|
Neurolimal posted: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) The wild thing to me is that everyone basically agrees that GG is bad with, at most, the caveat that he did good things at one point in the past but hasn't done anything of value lately. His crimes are broadcasting his lovely thoughts on every platform he has ever had and generally pursuing the spotlight to open his idiotic mouth on any and every topic. In contrast, we still have people defending Assange, who has done exactly one good thing EVER and even that might need an asterisk since he did it in a way that hung the actual leakers out to dry and didn't make any attempt to make even cursory redactions. He has been widely reviled by anyone who has ever come into contact with him, from the other people involved with WikiLeaks to the film-maker doing the documentary, to the people who had to deal with him in the embassy. He has committed multiple no-poo poo crimes like rape, and yet people are rolling in here trying to make some sort of "well the US prison system is a crime against humanity, so let's make sure this white male rapist doesn't have to deal with it". Why waste your breath on him, if you want to talk about prison reform then just talk about prison reform, you don't need to loop Assange into it as the poster child when there are literally millions of more sympathetic people. It's basically the affluenza argument. The only possible reason I can see for people to fall into this pattern of reflexive defense is because Assange has the legal assistance to stop him from sending out his own kneejerk tweets in the same pattern, so rather than getting the new "GG says some inflammatory poo poo" tweet thread you only see the bloodless news stories that come from sources you don't like to begin with and so you have to create your own spin for the motivations of all the actors, and since you pre-filled "America is doing fascist things because they always do" you are inclined to cast Assange as a victim, whereas when GG harasses someone on Twitter America has nothing to do with it, so you have to evaluate the situation based on what people actually do and say. Basically, because Assange committed huge crimes years ago, people don't get constant reminders about his shittiness, whereas GG bullies and slights people constantly without having a discrete event where he turned the corner, so you can always declare the new thing a bridge too far. Admitting that Assange is bad requires acknowledging that he was also bad in 2010 and it was a mistake to ever give him that leeway, because he hasn't meaningfully added to his list of bad poo poo since then (his support of Trump and Russia poo poo aside, it's probably not criminal and not an issue worth litigating). People don't want to re-inspect their priors about him because there aren't any new facts to weigh- it requires you to acknowledge that in the past you were okay minimizing the severity of the allegations or weighing his personal behavior against his political impact as though one could make up for the other. People have turned the corner on Greenwald because it doesn't require the same level of introspection- it's a lot easier to say "in light of new evidence, this dude sucks" than to say "I made the incorrect judgement on this topic in the past, and I am acknowledging that mistake so that I can make better judgments in the future"
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
Eugene V. Dubstep posted:are you aware of the existence of country called Brazil and/or recent political developments therein? Considering the job he was working when that happened is no longer his X-Present line on his resume, have you considered that maybe you are less up-to-date on this than you think you are? Or did I miss when he crusaded from his Substack page and Twitter to successfully fight the injustices of the Brazilian government in between his anti-trans posts and peddling conspiracy theories that were too extreme and unsubstaniated for the people at the paper HE STARTED. Edit: it's almost like someone being gay and married to someone of another race doesn't insulate them from being a piece of poo poo! Just because JEB! has a Latina wife doesn't make him magically incapable of being racist towards the Latinx community, much less the broader non-white community, so if this is the best you've got in defense then you should quit while you are only a little behind. Don't even get me started on how irrelevant being gay is to whether or not you are racist - "no fats, no femmes, no asians" is practically Grindr's slogan BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted: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: What exactly is gained by being the "Glenn Greenwald" explainer here? The whole reason this thread exists is because he has so frequently said abhorrent poo poo that it became a more frequent USPOL derail than food chat, do you really want to go back and defend the other 5 lovely things he has said since the start of the year, much less the stuff going back all the way to 2005? At a certain point a pattern of behavior becomes an ethos or personality trait, trying to redirect it as "he's not a white supremacist, he just says racist things by accident" doesn't work if people have 15 years of receipts BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
Quotey posted: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. The keyword there is "was", he's been busy speedrunning the "worst twitter ratio" records since then and even contemporaneously with his Brazil reporting he was appearing on Tucker Carlson to carry water for Trump. You don't get to claim every positive outcome that flows from your initial action anyway, the story is not "Greenwald breaks down prison door, rescues Lula", it is "Greenwald reports on Brazilian govt corruption, investigation proceeds, courts overturn previous decision", and even 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 Neurolimal posted:Presumably, to debate and discuss him, rather than go "I heard he smells of butts, and freebases The Jewish Question". 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 and now about 2 pages of people posting weak "drunk driving is dangerous, but also it gets people to work on time" takes about him as though getting famous and making money off his reporting is somehow so virtuous that it erases him being an enormous sexist bigot. Yeah, there exist worse people in the reporting industry, he's got marginally better success rates than a stopped clock, but you should still treat anything he posts as extremely suspect because he's thrown his lot in with Tucker Carlson and that's not a thing that a reasonable person would do, nevermind the fact that he pushed so hard to publish an unsourced story that his own paper let him go BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
Quotey 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. https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-intercept-resigns/ https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/ 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 https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored Let's take it from the very top - who is able to corroborate that the emails were from Hunter Biden's laptop? Last I heard, the source of that is Guiliani and some "laptop repair guy" who has no receipts, and yet the very first sentence of his article states that as if it were an undisputed fact. It's honestly so much more damning when you look closely at it, like a fractal of unjustified outrage and low standards. Is your complaint here actually just that you might have to Google a phrase like "Glenn Greenwald blog 2005" to find the specific things people are talking about, because the majority of people making posts here are USPOL thread regulars who have already gone through this revolving door like 5 times and saying "okay do it again but slower" is just not interesting. BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 22:46
|
|
|
Quotey posted:Thanks. This is something to actually talk about. 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 Edit: I challenge you to find any further corroboration of a laptop owned by Hunter Biden that was dropped off at a laptop repair shop. You will not find it, because it does not exist. If you admit that literally the first sentence of the GG article contains an unsourced assertion stated as fact then I really shouldn't need to walk you through it line by line to find the next several times he confidently states things without any evidence BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 23:10
|
|
|
Quotey posted: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. 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" Quotey posted: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. No, you are misreading me, when people report on the Pentagon Papers or Sony emails they call them that, not "documents and emails found on a laptop left abandoned at a repair shop". If he had taken even the bare minimum effort to use the word "allegedly" in that paragraph or say "a laptop that Guiliani claimed to possess" or otherwise give some sort of source for this thing he has stated then that would be fine. Similarly, you can say "we have obtained photos of Hunter Biden that we have independently confirmed to be real" and that's fine, but when you say "also here's some emails found in the same laptop" then you are relying on this fiction of a laptop actually existing, and your entire point falls apart if it doesn't - it's not some casual mistake, it's actually the ONLY reason to believe that anything is real other than the photos, and it DOESN'T EXIST BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
Quotey posted:Sure Okay, so you have a single post from almost 10 years ago that doesn't even actually say "I'm sorry for referring to immigrants as 'hordes'" and you think that absolves him from appearing on the Tucker Carlson White Power Hour? The follow-up post is basically a classic "I'm sorry if you were offended", he even tries to reframe the things he said as looking out for the interests of undocumented people. We have a lot of more recent words and actions that extrapolate backwards to this initial blog post, so I'm gonna need to see something extrapolating the apology forward to the present, before I'm inclined to give even a tiny bit of benefit of the doubt to someone trying to use his identity as a gay man to oppress trans men Edit: let's also be clear, you can be a white nationalist without wanting to exterminate the other, the thrust of what he is saying is "people should stay in their country" which is one of the classic covers for it - "Blood and Soil" and all that BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 23:42
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dubstep posted:
This wasn't a post about what GG has done because we already had like 5 pages of that at the start of the thread. If you can't be arsed to read a 6-page thread before responding then you are going to be missing the context of posts, it turns out. The point was that most of the damage GG does is through being a lovely loudmouth who contributes to a general atmosphere of oppression for minority people on the internet (which is no worse than, say, JK Rowling or whomever) and yet everyone who has to read his takes is completely loving sick of him because he has spent the last 6 months jerking himself off on twitter about being oppressed by cancel culture and posting horrid poo poo invalidating the experiences of oppressed minorities in the US, but nothing he has done comes anywhere close to the level of poo poo Assange has done. That's the whole point, the Greenwald poo poo has been litigated repeatedly (and at this point basically no one who posts here regularly will bother to defend him because you basically have to start defending hate speech now that he has veered into calling trans people confused lesbians) and his poo poo has completely oversaturated discourse, while we still have people unironically defending Assange against his imaginary black bag squad when he is a literal rapist who used his privilege to evade arrest and trial because people haven't revisited the facts of that situation since they made their initial knee-jerk call about whether Assange was a net positive over a decade ago before the rape allegations became public (or they just immediately assumed that they were fabricated) Edit: also it feels like some horrifying cosmic irony that we various and sundry minority posters have to explain why out and out bigotry is bad to the usual loving suspects in a microcosm of GG opening his ignorant loving mouth on Twitter about whether trans people deserve rights or Asian-Americans are currently suffering from increased hate crimes from white people. Sit the gently caress down and let people who are informed and have a stake in things lead the discussion BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Mar 19, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2021 05:44
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dubstep posted:even if I'm reading you pretty generously you were much more specific and offensive than this You are showing your whole rear end here if you think GG has beef with specific trans people in media rather than the entire class of people, he literally posted about a study showing an increase in trans identification in the recent generational cohorts and tries to pass that off as evidence that people were being somehow fooled into being trans rather than gay/lesbian. Either read the very most basic amount about the thing you are posting about or lurk long enough to get a baseline understanding https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1364618178916200455?s=20 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1364619334790873088?s=20 As a relatively well-off white gay cis man myself, I refuse to let Glenn Greenwald try to speak for me, much less anyone who isn't well-off, white, cis, or male. Every movement has struggled to deal with fractures due to intersectionality historically, but that doesn't mean we should instead be exclusionary towards other oppressed classes just so the hosed up status quo "takes us seriously". If you refuse to incorporate the T into your LGBT attitudes then you should be persona non grata in the LGBT community, period Edit: with regards to whether other well-off gay men have shithead attitudes, take your pick out of Peter Thiel, Kevin Spacey, Dan Savage, whoever. Where ingroups overlap outgroups you get a very hosed up place where they abuse other people who share their outgroup using the resources and clout from their ingroup status. This isn't a problem unique to the gay community by any stretch, which is why you have lovely people like Jenner or Diamond and Silk or whatever who use their outgroup status to punch down at the behest of people who elevate them socially and monetarily BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Mar 22, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I feel like this kind of thing might go hand in hand with TERFs, certainly gives me White Feminism vibes. I mean, that's literally the person he's signal boosting, a lesbian that thinks that including trans women into feminism somehow waters down the message. The only reason there isn't an equivalent term for men that exclude trans men from things is because it already fits so well under headers like "toxic masculinity" that giving it the cover of "radical homosexuality" or whatever would be giving it too much credit
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Why is this thread marked as temporary? Because, god willing, Glenn Greenwald will eventually stop being newsworthy once he is done burning all his bridges. Actual answer - not really sure, but I think there's a pretty finite amount of discussion you can have about a single person (or two people) before you've exhausted all topics. If this thread was going to be permanent it would probably get folded into, like, the libertarian thread or some kind of larger "media meta thread" or something
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:I mean the thread title has Assange, there's probably plenty of other people use to be or could be allies but then they milkshake ducked themsleves somehow. This could easily be the "Milkshake Duck Thread: you don't, in fact, 'gotta hand it to em""
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2021 03:34
|
|
|
letthereberock posted:I get that, it just feels like white-male writers and media figures turning out to be terrible is becoming a really common thing. I don’t even like citing things anymore because I have this irrational fear that I’ll refer to some article for stats on indoor smoking bans or some poo poo only to immediately be hit with “oh you think a guy who says trans people should be put in camps should be a trusted resource for anything!?” There's nothing wrong with citing whatever is convenient as long as it is well-sourced or w/e, the problem with most of these people is they are functionally opinion writers, and they basically don't bother supporting any of their claims ON TOP OF all the TERF poo poo and whatnot. It's as much a problem in the sciences, there are several notable people who later turn out to be raging lunatics, but that doesn't mean you throw their research in the trash - even raging lunatics can be right sometimes, just don't lionize them as individuals.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
lil poopendorfer posted:how does this latest tweet fit into the 'glenn is a transphobe' narrative Making an exception for rare situation of "a trans teenager has supportive family, medical staff, and therapists" is not really a huge carve-out, this is like the "model minority" situation where you describe an incredibly limited circumstance where people are "allowed" to do things that are necessary for them to not suffer needlessly, but only if they get signatures from three different people who may or may not be hostile. It's like white people using MLK Jr as a cudgel to criticize BLM for not protesting "the right way" mashed together with the paternalistic and authoritarian abortion requirements where you have to get permission the other parent (even if they are a rapist!), view a fetal ultrasound, and get the fetus cremated Edit: realized that I put child where Glenn put teenager, which actually makes this more annoying! IIRC you can put someone on reversible puberty blockers without any risk of longer term harm if they express that they have gender dysphoria, but once someone goes through puberty the options become more remedial. BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Mar 31, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 14:22
|
|