|
Also relatively rich white gay dudes are like the first group to turn against trans people. I have seen it over and over. They get annoyed that they can't use their identity as a shield from criticism anymore.
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2021 12:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
Eugene V. Dubstep posted:Isn't this right here exactly what you people are accusing Glenn of doing accurately stating that gay men, especially white and relatively well off ones, often don't act in solidarity with trans people, and instead ally with transphobes against further pushes for recognition? Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Mar 22, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2021 15:58
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dubstep posted:even if I'm reading you pretty generously you were much more specific and offensive than this No, the motivation of well off gay men is to revert to their class interest once their ability to secure property rights via marriage has passed, which is why the gay marriage movement entirely coopted broader demands of the gay movement (like universal healthcare, which was an explicit plank of the gay right movement in the US in the 80s before being dropped in subsequent decades in favour of things that only concerned more affluent gay couples). I am saying that Glenn is reverting to his class interests and attacking broader acceptance of gender diversity, which would require actually shaking up the property relations of the US. I am saying that wealthy gay men have proven, over and over, that they operate under the same systemic factors as other members of the capitalist class and will try to defend this conservative bent by using their membership in an oppressed identity as a shield from criticism, much like every other token minority in conservative movements. There also does seem to be a strange element of conservatism with regards to gender with gay men, where they tacitly endorse gender essentiallism, and push against the idea of gender non-conformity as a valid identity. Then, when people say that just because they are gay doesn't mean they can't be racist, sexist, transphobic, etc., they get angry that suddenly being gay isn't carte-blanche to have their opinions validated. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Mar 22, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
Fighting Trousers posted:Disclaimer: I am not queer, nor have I made more than a passing study of queer history, but it seems like that a big facet of the 90s mainstreaming of gayness centered on "we're just like you, straights, only we love/are attracted to members of the same sex. We are not a threat!" Making gayness non-threatening meant embracing the gender binary. And I think that for a lot of people, being out meant saying "I am gay; I love men" and really latching on to that in a way that made the gender binary almost a necessity. Yeah, it was a strong assimilationist impulse that presented gay relationships in particular as "heterosexuality with the same gender". Maybe I gently caress dudes, but I still want to be raise the 2.5 kids and be a productive member of society.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
Oh my god he's every dumb college libertarian ever. "what do you mean you don't believe Ron Paul is 100% honest? Why would he lie about being racist?" E: Thank goodness Tucker Carlson is allowing this brave man to speak his truth, otherwise how would cogent analysis like this make it to the masses?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2021 05:50
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I feel like this kind of thing might go hand in hand with TERFs, certainly gives me White Feminism vibes. There's definitely overlap, and it also includes the weird almost sacrilization of gender. A big one I know is things like saying that someone can't be gay if they are in a relationship with a trans-man. Despite all the claims to gay men having a unique "culture" that is somehow harmed by the inclusion of transmen, at the end of the day it always boils down to whether you suck dicks. It might as well be a cult of penis-worship.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2021 13:53
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Also, he's wrong on the timeline. I feel like society itself is being gaslit by these takes. The first gender affirming surgeries were developed in the 50's. And while trans people have always been subject to violence from the state and individuals, the explicit legal push to do things like codify bathroom use to assigned birth gender is recent, as in post Obergefell v. Hodges. The things that trans people are currently fighting actually represent an increased attack on their rights from the inadequate place they already existed. I said before that gay marriage was a conservative compromise position of the American gay rights movement, one that effectively rewrote history so that the more radical demands of the early movement were erased in favour of the more assimilationist, bourgeois motivations it has now. The same is happening in realtime with trans rights, where the backlash to gay marriage against the even more marginalized is being spun as them demanding more, even if a lot of this stuff (like a trans woman using a women's restroom) was literally not even articulated as a concern in the culture 15 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
I think a lot of these dudes were just the same type of predatory opportunists that infect other leftists movements. They like the acclaim and respect they earn by being the leader of the revolution or w/e, but as soon as the focus shifts beyond them or their comfort zones, they react angrily. In particular with trans rights, I think a lot of wouldbe progressive men were able to accept the non-threatening narrative of gay and lesbian people as aspirationally straight, but still carry a lot of insecurity about destabilizing masculinity in particular. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Mar 28, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2021 23:24
|
|
|
The problem with the free speech hardline is that, even when presented in good faith, it's still trying to weasel out of having to take a stance on fundamental issues of rights. I can see why younger people got suckered into it. But ultimately there isn't a way to bridge the belief that trans people are deserving of the same dignity and respect as cis people, and the belief that they should be eradicated (as one example). If this issue doesn't affect you personally, then you can step at arms length and say that both sides have the right to say whatever they want and wash your hands of it, but really that's just ceeding ground to the bigots because, like Satre's antisemite, having the debate at all grants legitimacy to it, even if the arguments are contradictory or plainly false. Obviously there's plenty of grey area in stuff like this, but a sincere belief in the dignity of all humans requires some baseline respect. The right to say something someone might considered offensive in the sense of blasphemy or pornographic should be conceptually seperate from the right to foment hate against the marginalized. E; I think there's nexus of ideas I haven't really unpacked with regards to human rights as a social construct for ensuring the reciprocal respect, and human rights conceived of as inalienable truths (natural law sorta thing), where people conceive of the right existing independent of the social context it manifests in. Despite everything wrong with liberalism as a political philosophy writ large, I still like John Rawls and I still think the though experiment with "let's design a society where you would be ok wherever on the totem pole you ended up" is a good one for getting people to think about how rights and hierarchies in societies should be defined. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Mar 30, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2021 02:09
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:whats a "mrs grundy"?  No wait, sorry, that's Miss Grundy Wikipedia posted:Mrs Grundy is a figurative name for an extremely conventional or priggish person,[1] a personification of the tyranny of conventional propriety.[2] A tendency to be overly fearful of what others might think is sometimes referred to as grundyism.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2021 02:50
|
|
|
tom kite posted:The dude whose journalism contributed to freeing Lula is a nazi, you make no sense Other people have responded to this already, but this statement only makes sense if you assume that all right wing causes are part of some sort of unified, ideologically coherent movement that coordinate their actions. Greenwald has libertarian sensibilities, which means that it is perfectly coherent to his ideology to oppose a figure like Bolsonaro that is centralizing power in Brazil, and spit in the faces of marginalized groups who are demanding state-led action to redressthe inequalities they face. There's nothing magical or contradictory about these positions, even if he is deluded if he really believes that the "freedom" someone like Tucker Carlson goes on about would apply to him.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2021 16:51
|
|
|
lil poopendorfer posted:how does this latest tweet fit into the 'glenn is a transphobe' narrative Same place as before, where his gullible libertarian rear end keeps getting surprised that his con friends are inconsistent in their stated goals and actions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 13:59
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Why the gently caress can’t he support both? Why can’t folks find other reporters who aren’t lovely to follow? Why is this so hard? I mean, this is the core of the reason this thread exists. It's not like Glenn's been cancelled or anything. He's still spewing his opinions all over the internet and his break with the Intercept was not based on some sort of mass public outcry against him. The real question is why when people quote him on something, the response of "he is allied with white supremacists like Tucker Carlson, he holds contradictory/transphobic opinions on things, etc." is supposed to be invalid. His tweets/opinions are only used based on his "credentials" from his earlier reporting anyway, so why are rebuttals using his past statements and activities invalid? There's no point in trying to determine whether in his heart of hearts GG is really a nazi, all you can do is say "based on his past pattern of behavior, I don't trust is takes on things because he has shown a bias towards white supremacists in America". This is a man who self-admiteddly doesn't believe in any sort of socialist revolution, has aired multiple "just saying" criticisms of BLM through token mouthpieces, but when it comes to a group of people who literally stormed the capitol with weapons looking for legislators, bends over backward to defend them. Why shouldn't all of that count when I decide whether I think his latest tweet is a good assessment of the situation?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 17:58
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:I'm not a GG stan, but I do find his Posting Energy entertaining in a sort of trashy way. I think his comments on trans issues and racism in the US have been ~problematic~ or alarmingly naive at best... I don't think Glenn has enough of an impact anymore that people should be crusading to scrub his words from the internet or anything, i'm just tired of people using him in shitheaded appeals to authority. There may be times when something he has written is good or cogent, but that doesn't mean I need to treat every tweet of his as good or act as though his thoughts on trans rights are worth considering just because he doesn't call for exterminating them all. And honestly the thing that sticks most in my craw with him now is everything to do with the US election. You can understnad that Biden is not an anti-imperialist revolutionairry while also understanding that the people who wanted Trump in power instead are not in any way better. It's people defending that position (the real socialists are the strasserists!), and lending legitimacy to it, that is the biggest problem now, and there's no way to pretend that's not what Glenn is doing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 20:01
|
|
|
The Snowden thing is the crux of GG's popularity, because it was legitimate blow to the US security apparatus. Despite GG being a poo poo head (and apparently Snowden is like a techbro douche of the highest calibre) what they did there was objecitvely a good thing. I think it's hard for people to reconcile that with the idea that the people who did it were not leadership figures for the left.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
Somfin posted:https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1377247746156036103 Lol at trying to connect Angela Davis being deplatformed for criticism of Israel as part of the cancel culture trend. Yes indeed, criticism of Israel never got people silenced before this point.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2021 00:33
|
|