3 ms·

And the white supremecy crowd had been quiet before then? They hadn't killed anyone or made threats or been called to "stand down and stand by?" That they hadn'

And the white supremecy crowd had been quiet before then? They hadn't killed anyone or made threats or been called to "stand down and stand by?" That they hadn't been rabble-rousing across social media? That they were not evidently whipping themselves into a frenzy? That many people weren't highlighting the sudden increase in right-wing terrorism and killings and saying 'Hey, something's up. Perhaps we should be pursuing these guys?'

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
Dude, I'm totally with you on the danger of extremists, specifically right-wing extremists in the US context. Greenwald's not talking about that, he's pointing out that very similar arguments were used to pass a bunch of terrible laws back in 2001. And he's right. Certainly, there are problems with passing knee-jerk laws that restrict privacy, and these should be clearly laid out. However, many of the people and mindsets that created the PATRIOT act are still in DC, and it's wise to be aware of what's probably going to happen as a result of the Capitol Hill attack. Personally, I think spending all that money on infrastructure would be much more likely to solve the problem, but that's communism apparently. \s
- monkeydreams 6y ago
  I think I get where you're coming from, and I agree with you on infrastructure spend, etc. Totally, 100% agree. My city has embarked upon a 30 year upgrade of its rail network, for example, and we're already seeing vast improvements, 5 years in. My problem with Greenwald in general and his recent articles in particular, is that he does apparently believe in context. He is the very model of a flag-waving, freedom-lover who believes that any loss of freedom by any individual going forward is unthinkable. Whether that individual is a corporation (such as his defense of Facebook whose perverse incentives of using conflict and polarisation to drive daily usage have driven much of this conflict) or an actual, factual person who has committed crimes and is now decrying that they should be kept from committing others, does not seem to sway him. Freedoms are not absolutes. Freedoms are constructs, and spectrum-based at that. Greenwald seems to think that they are atomic, and that splitting them in the face of real need is the scarlet mark of a militaristic thug. Laws are required to deal with right-wing terrorism, which is the biggest terrorist threat the US (and the West) faces. Much of the incitement of this threat is coming from social media and traditional media organisations who make money and pander influence through exaggerating fears and stoking hatred. Laws are required to tackle these issues five days ago, yet Greenwald thinks that reusing old (somewhat imperfect) laws now is a plot to wage a new domestic war, rather than a way of getting action happening today while coming up with better alternatives (or not) tomorrow. Lastly, a President who calls on terrorist groups to "Stand down and stand by" and who later calls on them to "Stop the steal", a President who lies about whether elections were fair, who lies about having a COVID vaccination plan (preferring, as we saw today, to have literally nothing prepared or ready), a President who steals and grifts and offers pardons to criminals who have paid him - well, let me say, anyone who defends such a President is either an idiot, or has an ulterior motive for their shirt-rending, freedom spewing diatribe. Context matters. And context shows Greenwald to be an ass.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago

Dude, I'm totally with you on the danger of extremists, specifically right-wing extremists in the US context. Greenwald's not talking about that, he's pointing out that very similar arguments were used to pass a bunch of terrible laws back in 2001. And he's right. Certainly, there are problems with passing knee-jerk laws that restrict privacy, and these should be clearly laid out. However, many of the people and mindsets that created the PATRIOT act are still in DC, and it's wise to be aware of what's probably going to happen as a result of the Capitol Hill attack. Personally, I think spending all that money on infrastructure would be much more likely to solve the problem, but that's communism apparently. \s

monkeydreams 6y ago
I think I get where you're coming from, and I agree with you on infrastructure spend, etc. Totally, 100% agree. My city has embarked upon a 30 year upgrade of its rail network, for example, and we're already seeing vast improvements, 5 years in. My problem with Greenwald in general and his recent articles in particular, is that he does apparently believe in context. He is the very model of a flag-waving, freedom-lover who believes that any loss of freedom by any individual going forward is unthinkable. Whether that individual is a corporation (such as his defense of Facebook whose perverse incentives of using conflict and polarisation to drive daily usage have driven much of this conflict) or an actual, factual person who has committed crimes and is now decrying that they should be kept from committing others, does not seem to sway him. Freedoms are not absolutes. Freedoms are constructs, and spectrum-based at that. Greenwald seems to think that they are atomic, and that splitting them in the face of real need is the scarlet mark of a militaristic thug. Laws are required to deal with right-wing terrorism, which is the biggest terrorist threat the US (and the West) faces. Much of the incitement of this threat is coming from social media and traditional media organisations who make money and pander influence through exaggerating fears and stoking hatred. Laws are required to tackle these issues five days ago, yet Greenwald thinks that reusing old (somewhat imperfect) laws now is a plot to wage a new domestic war, rather than a way of getting action happening today while coming up with better alternatives (or not) tomorrow. Lastly, a President who calls on terrorist groups to "Stand down and stand by" and who later calls on them to "Stop the steal", a President who lies about whether elections were fair, who lies about having a COVID vaccination plan (preferring, as we saw today, to have literally nothing prepared or ready), a President who steals and grifts and offers pardons to criminals who have paid him - well, let me say, anyone who defends such a President is either an idiot, or has an ulterior motive for their shirt-rending, freedom spewing diatribe. Context matters. And context shows Greenwald to be an ass.