I never said everyone is. But there are multiple people in this thread running point for Greenwald who were trashing Kamala for not being a real progressive less than 24 hours ago.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Progressive Icon Glenn Greenwald went on Fox News to both sides the MAGA teens and blame the media
- Thread starter jack_package_200
- Start date
Yeah, I read that! But what I don't get is how other outlets simply ran with the story and didn't see this huge conflict of interest.
Because the media, and especially political media, is overwhelmingly white and male relative to the population as a whole.
You're literally parroting the same spin out of the right wing PR machine. Stop and actually think about the way breaking up fights and tense situations work. The peacekeeper drives distance between the agitators. Between the MAGA mob yelling at the Black Israelites and those passing women, it is clear that the MAGA mob was an agitator. This is not what a group of polite catholic boys waiting for their bus looks like:
When Phillips got between the groups in a pretty obvious attempt to diffuse the situation, did the MAGA boys retreat (as a group would do if their intent was to diffuse the situation, as claimed)? No, they simply switched their taunting target to Phillips and surrounded him.
Not sure why you're so hung up on how far they had to walk to choose to be in the position they were in where they had him surrounded, jumping up and down jeering at him.
It'd be different if they were just standing there idly waiting on their bus and some random guy walks over and starts drumming in the middle of their group for no reason, but that's not what happened. They weren't at a bus stop, they were crowding around the Black Israelites and taunting back and forth.
So, what, they accidentally surrounded Nathan in an attempt to intimidate a native elder into silence? What stopped them from simply walking away like normal people? Why do you keep looking for these sort of outs that let them off the hook or suggest it fundamentally changes the narrative?
I think pretty much everyone agrees that the longer video makes some things clear that weren't clear before -- particularly how the situation got to where it did. You seem to think "how we got to this point" is the crux of the "outrage culture" that you ridicule. You're practically trying to have it both ways with this post -- the outrage is "justified," but also "misplaced"? It seems that you bought into the right wing spin that the full video changes everything and are now trying to backtrack a bit when corrected.
Last edited:
Yes, the point I'm making is about the generalizations implied by your statements. If your intent was just to call out particular posters in this one particular instance and nothing more, then...congrats I guess?
Real journalists who investigate and fact check are an endangered species, CNN isn't a place they'd be.
Tapper is just an actor there to sell a narrative. He's more entertainer than journalist.
Your first post in this thread was to complain about him specifically referring to individuals who had already posted in the thread who were defending Greenwald who had also gone after Harris. You were upset because you felt that you could have been lumped into that group. Which is strange, given that you hadn't posted in the thread yet!
There was no generalization, there was you self-inserting yourself into his comments when they literally couldn't have referred to you.
Right? No one I know on the left irl or online thinks of him as a progressive icon.
Medhi Hasan, also a contributor to The Intercept, tweeted a thread basically tearing down Gabbard around the same time Greenwald went on Tucker Carson's show to defend her. It's obvious there's friction between Greenwald and others at The Intercept:
Watched the interview and did have problems with Glenn's performance. The best thing I can say about it is that he's bringing a progressive position to a conservative audience, but I don't think it's worth soft-pedaling criticism of Laura herself to do it. When she said "I'd hate to have video of what I did when I was 16", it's like yo, there's video of you giving the Heil Hitler from 2016, how much worse were you as a kid!?!
https://youtu.be/z8MNb8_9YeQ
Also I think it's shitty that he said "you can blame the left" for racial polarization. He was trying to head off Laura so she didn't block his criticism of Trump, but it's still bogus pandering.
To nomis' point re the carceral state, there's nothing more racist than a war. Both in the promotion of imperialism/colonialism in itself, and in the nationalist racist fervor it stirs at home.
https://youtu.be/z8MNb8_9YeQ
Also I think it's shitty that he said "you can blame the left" for racial polarization. He was trying to head off Laura so she didn't block his criticism of Trump, but it's still bogus pandering.
To nomis' point re the carceral state, there's nothing more racist than a war. Both in the promotion of imperialism/colonialism in itself, and in the nationalist racist fervor it stirs at home.
Ok friend, wheres the example of Glenn racist views?
That is the whole point. There are what I'd call plenty of fair weather "leftists" that are particularly taken in by bandwagoning and that are easily influenced by personalities that are often pushed in facile and easily digestible manners.
It is how you got plenty of Bernie supporters happily carrying water for Tulsi Gabbard, despite her credentials on left causes being particularly shaky.
Then there is the other type that will easily carry water and push narratives that that twist his actions into virtues, as seen in the post below yours. You'll also see, like in the last thread, people pushing narratives that directly contradict greenwalds direct statements, wrongly because thean does not fit in their preconceived images of him as said "icon".
Last edited:
If you happily go on the show of an all out white nationist and have a polite conversation with her as if she has legitimate views time and again that says a lot about you.
Throwing Scahill, Bellingcat and the Intercept under the bus to an Assad shill on Twitter. Truly the hallmark of great journalism.
We're not discussing his views, we're discussing your idiotic "He can't be a racist because look at his family." post.
Is that not why you posted the picture of his multi-racial family?
So going by your logic, that proud boy isn't a racist, right? He is married to one of us negroes after all and if he can stomach that then he couldn't possibly be a racist right, "friend"?
I have a less charitable explanation- they're simply the blue/yellow (or even red) dots in the upper left part of the diagram here. (Social conservatism at the top, economic left/liberalism on the left) https://www.voterstudygroup.org/ass..._drutman_e4aabc39aab12644609701bbacdff252.png
The reason they carry water is that they fundamentally don't care at best and at worst, they're actively in favor of the candidates who articulate the racist beliefs (but can't say so.)
To add onto this: Glenn and others at the intercept were some of the only journalists that bothered to cover Obama's drone warfare and Middle East bombings during his presidency. He says and does a lot of dumb shit but his legacy is fairly complex.
Yeah after reading through multiple threads its clear a lot of the Kamala bashers are hypocritical as fuck and I hope they get their act together or update their Russian programming before the first primary. You can't make ultimatums and disqualify certain candidates in the name of Progressivism and then not say anything when your icons fail the same tests.
No.
I'd consider Scahill an appropriate channel for this kind of reporting, as his motivations I'd consider as being more pure. Greenwald is a piece of shit, and given his previously held positions, I say he that he cares only insofar as it can be used as a club to hit his ideological enemies.
Being anti war and anti imperialism is unambiguously a good thing, especially at a time when mainstream media didn't give a shit
No. Because nobody paid attention then and that can be attributed to his bullshit. Maybe morons paid attention (that is doubtful too), but people that know better would have considered the source to be tainted, and rightfully suspect. Likewise it is considered contemptible to get into bed with fascists and dictators just to achieve policy goals, it too should be considered contemptible to get into bed with bad actors just because on the surface they claim to care about the same things you do.
Worse yet is somebody that supported imperialist policy that directly led to the results he then decried others for attempting to fix. Yeah, I don't much care for the shit guzzling bullshit merchants like Greenwald.
Last edited:
LOL he had just won a Pulitzer Prize for helping break the Snowden story. Did you honestly not know that? Yeesh some of us cared about politics before trump but now it's glaringly obvious you did not.
Dude, I've cared about politics since Clinton.
That your particular timeline only goes as far back as Snowden, then that says more about you. It is quite incredible, that in my previous post I talk about things that predate Snowden, and this is what you respond with...
Yeah that's how you didn't realize the public opinion of him was completely different 4 years ago.
That thing only morons care about....the Pulitzer Prize. Lmao
Who gives a shit about public opinion? I'm giving you *my* opinion and it remains unchanged. I definitely understood with snowden, but I certainly had no illusions that Greenwald was a massive hypocrite. Responsible consumption of journalism always involves considering the byline.
Noted anti-imperialist Glenn Greenwald argues against sending arms to Ukraine in order to help them fight against Russian imperialism- https://theintercept.com/2015/02/27/clapper-calls-arming-ukrainian-forces-actually-empower/
You just said only morons listened to him or cared after he won a Pulitzer Prize like the year before. Just take the L
No.
Because one thing does not equate to the other. There is a definite quality to the kind of reporting. The Snowden stuff was basically dumped into his lap and something he very much lucked into. You can contrast the quality of his reporting there with anything else he has produced.
I really hate how it says "Liberals tried to ruin his life", as if anyone upset by the incident is somehow politically driven.
The story that broke made the kid seem like an asshole. I guess there was more to the story, so I do feel kind of bad. But I kind of don't too because he was wearing a MAGA hat. I don't even know anymore. I don't even know why I entertained typing something in response to a trash news station.
The story that broke made the kid seem like an asshole. I guess there was more to the story, so I do feel kind of bad. But I kind of don't too because he was wearing a MAGA hat. I don't even know anymore. I don't even know why I entertained typing something in response to a trash news station.
The kid is completely privileged. His parents paid for a PR firm and he's likely going to the White House. He's set up for quite a good life. The people that are making this claim are racists only, in my mind.
Yes, it's parroting Russian propaganda regarding the US "demonizing" separatists and is attempting to justify not giving the Ukrainians weaponry in order to fend off a second Russian incursion in the wake of the Crimean invasion by saying "well those people suck anyway so why bother".
The "Imperialism" there is not on the part of the US, it's on the part of the Russians literally conquering part of a neighboring state to annex their territory.
There are not air quotes big enough to put around the word "sources" there.
Again, the idea that the US would possibly be funding far right groups in Ukraine was not exclusive to greenwald in 2015. If you were paying attention you would know this
https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-america-training-neonazis-in-ukraine
Also please brush up on your history if you don't know why it's perfectly reasonable for anyone to be skeptical of the US arming foreign groups.
So Greenwald went on Fox News to try to give a progressive take on the story that most of their viewers would never allow to penetrate the bubble of information...and that's a bad thing? If you watch the video he clearly criticizes the kids in the MAGA hats, blamed Trump's rhetoric for inflaming racist behavior, and asks Fox News viewers to imagine what their reaction would have been if it was a white priest surrounded by black and brown kids (which probably made their heads explode).
But I guess if you're an absolutist in the belief that no Democrats should ever appear on Fox News for an interview, there's nothing he could have said that would have convinced you...
But I guess if you're an absolutist in the belief that no Democrats should ever appear on Fox News for an interview, there's nothing he could have said that would have convinced you...
Yes, due to the way Ukraine's military is largely decentralized militias there's a group of literal Nazis we have to explicitly exclude in the instructions every time.
Arming an ally with arms to prevent an invasion of their sovereign territory is absolutely nothing like sending arms to a group in a messy civil conflict.
The article I posted says that screening out the nazis is basically impossible and your second point literally describes the US arming the taliban in the 80s. Good job.
Congratulations, you have literally compared arming the democratically elected State government of Ukraine to defend against invasion by a hostile army to arming an armed resistance group against the ruling government. Which would strongly imply that you do not see the current government of Ukraine as legitimate. I'm not the one showing an incredibly problematic point of view here.
Honestly I did not expect this kind of reach nor did I expect you to link to the Soviet afghan war wiki after you read about it for the first time. Respect!
It's not a reach. You're conflating arming a democratically elected sovereign nation against Russian invasion with arming rebels against a Russian-controlled country. The only thing that's similar in either situation is that in both we're arming a population against Russia. Thus, the issue with your analogy.
by "progressive take" did you mean he tried to both sides it because that's actually what happened my friend.
Last edited:
you took me saying it was reasonable to be hesitant about the US arming foreign groups and spun it into me not recognizing the government of Ukraine. that is a reach.
If you want to see an example of the US providing arms to a democratically elected nation and how that can go wrong you only have to look as far back as........ right now in Israel.
It's not a reach. You again refer to Ukraine as a "foreign group" lumping a democratically elected sovereign government in with a disorganized rebellion, implying their right to self-defense is illegitimate.
And again, how does the US providing arms to Israel (aimed at ensuring the country continued to actually exist) in any way relate to this situation? The arms provided are not the cause of the hard rightward slide in their politics over the past two decades.
a government where they literally could not come up with a way to keep weapons out of the hands of neo nazis.
if you need me to tell you why the us selling weapons to a genocidal government is bad thats on you.
He didn't both sides it. He pointed out that the original framing was wrong (which it was) but despite that the kids were still engaging in poor behavior and mocking him with racist gestures. That was as clear and cogent a take on the situation as one could have had.