Lester Shy posted:

I don't think GG has ever claimed to be a leftist; he's been a pretty standard civil libertarian for as long as I can remember. He's also had his brain poisoned from being way too online and is either addicted to the attention or actually makes real money from being an extremely annoying contrarian.

Waterbed Wendy posted:

seems strange

Herstory Begins Now posted:

Yeah i thought he was mostly hopelessly contrarian until 2-3 years ago, too. It might've been obvious far sooner, but I didn't follow him closely enough to see a ton either way. Last couple years though the preponderance of evidence has really stacked against him and I think the Hersh comparison is pretty apt.

Herstory Begins Now posted:

I can't speak for others, but personally i just never found him to be worth looking closely at in neither a good nor a bad way until he started popping up making dumbass statements in the last few years. Whatever circles he was publishing in before the last few years were not penetrating into whatever I was consuming beyond the simple fact that he was one of the people that snowden handed material to

but yeah not gonna dispute that someone can be posting white supremacist poo poo for decades before it becomes widely noticed

Neurolimal posted:

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).

Neurolimal posted:

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 posted:

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 posted:

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:


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.

quote:

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.

Neurolimal posted:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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 posted:

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:

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.

Neurolimal posted:

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:

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:

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 posted:

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.

paul_soccer12 posted:

ok i misspoke. im well aware he was not sent to the US, because i was aware of the UK ruling that denied the extradition
happens when you fast and loose. humblest apologies

Eugene V. Dubstep posted:

how many masks are we at now

was he hiding the fact that he was a contrarian before

Eugene V. Dubstep posted:

I word searched the word 'white' and found you taking a journalist's appearance on Tucker Carlson to be evidence of their white supremacist convictions. I guess I thought the metaphor 'taking the mask off' would refer to a more direct statement of belief in white supremacy, or at least an appeal to common white supremacist shibboleths like, as I suggested, demographic shifts or white South African farmers

Eugene V. Dubstep posted:

especially since we're talking about a gay Jew living in Brazil and married to an equally gay, Latino congressman for the Socialism and Liberty Party, I thought there must be some sort of smoking gun. that is, I thought in order to accuse him of being a white supremacist, you must be in possession of some overwhelming contrary evidence that this gay Jew who moved to a minority-white country, married a nonwhite Latino socialist, and has lived in that country under mortal threat from fascist gangs is himself a white supremacist. was I wrong about that?

Quotey posted:

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.

Eugene V. Dubstep posted:

also lol at demanding I 'meet effort with effort' when responding to a loving twitter link

Neurolimal posted:

He wants the actual reason, though. Theres plenty of bigots & libertarians that USPOL-types ignore, sometimes even post.

Fritz Coldcockin posted:

Why are you going to bat for a person who hates trans people; personally, I feel like that's not a good look

Fritz Coldcockin posted:

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

kartikeya posted:

Dapper_Swindler posted:

yeah. i mean thats where i used to be. Big "freedom of speech" person because i hated the weird clinton and jack thompson types coming in and trying ban poo poo. i still am when it comes to media and poo poo but gently caress nazis and their fellow travelers, their speech is out and out violence.

Dapper_Swindler posted:

well i was in high school. so probably not.

Sanguinia posted:

The real problem with the Free Speech Hardliner movement and was that it was co-opted by the right fringe that was instrumental in its rise.

Sanguinia posted:

I was relaying my perspective of the relevant history, I was never a "free speech hardliner," because I wasn't politically aware enough when I was a kid to even know that was a thing.

tom kite posted:

The dude whose journalism contributed to freeing Lula is a nazi, you make no sense

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...

BUT

I also think there's more to why he's popular among some online leftists than just "owning the libs at all costs". From what I gather, GG is a hardcore liberal, but more in a classical sense and would I guess be called a libertarian in the US. Unlike Carlson or other RWM pundits, he's not just a charlatan that will do & say whatever it takes to own the libs; he's uncompromisingly principled in his belief in Liberal values, namely individual freedoms.

This sets him at odds with the neoliberal establishment of US politics and culture, which includes the dominant centrist wing of the Dem party and the vanishing center-right wing of the GOP. GG's valid critiques of neoliberalism (e.g. imperialism, domestic surveillance, corporate control of the press, superficial adoption of id-pol, etc.) aren't motivated by leftist ideology, and the extent at which they're concordant with leftist critiques is effectively coincidental.

In a better world, we wouldn't need someone as ~problematic~ as GG to be a leading voice of neoliberal criticisms; it would be better if that voice was coming from an actual leftist, rather than from a glorified libertarian shitposter. But unfortunately that's not the world we live in, and I think it would be foolish to answer the question of "why is GG popular [among some online leftists]?" while ignoring the exclusion of strong voices critical of the neoliberal establishment in mainstream press and focusing only on his 'owning the libs' shitpost energy.

Quotey posted:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1377247040963551232

https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/

I'm sure there are more examples.

Mister Fister posted:

Since when was Glenn at risk of being 'deplatformed' by his woke critics? I highly doubt he gives a crap. Him and his woke critics feed off each other. He's probably more concerned about Bolsanaro trying to jail him (or his supporters killing him).

Mister Fister posted:

Glenn left the intercept not because of some woke brigade trying to get him fired, he left because of a big editorial dispute over an article he wanted to publish. Never in a million years would i consider that being 'deplatformed'.

Nobody has actually deplatformed him. And he's not at risk of being deplatformed.

quote:

GLENN GREENWALD’S DECISION to resign from The Intercept stems from a fundamental disagreement over the role of editors in the production of journalism and the nature of censorship. Glenn demands the absolute right to determine what he will publish. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him is corrupt, and anyone who presumes to edit his words is a censor. Thus, the preposterous charge that The Intercept’s editors and reporters, with the lone, noble exception of Glenn Greenwald, have betrayed our mission to engage in fearless investigative journalism because we have been seduced by the lure of a Joe Biden presidency. A brief glance at the stories The Intercept has published on Biden will suffice to refute those claims.

The narrative Glenn presents about his departure is teeming with distortions and inaccuracies — all of them designed to make him appear as a victim, rather than a grown person throwing a tantrum.

Piell posted:

Glenn Greenwald is buddies with loving Tucker Carlson, which means he is by definition a piece of poo poo

Mister Fister posted:

Uh, because you specifically used the word 'deplatforming' and i was responding to that?

Sure, you could say he was 'censored' by his boss. But deplatforming is different, it's usually an outside activist thing to get someone booted of a website or prevented from being able to speak at a university because of some controversial view they held.

I would never use 'censor' and 'deplatforming' interchangeably though.

I highly doubt glenn gives a gently caress about people trying to get him kicked off twitter or whatever website he's on because it's highly unlikely to happen.

OwlFancier posted:

I again do not at all understand this bizzare idea that people seem to be coming up with where being "principled" about free speech somehow gives you power? Or even that the only "principle" you can possibly hold on the subject is free speech absolutism, both of which are just flat out wrong.

And yeah that is a loving ancient take and it's no more correct now than when anyone else has tried to push it. What kind of leftist believes in the magical ability of principles to stand up to raw power? If you want someone to tell you that you can read loving cs lews or some other hack.

Silver2195 posted:

This is a rather...simplistic view of the matter. (Cases in which unpopular left-wing speakers benefitted from the First Amendment are not hard to find.)