temporary green greenwald is a transphobe thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > temporary green greenwald is a transphobe thread

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

sean10mm posted:

Should be easy to quote them doing that if this is what they actually said, and not a strawman.

It looks like they say they hate him for being a transphobe, which you keep ignoring.

I also hate him for being the absolute media scold he thinks he's owning on the internet.

# ? Mar 24, 2021 20:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 05:22

Kavros: May 18, 2011; sleep sleep sleep
fly fly post post
sleep sleep sleep

Slanderer posted:

You can't just saying "it's disinformation" because you think the conclusions are weak

Which is why it's a good thing I don't just say that, and this take is bad. I generally think his arguments would be less weak if he hadn't become so ardently fixated on disinformation, but I would also find them less insufferable, so it would more or less help the entirety of my appraisal of him.

quote:

You could simply block him on twitter, if you like defending US wars and the erosion of free speech this much.

Turning someone's disapproval of Greenwald on account of his obvious transphobia, bigotry, and playing to right wing reactionaries into 'i guess you like defending US wars and the erosion of free speech' or .. well, generally whatever this play is intended to play out as, is awful. And I think even talk about Greenwald should have a floor.

# ? Mar 24, 2021 20:44

Beelzebufo: Mar 5, 2015; Frog puns are toadally awesome

Why is the erosion of free speech always about the right to defend phrenology again and never about why someone like Richard Wolff would never appear on Fox or MSNBC?

# ? Mar 24, 2021 20:46

Owlspiracy: Nov 4, 2020

Beelzebufo posted:

Why is the erosion of free speech always about the right to defend phrenology again and never about why someone like Richard Wolff would never appear on Fox or MSNBC?

because when most people talk about free speech they're talking about their personal ability to say whatever they want - not yours. at least glenn is more consistent than most on arguing for entirely unrestricted speech (including defending his critiques from twitter bans), so his issue is being hopelessly naive about how speech, even fringe speech, translates to actions in 2021.

# ? Mar 24, 2021 20:48

Beelzebufo: Mar 5, 2015; Frog puns are toadally awesome

Aruan posted:

because when most people talk about free speech they're talking about their personal ability to say whatever they want - not yours. at least glenn is more consistent than most on arguing for entirely unrestricted speech (including defending his critiques from twitter bans), so his issue is being hopelessly naive about how speech, even fringe speech, translates to actions in 2021.

Right, but Glenn hasn't really gone out of his way to say, boost the voices of the indigenous groups Bolsonaro is currently massacring in the Amazon, either. The defence of "Free Speech", framed purely in terms of already famous people being cancelled or blacklisted, is absurdly reductive and works to reinforce the barriers to entry of ideas outside of the overton window. Glenn is at best a useful idiot for people like Tucker, who already absolutely do advocate for denying groups like BLM or BSD the right to free speech, or he is in active collusion with them to frame free speech discussions in such a way as to make the only relevant problem cancelling of media figures.

Now, this isn't the reason I dislike Glenn. This thread has covered why Glenn's output is reprehensible and why he is a bad person. But claiming he's at least a voice for "free speech" really only works if your definition of free speech exists purely within twitter and primetime news.

E: I doubt the people currently passing laws making it legal to run over protestors in Mississippi are feeling particularly called out by Glenn

Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Mar 24, 2021

# ? Mar 24, 2021 20:57

Kavros: May 18, 2011; sleep sleep sleep
fly fly post post
sleep sleep sleep

Aruan posted:

because when most people talk about free speech they're talking about their personal ability to say whatever they want - not yours. at least glenn is more consistent than most on arguing for entirely unrestricted speech (including defending his critiques from twitter bans), so his issue is being hopelessly naive about how speech, even fringe speech, translates to actions in 2021.

Yeah, Greenwald's take on free speech is mostly in line with "marketplace of ideas" folk who sincerely end up arguing in favor of unbound access to exposure to publication or social exposure by private platforms, in line with the more naive takes by owners of places like reddit, twitter, or even wikipedia that led to shadow infestations of .. well, all that stuff we remember from before they rolled back from the "we don't want to be arbiters of acceptable speech" standpoint. He's only going to be reductively in favor of free speech, to the benefit of people who don't really favor free speech, they're just being successfully constrained from public exposure for being awful and are trying to shift that culture war back in their favor.

# ? Mar 24, 2021 21:07

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy

Slanderer posted:

You could simply block him on twitter, if you like defending US wars and the erosion of free speech this much. Personally I think it's good to have a single voice on the biggest cable network occasionally doing this things, since no one else is (or at least not when their party is in power). It is incredibly unhealthy to have this kind of weird parasocial relationship with a blogger where you actively hate someone you follow by your own choice

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Glenn supported the Iraq war. From the preface of his 2006 book titled "How Would a Patriot Act?":

quote:

During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president�s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.

Not only that, he later attacked others for supporting it:

quote:

But Thomas Friedman wants you to know that Iraqis were so very fortunate to have an occupying military force -- America -- that "everyone on the ground" in Iraq "trusted" to "manage the transition." And Syrians should hope and pray they are so lucky.

This is to say nothing of the warped imagery Friedman often uses of the invading U.S. as a "midwife" -- as though Muslim countries are our little babies who need and pray for our parental imperial guidance out of their primitive wombs. The reality is that almost everything Tom Friedman says on Iraq is designed to make people forget his actual, candidly expressed views about why he thought the war was just -- probably the most viscerally repellent comments anyone with a large mainstream platform has spouted in the last decade.

...and then had the audacity to deny that that he himself had supported it:

quote:

When the Iraq War was debated and then commenced, I was not a writer. I was not a journalist. I was not politically engaged or active. I never played any role in political debates or controversies. Unlike the countless beloved Democrats who actually did support the war - including Obama's Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - I had no platform or role in politics of any kind.

I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form. Ask anyone who claims that I "supported" the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It's a pure fabrication.

The dude is not just a incredibly annoying moron with deplorable opinions, but also a shameless liar.

# ? Mar 24, 2021 21:16

tom kite: Feb 12, 2009

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

Glenn supported the Iraq war. From the preface of his 2006 book titled "How Would a Patriot Act?":

Not only that, he later attacked others for supporting it:

...and then had the audacity to deny that that he himself had supported it:

The dude is not just a incredibly annoying moron with deplorable opinions, but also a shameless liar.

Glenn comes off a lot better than our president tbh

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Mar 25, 2021 08:12

tom kite: Feb 12, 2009

tom kite posted:

Glenn comes off a lot better than our president tbh

Lol I just remembered biden also denied supporting the iraq war

# ? Mar 25, 2021 08:13

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

tom kite posted:

Lol I just remembered biden also denied supporting the iraq war

There's a thing with a lot of older and stupid politicians that they haven't really internalised that the internet is a thing. That literally everything they do and say that's captured on camera is available to the entire world at a moment's notice. They still think they can lie freely about what they do and don't support and what they have and haven't said and done, and by the time the fact-checkers catch them out no one will care.

# ? Mar 25, 2021 08:24

Sanguinia: Jan 1, 2012; ~Everybody wants to be a cat~
~Because a cat's the only cat~
~Who knows where its at~

tom kite posted:

Glenn comes off a lot better than our president tbh

We have reached peak D&D. "The open fascist comes off better than the Democratic President."

# ? Mar 25, 2021 09:28

sean10mm: Jun 29, 2005; It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, MAD-2R World

So to be clear, it's fair game in D&D to signal boost anybody who's an overt transphobe bigot in goddamn 2021 as long as it lets me score a sweet :iceburn:

on my posting enemies? Because that sure seems to be the takeaway from all this.

# ? Mar 25, 2021 12:12

Fritz Coldcockin: Nov 7, 2005

I once got Glenn Greenwald to tell me on Twitter that it didn't matter that he went on Tucker Carlson because he didn't make money off the appearances.

I didn't have the heart to tell him that made things even worse.

I mean, there's the TERFism, the signal-boosting of white supremacy, the shitfit he threw at the Intercept over the Hunter Biden non-story...there is no reason to die on Glenn Greenwald Hill anymore. It is very clear that he hates what he perceives as "liberalism" more than honest-to-God fascism, as is evidenced by all his actions over the last decade or so. There are other foreign policy journalists that do real good work and get drowned out by this turd because he's the loudest voice in the room.

Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Mar 25, 2021

# ? Mar 25, 2021 13:03

Slanderer: May 6, 2007

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

Glenn supported the Iraq war. From the preface of his 2006 book titled "How Would a Patriot Act?":

Not only that, he later attacked others for supporting it:

...and then had the audacity to deny that that he himself had supported it:

The dude is not just a incredibly annoying moron with deplorable opinions, but also a shameless liar.

Holy poo poo you're patheic. Even the daily kos--the daily loving kos lmao-- that you quoted his book from, is itself presenting it as part of the full quote from him that is literally a direct response to libs mad about him critizing Obama trying to take his own writing about his political awakening out of context as a gotcha. You literally quoted him quoting himself to explain how libs use it as a gotcha, and tried to use it as a gotcha.

Again, from the page you yourself quoted from:

quote:

[Claim] I supported the Iraq War and/or George Bush

These claim [sic] are absolutely false. They come from a complete distortion of the Preface I wrote to my own 2006 book, How Would a Patriot Act? That book - which was the first book devoted to denouncing the Bush/Cheney executive power theories as radical and lawless - was published a mere six months after I began blogging, so the the purpose of the Preface was to explain where I had come from, why I left my law practice to begin writing about politics, and what my political evolution had been..

The whole point of the Preface was that, before 2004, I had been politically apathetic and indifferent - except for the work I was doing on constitutional law. That's because, while I had no interest in the fights between Democrats and Republicans, I had a basic trust in the American political system and its institutions, such that I devoted my attention and energies to preventing constitutional violations rather than political debates. From the first two paragraphs:

"I never voted for George W. Bush � or for any of his political opponents. I believed that voting was not particularly important. Our country, it seemed to me, was essentially on the right track. Whether Democrats or Republicans held the White House or the majorities in Congress made only the most marginal difference. . . .
I firmly believed that our democratic system of government was sufficiently insulated from any real abuse, by our Constitution and by the checks and balances afforded by having three separate but equal branches of government. My primary political belief was that both parties were plagued by extremists who were equally dangerous and destructive, but that as long as neither extreme acquired real political power, our system would function smoothly and more or less tolerably. For that reason, although I always paid attention to political debates, I was never sufficiently moved to become engaged in the electoral process. I had great faith in the stability and resilience of the constitutional republic that the founders created."

When the Iraq War was debated and then commenced, I was not a writer. I was not a journalist. I was not politically engaged or active. I never played any role in political debates or controversies. Unlike the countless beloved Democrats who actually did support the war - including Obama's Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - I had no platform or role in politics of any kind.

I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form. Ask anyone who claims that I "supported" the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It's a pure fabrication.

At the time, I was basically a standard passive consumer of political news: I read The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic: the journals that I thought high-end consumers of news would read and which I assumed were generally reliable for getting the basic truth. What I explained in the Preface was that I had major objections to the Iraq war when it was being debated:

During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11.

Nonetheless, because of the general faith I had in political and media institutions, I assumed - since both political parties and media outlets and journalists from across the ideological spectrum were united in support of the war - that there must be some valid basis to the claim that Saddam posed a threat. My basic trust in these institutions neutralized the objections I had and led me to passively acquiesce to what was being done ("I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.").

Like many people, I became radicalized by those early years of the Bush administration. The Preface recounts that it was the 2002 due-process-free imprisonment of US citizen Jose Padilla and the 2003 Iraq War that caused me to realize the full extent of the government's radicalism and the media's malfeasance: "I developed, for the first time in my life, a sense of urgency about the need to take a stand for our country and its defining principles."

As I recount in the Preface, I stopped practicing law and pursued political writing precisely because those people who had an obligation to act as adversarial checks on the Bush administration during the start of the war on civil liberties and the run-up to the Iraq War - namely, Congress, courts, and the media - were profoundly failing to fulfill that obligation.

I wasn't a journalist or government official during these radical power abuses and the run-up to the Iraq War, and wasn't working in a profession supposedly devoted to serving as watchdog over government claims and abuses. I relied on those people to learn what was going on and to prevent extremism. But I quickly concluded that those who held those positions in politics and journalism were failing in their duties. Read the last six paragraphs of the Preface: I started writing about politics to bring light to these issues and to try to contribute to a real adversarial force against the Bush administration and its blind followers.

It is true that, like 90% of Americans, I did support the war in Afghanistan and, living in New York, believed the rhetoric about the threat of Islamic extremism: those were obvious mistakes. It's also true that one can legitimately criticize me for not having actively opposed the Iraq War at a time when many people were doing so. Martin Luther King, in his 1967 speech explaining why his activism against the Vietnam War was indispensable to his civil rights work, acknowledged that he had been too slow to pay attention to or oppose the war and that he thus felt obligated to work with particular vigor against it once he realized the need ("Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam").

I've often spoken about the prime benefit of writing about political matters full-time: namely, it enables you to examine first-hand sources and not have to rely upon media or political mediators when forming beliefs. That process has been and continues to be very eye-opening for me.

Like most people who do not work on politics or journalism full-time, I had to rely back then on standard political and media venues to form my political impressions of the world. When I first began writing about politics, I had a whole slew of conventional political beliefs that came from lazy ingestion of the false and misleading claims of these conventional political and media sources. Having the time to examine political realities first-hand has led me to realize how many of those former beliefs I held were based on myth or worse, and I've radically changed how I think about a whole slew of issues as a result of that re-examination.

The purpose of the Preface was to publicly explain that evolution. Indeed, the first sentence of this Preface was this quote from Abraham Lincoln: "I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday." When I still trusted and relied upon the claims of the political and media class - when I was basically apolitical and passive - I tacitly accepted all sorts of views which I've come to see are warped and misleading. I've talked often about this process and am proud of this evolution. I have zero interest in hiding it or concealing it. Quite the contrary: I want readers to know about it. That's why I wrote the Preface.

But anyone using this Preface to claim I was a "supporter" of the Iraq War is simply fabricating. At worst, I was guilty of apathy and passivity. I did nothing for or against it because I assumed that those in positions to exercise adversarial scrutiny - in journalism and politics - were doing that. It's precisely my realization of how profoundly deceitful and failed are American political and media institutions that motivated me to begin working on politics, and it's those realizations which continue to motivate me now.

# ? Mar 25, 2021 13:42

lynch_69: Jan 21, 2001

I didn't have to write any of that overwrought nonsense or quote Abraham Lincoln and I still knew the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were bullshit back in the day. Guess I'm ten times the journalist Glenn Fuckwald is.

This is the Jordan Peterson fanboy defense of "oh you think he said something plainly and obviously dumb", but if you read his entire book or watch this 4 hour YouTube series you'll find that he actually never said that and also you're wrong for ever doubting him.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

lynch_69 fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Mar 25, 2021

# ? Mar 25, 2021 14:26

Fritz Coldcockin: Nov 7, 2005

Funny how Glenn can use "I gave the President the benefit of the doubt" as an excuse and his defenders will allow it, and yet none of the Senators who used it are given the same courtesy. He loves to pretend that he's the smartest person in the room, and yet he fell for the big lie just like a lot of other people and tried to pretend he didn't because he "wasn't political".

You don't get to say this and bill yourself as some sort of crusader against government overreach in the foreign policy arena, hope that helps.

Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Mar 25, 2021

# ? Mar 25, 2021 14:26

Slanderer: May 6, 2007

Fritz Coldcockin posted:

Funny how Glenn can use "I gave the President the benefit of the doubt" as an excuse and his defenders will allow it, and yet none of the Senators who used it are given the same courtesy. He loves to pretend that he's the smartest person in the room, and yet he fell for the big lie just like a lot of other people and tried to pretend he didn't because he "wasn't political".

You don't get to say this and bill yourself as some sort of crusader against government overreach in the foreign policy arena, hope that helps.

Personally, I think elected representatives, who are paid a tremendous amount of money and have access to military intelligence and a swarm of staffers, should be held to a higher standard than the average citizen who only passively consumes the news from corporate media. While a "my bad" might suffice for an uninformed voter who privately assumed the media was being honest with them, I kinda think that materially supporting a war that caused a million deaths, even after they couldn't hide behind the WMD fig leaf, is a far worse crime. Especially since those same senators knew very well that Iraq was just the springboard for invading Iran, and still demanding that it has to "pay" to this very loving day lol.

But you know, maybe that's a controversial position

# ? Mar 25, 2021 15:03

SpiritOfLenin: Apr 29, 2013; be happy :3

Slanderer posted:

Personally, I think elected representatives, who are paid a tremendous amount of money and have access to military intelligence and a swarm of staffers, should be held to a higher standard than the average citizen who only passively consumes the news from corporate media.

so glenn is only as informed as the average citizen, good to know. we can safely ignore him completely then

# ? Mar 25, 2021 15:12

Slanderer: May 6, 2007

SpiritOfLenin posted:

so glenn is only as informed as the average citizen, good to know. we can safely ignore him completely then

He was in 2004, as he freely admits. What's your excuse for believing Rachel Maddow in 2021?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Mar 25, 2021 15:14

SpiritOfLenin: Apr 29, 2013; be happy :3

Slanderer posted:

He was in 2004, as he freely admits. What's your excuse for believing Rachel Maddow in 2021?

what the gently caress are you going on about?

# ? Mar 25, 2021 15:19

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

Slanderer posted:

He was in 2004, as he freely admits. What's your excuse for believing Rachel Maddow in 2021?

Who the gently caress cares about Rachel Maddow, other than the fact that she isn�t an anti-trans bigot?

# ? Mar 25, 2021 15:20

lynch_69: Jan 21, 2001

SpiritOfLenin posted:

what the gently caress are you going on about?

It�s a common brain disease with Glennwald fanboys. Anyone who disagrees with them or their idol is automatically a centrist austerity loving neoliberal shill. Their perceived enemies are all around them.

# ? Mar 25, 2021 15:22

Mooseontheloose: May 13, 2003

Solkanar512 posted:

Who the gently caress cares about Rachel Maddow, other than the fact that she isn�t an anti-trans bigot?

I am going to guess this is going to lead to something MSNBC supports the Democratic Party, therefore you are the rube, unlike Glenn Greenwald defender of truth.

# ? Mar 25, 2021 15:23

Grammarchist: Jan 28, 2013

Yeah, I'm pretty sure "safely ignored" is exactly how this forum reacts to Maddow, or most any mainstream commentator to be honest. I only ever hear about her from angry right-wing relatives.

# ? Mar 25, 2021 15:26

SpiritOfLenin: Apr 29, 2013; be happy :3

lynch_69 posted:

It�s a common brain disease with Glennwald fanboys. Anyone who disagrees with them or their idol is automatically a centrist austerity loving neoliberal shill. Their perceived enemies are all around them.

i had to check if i missed some mention of Maddow on this page but, no, he just randomly accused me of believing Maddow about... I don't even know what. just confusing.

# ? Mar 25, 2021 15:28

Fritz Coldcockin: Nov 7, 2005

Slanderer posted:

He was in 2004, as he freely admits. What's your excuse for believing Rachel Maddow in 2021?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

We don't give a flying gently caress about Rachel Maddow; why is she at all germane to a conversation about a man who espouses TERFism, signal-boosts white supremacy, and cheers fascism as long as the boot isn't on his neck?

# ? Mar 25, 2021 16:11

predicto: Jul 22, 2004; THE DEM DEFENDER HAS LOGGED ON

Slanderer posted:

Personally, I think elected representatives, who are paid a tremendous amount of money and have access to military intelligence and a swarm of staffers, should be held to a higher standard than the average citizen who only passively consumes the news from corporate media. While a "my bad" might suffice for an uninformed voter who privately assumed the media was being honest with them, I kinda think that materially supporting a war that caused a million deaths, even after they couldn't hide behind the WMD fig leaf, is a far worse crime. Especially since those same senators knew very well that Iraq was just the springboard for invading Iran, and still demanding that it has to "pay" to this very loving day lol.

But you know, maybe that's a controversial position

As an aside.... the military intelligence that the Democratic Senators and their staffers received before the Iraq vote was cooked by Douglas Feith and other Cheney cronies before it was given to them. Your assumption that they all voted for it because they wanted a springboard for invading Iran is just more of the same broken brain �I hate Democrats more than actual fascists and trust Breitbart more than the Washington Post� bullshit that infects D&D so badly.

( and before this gets twisted, I�m not saying that anyone should have supported the Iraq invasion. It was a hosed up decision all around. All I�m saying is that the Democrats who did support did so for essentially the same reasons that Saint Glenn Greenwood did and Glenn is shown to be an enormous loving hypocrite one again. But the broke brain crowd just can�t stop defending him, because he hates some of the same people they do)

# ? Mar 25, 2021 16:29

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

SpiritOfLenin posted:

what the gently caress are you going on about?

This thread has been one heck of a honeypot.

# ? Mar 25, 2021 16:51

Quotey: Aug 16, 2006; We went out for lunch and then we stopped for some bubble tea.

# ? Mar 25, 2021 17:30

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

Sodomy Hussein posted:

This thread has been one heck of a honeypot.

Attracting brokebrains in D&D isn't exactly a feat.

# ? Mar 25, 2021 17:44

Silver2195: Apr 4, 2012

Slanderer posted:

Why does him having principles about free speech make you so mad?

Having principles about free speech is good, but when "freedom of speech" is understood primarily as a set of cultural principles rather than a legal right, it tends to end up too self-contradictory to really be called a set of principles. (That's not to say that censorship by private actors is never a problem, or that there aren't times and places for uninhibited debate, but editors at a news organization doing their jobs is not inherently a grievous wrong, as Glenn seems to think, and as I assume The Intercept has had editors ever since Glenn co-founded it, his outrage is hypocritical.)

# ? Mar 25, 2021 17:58

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

Ghost Leviathan posted:

Attracting brokebrains in D&D isn't exactly a feat.

hey, i represent that remark.

# ? Mar 25, 2021 18:00

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Fritz Coldcockin posted:

We don't give a flying gently caress about Rachel Maddow;

Literally the only time I see Maddow mentioned is by

A) Smoothbrained chuds who think that everyone to the left of open fascism worships her and watches her show religiously

B) Smoothbrained contrarians on this board who thinks that USPol worships her and watches her show religiously.

nobody gives the slightest poo poo about Maddow but bringing her up usually is a great shibboleth for someone who is arguing against a strawman of their own construction.

# ? Mar 25, 2021 18:07

Owlspiracy: Nov 4, 2020

Jaxyon posted:

Literally the only time I see Maddow mentioned is by

A) Smoothbrained chuds who think that everyone to the left of open fascism worships her and watches her show religiously

B) Smoothbrained contrarians on this board who thinks that USPol worships her and watches her show religiously.

nobody gives the slightest poo poo about Maddow but bringing her up usually is a great shibboleth for someone who is arguing against a strawman of their own construction.

hey to be fair there was that one time when she claimed she had trump's tax records and everyone made fun of her

# ? Mar 25, 2021 18:17

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

Jaxyon posted:

Literally the only time I see Maddow mentioned is by

A) Smoothbrained chuds who think that everyone to the left of open fascism worships her and watches her show religiously

B) Smoothbrained contrarians on this board who thinks that USPol worships her and watches her show religiously.

nobody gives the slightest poo poo about Maddow but bringing her up usually is a great shibboleth for someone who is arguing against a strawman of their own construction.

yeah, i dont know anyone but one of my moms liberal friends(who voted for bernie in the primaries) she is mostly a liberal/leftish boomer thing i guess. my parents news is nbc news with lester holt.

# ? Mar 25, 2021 18:19

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1375079174440955912

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1375080283918188551

what a little loving parasite. yeah the old terf rear end in a top hat who invades a queer womens space and shames many of them on his little blog and then pretends to be trans as a lark and the site that lets him do it is the real loving victims. clearly glenn boy detective has found the solution.

Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Mar 25, 2021

# ? Mar 25, 2021 18:44

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Dapper_Swindler posted:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1375079174440955912

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1375080283918188551

what a little loving parasite. yeah the old terf rear end in a top hat who invades a queer womens space and shames many of them on his little blog and then pretends to be trans as a lark and the site that lets him do it is the real loving victims. clearly glenn boy detective has found the solution.

Tyranny is when workers strike

# ? Mar 25, 2021 18:51

Ague Proof: Jun 5, 2014; they told me
I was everything

Once you start Glinnering on Twitter there's rarely any way back.

# ? Mar 25, 2021 19:14

Sanguinia: Jan 1, 2012; ~Everybody wants to be a cat~
~Because a cat's the only cat~
~Who knows where its at~

Jaxyon posted:

Literally the only time I see Maddow mentioned is by

A) Smoothbrained chuds who think that everyone to the left of open fascism worships her and watches her show religiously

B) Smoothbrained contrarians on this board who thinks that USPol worships her and watches her show religiously.

nobody gives the slightest poo poo about Maddow but bringing her up usually is a great shibboleth for someone who is arguing against a strawman of their own construction.

I'm honestly trying to remember the last time I saw someone in USPol mention Maddow. I think the dingus up-thread is the first time I've seen a post with her name in it since before the election.

# ? Mar 25, 2021 19:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 05:22

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

Sanguinia posted:

I'm honestly trying to remember the last time I saw someone in USPol mention Maddow. I think the dingus up-thread is the first time I've seen a post with her name in it since before the election.

the only post mentioning maddow since jan 26th was a single post on on feb 26th (there's now a thread-specific search) and it was generically referencing her as someone that arguments could devolve into being about

so yeah, not really a thing

# ? Mar 25, 2021 21:02

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > temporary green greenwald is a transphobe thread

«‹›17 »