|
IMO it's important for channels to exist for whistleblowers to leak contemptible information, those channels are almost always going to be appropriated by countries opposed to the US, I dont particularly give a poo poo about that. Assange is a creepy sexpest who should have ended up in a swedish or australian prison. Everyone, however, knew that the reason those charges were being pursued so vigorously was so they could extradite him to the US to be gulag'd. Well, everyone but the most gullible and the people who lust for whistleblower death (but knew that righteous indignation over the sex crimes was easier to argue in threads). Glenn Greenwald is a contrarian rear end in a top hat. He's done important work up into the modern times, recently signal boosting Ryan Grim's efforts to expose the Massachusetts democratic party for trying to push "CREEPY GAY TEACHER TOUCHING YOUR CHILDREN" tropes to protect an anti-M4A stooge. He is also a 54 year old liberal, which means he has a bunch of lovely opinions. Just as with literally every journalist (and considering the caliber of reporter tweets posted in USPOL, this should already be gospel) and news organization it's important to discern their biases and poo poo beliefs, and ignore them on those subjects. Greenwald on US surveillance? On brazillian fascism? Absolutely worth reading. On trans rights? On immigration? Throw the tweet/article in the trash.
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 09:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
As an aside, people seem to express a lot of skepticism over the idea that Greenwald accepts whatever TV appearances he's allowed, and seem to scoff at the idea that United States media would hold biases in a way that would cause them to blacklist Greenwald (or that the blacklist is a moral one resulting from his statements). I would ask those people how Robert Caruso ends up on Reuters, MSNBC, Politico, the Boston Globe, BuzzFeed, Business Insider, the Daily Beast, and a few others to demand we bomb more people, despite having literally no credentials and a history of stalking & abuse. Was it just an oopsie that they didn't vet him in any way/shape/form, or did he provide a convenient voice for their biases? Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 09:56
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Can we not treat rape charges as mostly about being political gain? Me, in the same post posted:Assange is a creepy sexpest who should have ended up in a swedish or australian prison. The sad reality is that sexual abuse and assault is not something that countries extradite famous people for. It's why Roman Polanski, pedophile cretin, for example, has sauntered his way around France and Switzerland without being extradited, despite admitting to what he's done and already being given a fair trial. With that in mind, it was extremely suspect how Sweden & the UK went beyond out of their way to attempt to arrest him, even when the women withdrew their allegations (Which does not mean those allegations were not true). Those suspicions have since ended up justified, seeing as Assange immediately became at risk of being extradited not to Sweden (where he'd be given a fair trial and sent to prison for sexual assault), but to the US (where he has not sexually assaulted anyone, to my knowledge). The comparison is being passively drawn to Tara Reade in your post. The issue here is that I am not saying what anti-Tara Reade posters said ("these charges might be political, therefore Biden should not face reprecussions"). The sexual assault charges in Sweden could be politically motivated for all I care, Assange should still go to Sweden and be tried for sexual assault. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 10:23 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 10:20
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:That's gross. Don't do that. He's a rapist, just like Biden. You don't need to use rape to fight forum battles. Do you propose that he be extradited to the US? People absolutely do latch on to rape and sexual abuse allegations for political reasons. This does not discredit the rape and sexual abuse allegations. I have even reliably said as much in the Tara Reade thread: Neurolimal posted:It's basically impossible to prevent one side from single-boosting harassment/assault cases for partisan reasons. It's a juicy bit of oppo that any sane person would be an idiot not to take advantage of. All you can really do is appreciate the added help. And just as with republicans & democrats boosting rape cases, people who fetishize US military & intelligence power signal boosting Assange's sexual assault case does not discredit the women who he sexually assaulted. If the people who wanted to see Assange behind bars for exposing US secrets had advocated for him to be sent to Sweden with a promise not to be extradited to the US, so that they could get their rocks off seeing Assange behind bars in Sweden, then I would have absolutely no qualms with them, as per my Tara Reade thread post. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 10:49
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Please stop deleting the part where I say what you're doing wrong. It doesn't matter if they did it because they lust for whistleblower death or are saintly angels who just happened to argue for pages on end in ways that would make Fishmech blush that nothing was suspicious. Their personal motives don't change whether they were right or wrong (they were wrong, as we have now seen). If they were right, then their bloodlust would not matter, just as the political affiliation of the people who give rape cases more attention does not matter. It's just additional snark. quote:You are now going back in time to decide that their anger at rape is being performative but yours is pure and good. On the contrary, I don't believe anyone is capable of objectivity. My biases against Biden, and against the kind of people who say, rail against the quantum lives Chelsea Manning endangered, absolutely color my perception. I would like to think that I try to focus on what is factual when it matters, but I'm not narcissistic enough to believe that I succeed (see: snark about attitudes towards whistleblowers). quote:That's gross and I'm not going to reply to this further because the topic of this thread is not noted rapist Julian Assange, but rather noted white supremacist Glenn Gleenwald. Who you also implied just happened to take any booking necessary, just a little ooopsy-daisy of a guy who defends white supremacists and holds white supremacist views accidentally belly flopping onto a regualar guest spot on the biggest white supremacist show on TV. I believe it's both. Greenwald has been blacklisted from major stations and would prefer to reach more people on more stations. He also has a friendship with Tucker Carlson that encourages him to go on when he gets the chance. My point about Robert Caruso isn't whataboutism, it's pointing out that there is no morality behind preventing him & other less objectionable Intercept writers (genuine question because I dont watch much television: how often has Ryan Grim been on MSNBC or CNN? He's broken several major stories and he has no Fox News ties) from appearing on mainstream channels. Because they will evidently platform a crazy unemployed man who spends his spare time alternating between demanding we bomb more countries, stalking & abusing his exes, and threatening the Bruenig family on Twitter, when he is saying things convenient for their biases. He was also on Fox News, in case one believes that was Greenwald's Achilles Heel. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 11:32
|
|
|
Aruan posted:its not great when your defense of greenwald is 'well if only he stuck to talking about the things i agree with him about' It's not really a defence; he has trash opinions and he has good opinions, and it's incredibly easy to ignore his trash opinions & contrarianisms, especially with his self-imposed exile to Substack & Twitter. Same way people can post Matthew Yglesias in USPOL while ignoring his book urging america to breed faster to stave off the perfidious chinese. Or defend Jon Ralston's reporting as he's mid-meltdown over leftists winning in Nevada. Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Referring to Assange as a "creepy sexpest", rather than what he really is (a rapist) A sexpest is someone who sexually harasses or assaults, and rape qualifies under assault. It's not beating around the bush, it's attempting to avoid semantics with a catchall "this person is awful in a sexual nature". I think if we've reduced down to faux-outrage that someone is using another for "sexual predator", then Assange's role in the thread's discussion is finished. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
Aruan posted:glenn greenwald has a record of vehemently defending nazis for 20 years on top of all the other abhorrent opinions he holds (and has held for over a decade). you're missing the point - he's not a magic eight ball where you're just hoping you get a good opinion when you shake him, he's a bad person who has bad beliefs who despite that will sometimes have a good opinion. but because he is not the only person criticizing US foreign policy, for example, you don't need to give him any airtime. a useful fascist is still a fascist. And there have been situations where his reporting or his presence has been invaluable. Like I said, if you can avoid the rabid russia-baiting, china-baiting, rape-apologia, transphobia, and leftist-raging from prominent reporters who populate US journalism to instead link when their journalism is useful, I'm not sure why one is unable to do the same with Greenwald. Is it just duration that is the problem? 20 years from now, will Yglesias' bizarre merger of quiverfull theory and sinophobia make him unlinkable in SA threads? sean10mm posted:https://web.archive.org/web/20190502114026/https://www.aklagare.se/en/nyheter--press/media/the-assange-matter/chronology/ Is this really something you need to waste your time on? Assange is a rapist, he raped women. Are you finally secure that I am not a super secret rape apologist attempting to pull the wool over your eyes?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Are you trying to discuss things with people in the thread? I can't help but notice that even though you're quoting people and acting as though you're responding to them, your actual arguments are aimed exclusively at responding to a nebulous "they" who absolutely positively do not post here on SA. Jaxyon posted:You went out of your way to accuse people who were rightfully upset about a rape of being performatively righteous for purely political reasons, which is exactly the thing that people have done in other threads to those defending Tara Reade. Jaxyon posted:Can we not treat rape charges as mostly about being political gain? That discussion in particular was about my characterization of people who argued that Assange was in no danger of US extradition. "They" is entirely appropriate in that discussion. I was around for the Assange embassy discussions, 'they' absolutely did post on SA, and probably still do. E: Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Judging by your post history, "rape" is not a term you've been hesitant to use in the past, so you might as well use it here too, to describe Assange. And "sex pest" is also a word I've not shied away from, often when describing rapists. I dont have platinum so I cant search through my SA posts for usages, but if we're going to get into a character study of me & my subconcious motivations then I submit this to the docket: https://imgur.com/a/OpBrByH Is that enough for you, or does this need to continue? Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i was one of those people and i was absolutely right Thank you for chipping in to prove that I was in fact referring to actual posters and not strawmen, I appreciate that, and hope it's enough for MP. I don't think it really matters whether or not Assange was using fear of extradition to the US as a cover to avoid extradition to Sweden for rape charges. The people who expressed concern that the US would pop in to request his extradition ultimately were proven correct and his fears well-founded, regardless of if he was abusing them to avoid justice. I suppose it could be useful in a discussion on if he was safer from US extradition in Sweden than the UK, but presumably that would first require turning himself in to UK authorities. Also, by the time he was seeking asylum in Ecuador's embassy, I doubt he had any delusions that he was any safer in the UK.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:You mean the completely unsubstantiated claim on the MDP when they said, talk to an attorney if you are creeped out by this guy. MDP sent them an attorney. Attorney found nothing actionable, recommended the students contact Morse to let them know they felt uncomfortable by his actions. MDP then removed that attorney to grant them a new attorney, who helped them write a letter vague enough to pass muster. quote:The same guy who admitted to dating students much younger than him but that's ok but you don't understand LGBTQ? Morse was 29 in the tinder screenshots. That's a gap of 8 years between him and a 21 year old. quote:And then got the wrong student democratic party and said he had the texts to back it up with weird texts that made no sense? This is the strangest defense of the accusations I've read. Which leaked texts made no sense? As far as I know nobody has disputed the leaked chat conversations. quote:Like what 21 year old says I am setting up Alex Morse to get an internship with Neal? A 21 year old that wants an internship with Neal, presumably. For the record, heres how the tinder conversation (that required both Morse and the student to like each other) started:  
Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:It's extremely illuminating that the same people who won't stop complaining about rape apologia vis a vis Biden supporters suddenly start handwringing and using softer language when it is their guy who is accused I appreciate the passive insinuation, but I'd prefer if you could read my response to your earlier post first.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 17:12
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Breaking my own rule here, but I said you were questioning the "righteousness" of people who were mad that Assage is a rapist. Can you say Assange is a rapist? Sex pest seems like a dodge. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of doing that, because it's bad when people do it about Tara Reade and it's bad when you do it. Neurolimal posted:Is this really something you need to waste your time on? Assange is a rapist, he raped women. Are you finally secure that I am not a super secret rape apologist attempting to pull the wool over your eyes? Neurolimal posted:And "sex pest" is also a word I've not shied away from, often when describing rapists. I dont have platinum so I cant search through my SA posts for usages, but if we're going to get into a character study of me & my subconcious motivations then I submit this to the docket: quote:You're the one who brought up some nefarious motives and a whole discussion about extradition that I do not loving care about because he's a rapist and that's the part I'm mad about. When I start talking about how I desperately want him to be sent to the US and tortured, you can talk about that poo poo, which is not going to happen because I do not believe he should. I am discussing motives and extradition because, on this Assange subject, within Debate and Discussion, that is all that exists to debate. Assange is a rapist, we agree, what exactly do you want to say from there? Should we take turns saying how bad it is that he's a rapist? quote:He has a friendship with Tucker Carlson because he's a white supremacist. hosed up if true. quote:Again I'm not here to defend the moral authority of other news outlets, but here you are ready to explain that argument in more sentences than you give white supremacist and subject of this thread GG going on the most popular white supremacist show in the world. What exactly should I say to "Glenn Greenwald is a white supremacist"? Focusing on what lead to a longstanding working relationship between Carl Tuckerson and Green Glennwald is significantly more interesting and ripe for discussion than intuiting whether or not the jewish guy is a hyper-racist or merely a liberal-racist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:You should probably not use him being a rapist to fight ages old forum wars where you question the validity of people's feelings around rape like I have said at least 3 times right now. Very little of the conversation around Assange, since the Embassy debacle started, has been about whether or not Assange is guilty. It's entirely been about extradition, and how much the UK and Sweden can be trusted not to extradite Assange to the US. It's hard not to 'fight ages old forum wars' when discussing Assange, seeing as we are witnessing, in real time, the conclusion to those old debates. I understand being angry at the insinuation that posters might exploit rape charges to beat down those concerns, but I'm not sure how one can deny such when, even in this very thread, there have been several posters incompetently soothsaying wording to declare people Rape Apologists. quote:Well one thing to not do is immediately change the subject to, again, another forum war that you want to fight, but here you are doing it. We're in a thread for discussing Glenn Greenwald, the subject of a protracted forums quarrel dating back to when he mocked Russiagate, dating even further back when he questioned Obama's foreign policy. Glenn Greenwald is the final boss of D&D forum wars, and you should know what you're getting into when discussing him. quote:You could also not post if you had nothing further to had, but that might not be an option for you! I have plenty about Greenwald to post about, just not on palm-reading whether or not the jewish guy with a hispanic family is a nazi, or just an old-libertarian racist. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:most assange defenders at the time were definitely saying that the US/CIA/what-have-you manufactured the rape charges. that has, now, largely dissapated but it was very definitely a big thing at the time. Cool, those people suck, and should be probed if they repeat such now. quote:it remains indisputable that assange fled to the embassy to avoid extradition to sweden for rape, not extradition to the united states. it was indisputable then, it is indisputable now, which is why i am puzzled you are not only trying to claim it is disputed but claim it has been resolved in your favor when you cannot come up with any possible rationale why it was actually about the US. Because the UK did get ahold of Assange, and then immediately the US requested that he be extradited. This should have been painfully obvious at the time by the UK's reaction to the charges, compared to how Europe usually reacts to famous people being pedophiles or rapists in other countries. As I've already said, it's entirely possible for Assange's publicly stated fears to have been motivated by a desire to escape punishment for being a rapist, while at the same time turning out to be true. All of this "ah, but it was the UK who immediately went about extraditing him to the US, not Sweden!" means next to nothing, as far as I'm concerned, unless there existed a trick for Assange to be extradited to Sweden without being apprehended by UK authorities.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:What fears even proved to be true? The US doesn't kill extremely high profile whistleblowers or leakers or the journalists they work with. That's probably for mostly pragmatic reasons rather than moral reasons, but Assange was literally one of the highest profile people involved in leaking american documents at the time and was so high profile that he was untouchable The fears that he'd be extradited to the US if he cooperated, which the UK immediately did. I'm not the poster saying "they'd kill him", that was the probated guy. I, and most people, should be opposed to extradition to the US even if the US is not in a position to kill him. CommieGIR posted:Eh, when he sold himself out to the Russians, pretty openly, to help seed his leaks with Russian disinfo docs, he basically sold his soul. Between that and the rape, nobody should be siding with Assange on anything. It was so bad Wikileaks employees were leaving in protest. I'll be completely honest with you, with zero malice intended and all the love in the world: I do not give a single steaming ounce of a poo poo which US-opposed state Assange or Snowden or etc aligns with. None of them would justify prosecuting someone for whistleblowing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:So given the last page of posts, I'd assume that since you very much are about the rape charges and take them very seriously but also care very much about US extradition, the whole "was not extradited when he very easily could have been" would be something you already knew. They did try extradite him. They were rebuffed in the courts, which is a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:The contrast between the mostly sane Greenwald chat and the batshit insane Assange chat is interesting. It's mainly that Greenwald discussion has already been segregated; there's this thread and there's the C-SPAM thread (I think at one point there was two C-SPAM threads?). Assange is a bit more of an untamed frontier, and there's plenty of solid meat there (as opposed to Greenwald, which is a lot of people intuiting motives negative/positive unto him, either because he Owns The Libs or because he spent Obama's administration making his supporters mad, and Trump's administration making russia-gaters mad) I would honestly disagree that Assange has more Forums Cold War baggage, Greenwald has been a hot topic for several years in D&D. quote:I think they're talking about the period BEFORE he went into the embassy. I could see people justifiably brushing aside concerns about US extradition prior to the absurd embassy siege, sure.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I can really feel the depth of your concern for both rape and judicial torture by the US. Perhaps we should examine one of his words, and decide if they are not sufficiently reverential of the concepts.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:why yes, there is It's hard to tell at times because of how much contrarianism and sarcasm Greenwald steeps himself in, but I think his point is less "white supremacy isnt a problem" and more that maybe there's more to the rise of anti-China violence than just "the bad guys are doing it", see: https://twitter.com/isgoodrum/status/1372203410297032716?s=20 I'd have to wade into more of his tweets to be certain though, might check later. "Liberals are hypocritical and cause a lot of problems" has been his bread & butter for at least a decade, though. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:What exactly is gained by being the "Glenn Greenwald" explainer here? Presumably, to debate and discuss him, rather than go "I heard he smells of butts, and freebases The Jewish Question". You're free to post things here to discuss them. Seems weird to threaten to post Greenwald tweets in the Greenwald thread.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Good news! There's a thread you can read. He wants the actual reason, though. Theres plenty of bigots & libertarians that USPOL-types ignore, sometimes even post. My earnest take: Greenwald was a prominent opponent of Obama's foreign policy, the surveillance state, and Russia-Gate. He made good arguments about subjects soft liberals would have preferred to keep out of sight & mind, and so was reposted. The only retort at the time was "how dare he say these things on the channel willing to have him on" which is very obviously pathetic. Forward to today, Greenwald is a 54 year old substack & twitter dork who has terrible opinions about trans folk and is deeply contrarian in a way that might make him difficult to defend without twitter deepdives. Finally, the dreaded Greenwald stan can be put in their place! But everyone interested in talking about that posts in C-SPAM threads about Greenwald now, not USPOL or this thread. So you have this niche of people eager to assert dominance over 1-12 year old feuds, and noone to dom. I have an unhealthy interest in arguing with people online, but even I got burnt out fast on this thread with the whole "intuiting if you secretly love rape because you used the word sexpest" nonsense. There's a lot of negative, forcefully toxic energy that finds its way into folk posting about Greenwald. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Mar 19, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2021 19:37
|
|