|
sean10mm posted:The contrast between the mostly sane Greenwald chat The Greenwald chat appears to have been people calling him everything under the sun with little to no pushback. That's not really a chat. BougieBitch posted:Considering the job he was working when that happened is no longer his X-Present line on his resume, But... Lula got cleared this year.. like 2 weeks ago. Does him not working at the Intercept anymore erase that? He was an important part!
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
BougieBitch posted:if you remove Greenwald from that chain of events there's not any way to prove someone else wouldn't have done the same reporting and just got scooped by GG This is true. I wouldn't have done it, so if we want to get close to answering that we can knock one guy off. quote:The reason this thread exists is because someone said "So I notice GG having a lot of poo poo takes lately and also people generally spit on the floor immediately after saying his name, what's the timeline" and people have been providing that. There's nothing to be gained defending his honor here, because he has none and the thread is like 4 pages of people laying out the reasoning No, it's not. Other than the one tweet thread calling him out about the white supremacy stuff, it'll all just Glenn's Bad. Like, what the gently caress is this? quote:he went to full weird "actually an openly fascist US would be cool and good and nazis are my allies". quote:he didn't like a different flavor of Nazi running things in Brazil. And then even your thing about quote:nevermind the fact that he pushed so hard to publish an unsourced story that his own paper let him go What is this? The story wasn't unsourced. He wasn't fired. What's the point of a thread where it's just people making assertive statements they'll never back up and hoping people will believe them, because that's the orthodoxy or whatever?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 22:35
|
|
|
Thanks. This is something to actually talk about.BougieBitch posted:Glenn gave them an ultimatum of "let me publish this story or I quit" and they said "bye bitch", which fits my definition of "let him go", not sure what you are working off of here. You can read the correspondance between Glenn and his editor here. This is the email the editor sends after Glenn disagrees with what she wants to do to the article, in his typically frosty and rude manner: quote:Our intention in sending the memo was for you to revise the story for publication. However, it's clear from your response this morning that you are unwilling to engage in a productive editorial process on this article, as we had hoped. This isn't calling a bluff on a threat to resign he never made. There's certainly an air of "I'm gone" by Glenn's second email I suppose. quote:Your argument about "unsourced" relies on the same logic as a kid turning in a paper with "wikipedia" as the only thing in the works cited page - if you are stating things as facts without trackable sources, it's unsourced, period. If "wrote an article that didn't meet the standards of sourcing for a paper that he cofounded, and then quit in outrage over 'censorship', then published the article on his personal blog, proving that actually it was just straight up lies and slander" sounds better to you then we can say that, but if anything I think it sounds WORSE - his sources are the political enemies of the subject's father, it would be MORE ethical to write something completely unsourced than to publish an embellished hit piece and treat it as fact The article is here. What are the untrackable sources? There are direct twitter statements, interviews, articles. The issues that the editor had with his work weren't issues at all (see the email where he responds point by point). If your problem is that the sources are NYT, Fox- that's the point of the article, that mainstream sources are mostly ignoring whatever was released. The authenticity of the documents wasn't questioned, and at least some were confirmed (see the article, which makes this point).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
Sorry, I deleted the post halfway through and write slowly so didn't see your edit. I think it covers it though. Although the 2005 article is pretty funny, and kind of emblematic of this immediate judjing of people who are outside of the like- orthodoxy I guess? Do you think Glenn agrees with that article now? It's like when people blame him for supporting the Iraq war- yeah that's bad, but it's 20 years later and he documented his change of opinion. I don't understand the quick to judge, slow to forgive mindset.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:They confirmed that Hunter was actually in the photos, (which were speculated to be taken from a hack of his iCloud). What they absolutely did NOT confirm was the existence of an actual "Hunter Biden laptop" which was a whole-cloth lie told to give the hacked photos the veneer of legitimacy since publishing things obtained through criminal means is a no-no This is your issue? That there wasn't a laptop? People publish things acquired through criminal means all the time. In fact, I can think of one large cache of documents shared illegally by an Edward Snowden that was pretty significant. There's also things like the Pentagon Papers, Sony emails, DNC/Podesta emails- all reported on in mainstream press.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 23:16
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Do you regular read and participate in D&D? He's disliked so goddamn much the mere mention of him derails entire conversation. In fact, I think this is the 2nd GG Thread. There was another a few years back. I understand that, but the OP is asking what he's done and "What are some of his best hits that make so many people hate him?" Then the only things that get linked is the thread on twitter about white supremacy and an article he wrote from 2005. The rest of it is just circlejerky call and response poo poo. The only good short response was the one along the lines of "he's a civil libertarian who takes it to extreme lengths" IMO. I read the shipping and tech threads, probably one or two others occasionally. Other than that it's just seeing what the latest stuff from the leper's colony is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:You are going to absolutely need to cite your sources on him changing opinion on immigration, cuz appearing on Tucker Carlson is pretty consistent with the same degree of white nationalism as that blog post about "hordes" preventing the "preservation of any national identity" Sure quote:@sahar_shafqat That was a 6 yrs ago: 3 weeks after I began blogging, when I had zero readers. I've discussed many times before how there were many uninformed things I believed back then, before I focused on politics full-time - due to uncritically ingesting conventional wisdom, propaganda, etc. I've written many times since then about how immigrants are exploited by the Right for fear-mongering purposes. I'm 100% in favor of amnesty, think defeat of the DREAM Act was an act of evil, etc. That said, I do think illegal immigration is a serious problem: having millions of people live without legal rights; having a legal scheme that is so pervasively disregarded breeds contempt for the rule of law; virtually every country - not just the U.S. insists on border control because having a manageable immigration process is vital on multiple levels. But that post is something I wrote literally a few weeks after I began blogging when nobody was reading my blog; it was anything but thoughtful, contemplative, and informed, and - like so many things I thought were true then - has nothing to do with what I believe now. Very catty. I suppose he also posts on twitter about all the fracas at the border but IDK, I don't follow him. The "legal scheme that is so pervasively disregarded breeds contempt for the rule of law;" thing is an issue (if it means what I think it means, unclear, but the rest is reasonable growth.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 23:28
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
Payment processors, banks and card networks should be as neutral as possible. If it's not directly involved with a crime then let it through (I'm sure there's also things like blacklisting chargebackers and poo poo). Some guy at Paypal deciding whether your case or bail is worth funding is abhorrent. Especially Paypal! Remember SA's Katrina issue?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Are you talking about GoFundMe? Why should they be forced to fund racists if they don't want to? No- things like Stripe, Paypal, Apple Pay, Visa, Mastercard. In the article: quote:PayPal cut all ties with GiveSendGo, but PayPal and Stripe have taken a different approach with GoGetFunding, AllFundIt and Our Freedom Funding. Rather than cut them off, the companies stopped processing payments for individual fundraisers that violate their rules. Regular people don't really get to choose how money is moved around, so they shouldn't be discriminated against. God help you if Visa decides to gently caress with you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Pretty sure SA's Katrina issue had more to do with, as astral put it recently, "[setting] off pretty much every fraud alarm possible". Probably right to be honest- but didn't they force donating to a preapproved list of charities rather than the one SA wanted? That's the issue. Freezing >100k in payments in <week to some random's Paypal is fine. Man, you're probably going to tell me that the charity they wanted was Lowtax' Hurricane Repairs. letthereberock posted:2-GG is a real piece of poo poo for attacking someone simply for reporting on this. I mean, from the excerpt I posted, they're literally donating to the funds then reporting them to Paypal/Stripe. The topic is in his wheelhouse and it wasn't particularly abusive. v yeah, guy's very aggro Quotey fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Mar 29, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2021 20:23
|
|
|
Somfin posted:How directly is directly? No idea, you'd have to get someone decent who knows about this stuff to write guidance/a law on it! The MATCH stuff Mastercard uses seems reasonable enough, although I don't know the full details of #7 and #10. However, that only accounts for merchants? I mean, I expect you could just leave whatever processes they have in place to detect crime and otherwise don't review individual transactions. I think something like this came up with Operation Chokepoint being shuttered, but again that was entire businesses/sectors rather than individuals.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
I think right now they want lawyers so they don't have to take a lovely plea deal or gamble with an overworked public defender against the FBI (or whoever handles it, DOJ whatever), but that too I suppose. I think doing a gofundme for the takeover of the US might be covered under illegal activities.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
Aruan posted:i think the problem with this is that when you study the totality of what he says and does - and not his angriest tweets - it turns out he isn't actually principled in a "classic liberal" (really libertarian) way, because he only believes about things like "free speech" when it applies to angry white men who like to shoot up synagogues, and not women or minorities. i think there are many other people who make the same criticisms of us foreign policy - the only place where you could argue that glenn is useful - without everything else (and selling his statements as transgender people as "problematic" is really short selling it). like, look at his recent focus on the dangers of tech censorship - which really only started when technology companies started censoring people on the right - and its like, no loving poo poo? that's been happening to leftists for literally decades (if not centuries). if your introduction to the idea of "its bad when large oligopolies control communication channels and can effectively censor groups with ideas they don't like" is from glenn, then i would encourage you to read like... any us history. like, glenn is not the ACLU who are defending everyone because free speech is a sacred principle that should be defended regardless of how objectionable content is - he only speaks up about censorship when it targets right wing ideologies. and if you study everything else he does, you start to see a pattern: he has an affinity for defending right wing white men and attacking minority groups. you could argue that's just a crazy coincidence, but i think its reflective that the core of his belief isn't "classic liberalism" its "right wing populism". https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1377247040963551232 https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/ I'm sure there are more examples.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Are you just going through his twitter and posting the first thign that isn't him being explicitly bigoted I was responding to quote:i think the problem with this is that when you study the totality of what he says and does - and not his angriest tweets - it turns out he isn't actually principled in a "classic liberal" (really libertarian) way, because he only believes about things like "free speech" when it applies to angry white men who like to shoot up synagogues, and not women or minorities. Somfin posted:His objection isn't about her. It's about himself and his nazi buddies. How is it even possible to respond to this? I think that you're protecting your nazi buddies from Glenn Greenwald!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 22:39
|
|