort of watchdog, and predictably attack the author's character in some way to discredit the article (especially if its generally criticizing the SV startup scene), instead of directly attacking the author's arguments and reasoning, which would be much more meaningful. I'm curious as to why?
People want him to be right, because who the hell doesn't want to read a fun piece on how corrupt Wall Street is? (I think Wall Street is pretty corrupt, B.T.W.)
He was much better writing about politics, because most of the time you can write a competent political story without needing to explain a technical concept you yourself don't understand. Name dropping, appeals to populism, and comic invective are entirely adequate to that task.
He's good at sports writing too, because he understands the technical concepts he wants to explain.
But with finance writing, Taibbi has set a needlessly high bar for himself, and he doesn't just routinely fail to clear it; he seems to be running under the bar.