• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

The Intercept: As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, the Party’s Voters Are Becoming Far More Militaristic and Pro-War Than Republicans

Oct 27, 2017
1,977
Oct 16, 2018
241
Maine
You see it even on this board, with former anti-establishment liberals going so far as to call Trump a "traitor" and to call the GOP who support him "unpatriotic" as if those words would have meant anything to them 12 years ago under the Bush regime.
.
This is a bad take. I don't call Trump a traitor because he's an isolationist and is pulling the U.S. military out of other countries. He's a traitor because he's putting his own personal interests ahead of the very country he was elected to lead - possibly to the benefit of other hostile entities that he's indebted to. He's a liar and conman - he owes no loyalty to anyone or anything but himself.

The GOP isn't unpatriotic because they're anti-military. It's because they're putting party before country and enacting policies that directly benefit them while causing harm to others. That's a betrayal of the responsibilities to the citizenry and what the purported ideals of the country should be.

Liberals getting shamed by the GOP for being anti-American during Bush's "you're with us or against" crusade doesn't mean we can't hold other citizens - especially our elected officials - to task for when we feel they're betraying the very foundation of what we believe the U.S. should stand for.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,592
One instance of a journalist making up stories and then being fired is not enough to call into question the integrity of an entire outlet. Obviously.
Also, the page you quoted said the outlet was known for its sensationalism.
sen·sa·tion·al·ism
/senˈsāSHənlˌizəm/
noun

  1. 1.
    (especially in journalism) the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement.
    "media sensationalism"
  2. 2.
    PHILOSOPHY
    another term for phenomenalism.
 
OP
OP
Sokrates
Oct 27, 2017
350
Mmm... Rich creamery whataboutism.
Der Spiegel Made Up Stories. How Can It Regain Readers’ Trust?

Spiegel—and the German media world writ large—is still reeling from German journalism’s biggest scandal in its modern history: Claas Relotius, a 33-year-old Spiegel writer who was long the envy of his peers, fabricated part or all of many of his biggest stories. His perfectly crafted articles from the United States and elsewhere were, it has become clear, literally too good to be true.

Jamie Kirchik: Germany’s leading magazine published falsehoods about American life

The Relotius incident has prompted self-reflection among German journalists: Spiegel is considered the gold standard among media organizations here, with a prestige that extends far beyond Germany and a supposedly airtight fact-checking department. One of Europe’s leading news magazines and known for its investigative journalism, Spiegel also translates many of its articles into English to reach a broader international audience.
BAN DER SPIEGEL!!1
 

marrec

Banned
Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,516
yeah do any of you have any receipts that no one actually cares about the Kurds and this is all political?
Moral outrage at the possibility of Kurdish genocide is a convenient cover for continued intervention and deployment, whether you individually care about what happens to them is irrelevant because it only fuels the political will to keep boots on the ground and, by extension, keep influence over the region.
 
Dec 3, 2018
1,142
The intercept is run by Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald hates democrats more than republicans so I don’t trust a word about Democratic Party from intercept
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,581
There have been some good Intercept articles. Remember when Pelosi got them to print an article about how great Pelosi was? Still a marvel of modern politics in my view.

As always, I think Greenwald started with an argument here and picked evidence to support it. Yes, people now oppose withdrawal from Syria because Trump likes it. That is characteristic of politics in the era of negative polarization. Doesn't mean the general Democratic politician, or voter, has a generally neoconservative worldview. The entire point of negative polarization is that people are adopting stances generally in opposition to Trump rather than modifying their ideological structure. They'll take their cues from Democratic party leaders, and the official Dem view has been something like "we should end the war but we don't trust Trump to do it right." Which...seems correct?

In the general case, if the argument is "just because Frum and Boot are Democrats now doesn't mean we should trust them on foreign policy," that seems correct to me. I don't think Greenwald really proves his thesis beyond that, though.
 

SG-17

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,270
Whiggery is philosophical nonsense. This usage was coined as a pejorative, and you and Weinberg are the only people I've ever seen try to rescue the word. Given that's in the context of annexation of another state, one that obviously doesn't want to be annexed, and in the favor of the universal monarchy, something all three of the Hegemons in world history have been against, makes it particularly baffling.
I've never used the word, others have when they can't find a way to argue against the idea that a liberal democratic one world government with a technological utopian base (automation and AI used to virtually end scarcity) is the best outcome for humanity.
 

Clipjoint

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
157
There's a difference between being challenged, and lied to. You've posted a lot of half-assed defense in favour of easily disproven lies over your (congrats!) 88 posts.
Greenwald has long criticized the Center-Left embrace of, and rehabilitation of, Neocons like Bill Kristol, David Frum, and Max Boot who have cynically exploited the anti-Trump sentiment to ingratiate themselves with a whole new generation of Democrats who don't know how evil and destructive those guys are, and how many millions of people were killed or displaced because of the policies they advocated for.

The idea that there's a coherent strategy objective in maintaining a troop presence in Syria that would be upended by a hasty draw down is absurd. Congrats Democrats, you're siding with John Bolton on foreign policy. Over and over it's been proven that our military presence in Middle Eastern countries fuels extremism and terrorist activity. Just because Trump's isolationist policies clash with the Neocon project to expand military presence in the Middle East, doesn't make the Neocons good.

The same criticisms were levied by the same people at Obama when he advocated for a draw down from Afghanistan and Iraq. "This undermines our allies! We can't lead from behind! Obama is dithering!" War mongers always advocate for more war. The fact that the guy advocating for less war is an asshole, doesn't mean less war is suddenly bad.
 
OP
OP
Sokrates
Oct 27, 2017
350
Again, whataboutism. Can't take the criticsm, so deflect as much as you need to. Squirrel!
More like it's normal for media outlets to fuck up from time to time with regards to journalists fabricating stories.

You're trying to paint this as an issue unique to the Intercept when it affects journalism as a whole.
 
Oct 27, 2017
702
Gentrified Brooklyn
As someone who fits this hit pieces “Profile” for me its you brake it, you pay for it. You don’t get to effectively leave our allies behind to die in a fight we helped escalate, or wash your hands from attrocities we helped support monetarily and militarily because it costs too much now.

To me the hypocricy of, “We need to involve ourselves in this conflict because...freedom!”

*fastfoward a few years*

“Yeah its a shitshow with hundreds of thousands, but at least they’ve got some kind of elections even if its sham elections! Good Job!” pales in comparison to the idea we should not be the worlds policeman but if we take a side in a conflict we need to “own it” to make sure it doesnt turn into a humanitarian nightmare even to the detriment to US life and budgets.
 

marrec

Banned
Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,516
I've never used the word, others have when they can't find a way to argue against the idea that a liberal democratic one world government with a technological utopian base (automation and AI used to virtually end scarcity) is the best outcome for humanity.
Forced annexation of sovereign states in service of a flawed utopian ideal is pretty much the worst thing one can do in service of that flawed utopian ideal.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,581
Also yeah I dunno if I want to take advice on war policy from a reporter who supported the Iraq War. Shouldn't we be ejecting neocons like Greenwald from the Democratic Party?
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,592
More like it's normal for media outlets to fuck up from time to time with regards to journalists fabricating stories.

You're trying to paint this as an issue unique to the Intercept when it affects journalism as a whole.
I was responding to what was given in defense of the Intercept as a first hand source, quoting the source given.
Because really, the honor and integrity of The Intercept means so much to so many.
 
Oct 26, 2017
5,502
You shouldn't get your views about anything political from Glenn Greenwald in the same way you shouldn't get your information and views about climate change or vaccines from Alex Jones.
 

NervousXtian

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,595
This is BS, Dems aren't pro-war, they are anti-stupid. Most people have no clue what's going down in Syria... but we should see it out until something is resolved. Same with Iraq and Afghanistan... we never should have went, but we did.. and leaving abruptly would just lead to chaos that would end up with us involved again in the future.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,635
Calls for Intercept to. be banned reminds me of call for video game sites like Kotaku, who ultimately, get dragged down due to bad writers. There are good writers at site and efforts would be better spent on the individuals actions.

That having been said, Im pretty sure a lot of people here have supported American wars at one point and then changed their mind.

That preface even notes that it wasnt safe to even protest the War. Being hit and the fabrication of nukes gave Bush an overwhelming support of the war to the point that not supporting it wouldve fucked you up big time. Democrats have always been subservient to public opinion, which is also why they are more seen as weak. The support was ultimately a reflection on the voting population.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,592
Yes, I'm sure when you suggested that the Intercept were liars, you were thinking of that one time a reporter made up some quotes in a few stories. A story you had definitely remembered before you saw it in that link.
I was a fan of The Intercept a long time before I wasn't, like a lot of things. I've been reading their (Reed, Scahill, Greenwald) shit for almost a decade. Realizations that things are gobshite is part of the maturation process. I read dozens of rags, good and bad, and I know where I'd place The Intercept in the grand scheme. That may change again, because hey, knowledge is good.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
3,581
That preface even notes that it wasnt safe to even protest the War. Being hit and the fabrication of nukes gave Bush an overwhelming support of the war to the point that not supporting it wouldve fucked you up big time. Democrats have always been subservient to public opinion, which is also why they are more seen as weak. The support was ultimately a reflection on the voting population.
That's fucking nonsense. Were you not alive at the time? I personally protested the Iraq War. There were certainly pundits -- even one or two Democratic or independent politicians, as I recall -- who opposed the war.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,977
I was a fan of The Intercept a long time before I wasn't, like a lot of things. I've been reading their shit for almost a decade. Realizations that things are gobshite is part of the maturation process. I read dozens of rags, good and bad, and I know where I'd place The Intercept in the grand scheme. That may change again, because hey, knowledge is good.
So it's just that you don't like them then, not that they are liars?
 
Apr 13, 2018
268
“Yeah its a shitshow with hundreds of thousands, but at least they’ve got some kind of elections even if its sham elections! Good Job!” pales in comparison to the idea we should not be the worlds policeman but if we take a side in a conflict we need to “own it” to make sure it doesnt turn into a humanitarian nightmare even to the detriment to US life and budgets.
And yet the only time militiristic hegemony withdraws is when it invariably affects the bottom line. "Own it till owning it is no longer lucrative no matter the impact".
 

marrec

Banned
Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,516
That's fucking nonsense. Were you not alive at the time? I personally protested the Iraq War. There were certainly pundits -- even one or two Democratic or independent politicians, as I recall -- who opposed the war.
Multiple democratic personalities voiced opposition to the war, much less multiple individual democratic voters.

Maybe they're confusing the Afghanistan Invasion with the Iraq Invasion?
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,635
That's fucking nonsense. Were you not alive at the time? I personally protested the Iraq War. There were certainly pundits -- even one or two Democratic or independent politicians, as I recall -- who opposed the war.
I said overwhelming, not complete support.

And I was alive. I was alive when Bush won his reelection by popular vote as well
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,577
That's fucking nonsense. Were you not alive at the time? I personally protested the Iraq War. There were certainly pundits -- even one or two Democratic or independent politicians, as I recall -- who opposed the war.
Majority of House Dems and 21 senate Dems voted against the Iraq resolution.
 
Apr 13, 2018
268
This is BS, Dems aren't pro-war, they are anti-stupid. Most people have no clue what's going down in Syria... but we should see it out until something is resolved. Same with Iraq and Afghanistan... we never should have went, but we did.. and leaving abruptly would just lead to chaos that would end up with us involved again in the future.
Does the US have a plan for leaving Afghanistan, Syria or Iraq? Does it even have a working committee to develop a plan for leaving? If the answer to either, particularly the latter, is no then the longer it stays the greater the potential blowback. But let's be honest the US isn't going anywhere while profits are being made and strategic interests are protected.

Furthermore, are we really going to pretend the US is, can be or needs to be forced to militarily involve itself anywhere. If this were true then saudi arabia, and not Afghanistan, would have been decimated by war post 9/11
 
Oct 26, 2017
5,502
Does the US have a plan for leaving Afghanistan, Syria or Iraq? Does it even have a working committee to develop a plan for leaving? If the answer to either, particularly the latter, is no then the longer it stays the greater the potential blowback. But let's be honest the US isn't going anywhere while profits are being made and strategic interests are protected.

Furthermore, are we really going to pretend the US is, can be or needs to be forced to militarily involve itself anywhere. If this were true then saudi arabia, and not Afghanistan, would have been decimated by war post 9/11
The US is out of Iraq, there is no major security forces in Iraq like there are in Afghanistan. The troops in Syria are not there to prop up a faltering government either, so it's a poor comparison to make.
 

NervousXtian

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,595
Does the US have a plan for leaving Afghanistan, Syria or Iraq? Does it even have a working committee to develop a plan for leaving? If the answer to either, particularly the latter, is no then the longer it stays the greater the potential blowback. But let's be honest the US isn't going anywhere while profits are being made and strategic interests are protected.

Furthermore, are we really going to pretend the US is, can be or needs to be forced to militarily involve itself anywhere. If this were true then saudi arabia, and not Afghanistan, would have been decimated by war post 9/11
Yes, there is plans. We aren't front and center in Syria any how.. we are support and had relatively clear objectives... well as clear as you can really get in what amounts to a proxy war.

We have plans in Afghanistan as well, and shit just takes time.. and we are mainly again there for support of the Afghan military.

Just because you don't understand what's going on doesn't mean people are aimlessly doing nothing over seas. There's a strong argument to the US staying for awhile in support in the fact that leaving opens a vacuum of power for someone else to go in and fuck things up more.