|
Referring to Assange as a "creepy sexpest", rather than what he really is (a rapist), is loving gross. He not only raped women, he then had the audacity to claim that the women accused him for publicity, while in the process of being interviewed by a female documentarian who, until that moment, was sympathetic to him. He may have done important work exposing US war crimes in the Middle East, but he lost all credibility once it became known that he had colluded and collaborated with, and became an asset of, proto-Nazis like Steve Bannon and Roger Stone and god knows who else.
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 15:41 |
|
|
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? It's not really about you being a "super secret rape apologist." People's language patterns tend to reflect their thought patterns, and biases like this tend to creep in without the person noticing, especially on subjects such as someone that the person may otherwise feel sympathetic towards or ideologically aligned with. Us calling you out for using softer and more generic terminology when a more specific and accurate term exists is not meant to be "faux-outrage" or some sort of gotcha. We're just encouraging you to call a spade, a spade. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 15:22
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i personally don't think assange should be tortured to death in prison for exposing the crimes of the american empire even if he is credibly accused of being a big ole creep 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, because it goes to show how thoroughly embedded these toxic attitudes are in our culture. We have a long, long way to go and a lot of progress to make, and it is depressing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
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) Or that he (Greenwald) is a colossal, raging contrarian rear end in a top hat who has taken the mask off completely.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dubstep posted:how many masks are we at now As was suggested earlier, he used to be for the most part pretty good about keeping his loving mouth shut about his awful and idiotic opinions, and just focus on owning the libs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 15:41 |
|
|
Slanderer posted:You could simply block him on twitter, if you like defending US wars and the erosion of free speech this much. Personally I think it's good to have a single voice on the biggest cable network occasionally doing this things, since no one else is (or at least not when their party is in power). It is incredibly unhealthy to have this kind of weird parasocial relationship with a blogger where you actively hate someone you follow by your own choice Glenn supported the Iraq war. From the preface of his 2006 book titled "How Would a Patriot Act?": quote:During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country. Not only that, he later attacked others for supporting it: quote:But Thomas Friedman wants you to know that Iraqis were so very fortunate to have an occupying military force -- America -- that "everyone on the ground" in Iraq "trusted" to "manage the transition." And Syrians should hope and pray they are so lucky. ...and then had the audacity to deny that that he himself had supported it: quote:When the Iraq War was debated and then commenced, I was not a writer. I was not a journalist. I was not politically engaged or active. I never played any role in political debates or controversies. Unlike the countless beloved Democrats who actually did support the war - including Obama's Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - I had no platform or role in politics of any kind. The dude is not just a incredibly annoying moron with deplorable opinions, but also a shameless liar.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2021 21:16
|
|