6 ms·

These two paragraphs from Glen greenwald are my favorite and very relevant to your post: “But they [GCHQ] want you to know that they absolutely adore gay peopl

by zpeti 5y ago

These two paragraphs from Glen greenwald are my favorite and very relevant to your post: “But they [GCHQ] want you to know that they absolutely adore gay people. In fact, they love the cause of LGBT equality so very much that, beginning on May 17, 2015 — International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia — they started draping their creepy, UFO-style headquarters in the colors of the rainbow flag. The prior year, in 2014, they had merely raised the rainbow flag in front of their headquarters, but in 2015, they announced, “we wanted to make a bold statement to show the nation we serve how strongly we believe in this.” Who could possibly be opposed to an institution that offers such noble gestures and works behind such a pretty facade? How bad could the GCHQ really be if they are so deeply committed to the rights of gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and trans people? Sure, maybe they go a little overboard with the spying sometimes, and maybe some of their surveillance and disinformation programs are a bit questionable, and they do not necessarily have the highest regard for law, privacy and truth. But we know that, deep down, these are fundamentally good people working within a fundamentally benign institution. Just look at their flamboyant support for this virtuous cause of social justice.“

finfinfin 5y ago
It’s a strongly expressed opinion that isn’t necessarily supported by evidence. Do you know of any statistical or anecdotal evidence? I personally don’t know anyone who changed their opinion of GCHQ for better because of their support of LGBT. I don’t agree that it’s so easy to draw such conclusions and exclaim “sure they spy on us but look at their flamboyant support of social justice”.
- zpeti 5y ago
  To give you the perfect example, I think all the types of people who were protesting (100% correctly) at the Occupy Wall Street movements have been completely neutered and neutralised with this woke movement in corporations. These bankers and banks basically destroyed the american dream like no other person/corporation in history, they did more damage to minorities than any "white oppressor", yet they've basically been forgotten because activists types feel like they can make a difference by introducing trans issues into corporations. No, you didn't. The same crooked billionaires are syphoning off even more cash, not to mention the government is now printing money for them to socialise their losses. I have to congratulate these corporations, it's been the perfect divide and conquer tactic. Almost everyone's forgotten the 2008 crises, who caused it, and what damage it did.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    Name one person who has decided banks are no longer to blame for 2008 because rainbow flags. The Occupy movement failed because sitting in tents complaining about systems almost invariably fails, and people aren't as angry about a deep recession caused by subprime mortgage lending because it's 13 years later and the deep recession we experienced most recently wasn't caused by anything at all to do with the banking system. Some overlapping but largely different groups, with different priorities and strategies had more success in making a difference; perhaps not a difference you care for but a difference. Rather than wonder if certain groups of "woke" activists were better at organising and picking their goals, and can be learned from, you accuse them of "neutralising" unrelated causes you feel closer to, as if it's impossible for any activist to be opposed to homophobia and Goldman Sachs, and spend your message board days railing against "woke" activism instead of corrupt bankers. It's the perfect divide and be conquered tactic, and you can guarantee nobody appreciates your argument that the real reason billionaires got away with crookedness is some trans activists had a bit of success more than crooked billionaires.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      > Name one person who has decided banks are no longer to blame for 2008 because rainbow flags. The Democratic Party: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/16/wall-street-donors-line-up-behind-biden-in-massive-third-quarter-fundraising-haul.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/16/wall-street-donors-line-up-b... Parties are coalitions of voters. A lot of the anti-Wall Street populists are rural or working class whites who may have regressive views on social issues. As the Democratic Party moved to the left on social issues since 2010, it has replaced those working class white voters with high income professionals, including most of Wall Street. Remember, in 2009, Democrats held both Senate seats in West Virginia. Now, those working class white states have all flipped Republican. Biden’s 2020 run failed to recover Obama’s 2008 support in the Midwest. He won the presidency thanks to vote Reagan suburbs around Atlanta and Phoenix going Democrat. (My traditionally red Maryland county went +14 for Biden but +30 for Larry Hogan, during a blue wave. It voted for both Romney and McCain.) You can’t have a meaningfully left party when your marginal voters are socially liberal Republicans.
- TechBro8615 5y ago
  What? The statement doesn’t make any claims about GCHQ except that they take morally reprehensible actions like spying on people, scanning emails, etc. Is the idea that GCHQ (a spy agency) spies on people a claim that requires evidence?
  - finfinfin 5y ago
    Greenwald is claiming that people are becoming less opposed to GCHQ’s spying due to their support for social issues like LGBT rights. I am asking whether there is any evidence to support that.
    - TechBro8615 5y ago
      Not sure about GCHQ, but in the US there is a stark left/right divide in support for intelligence agencies. Notably, if you could find similar polls from 2003, the polarization would be almost completely inverted. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/07/24/growing-partisan-differences-in-views-of-the-fbi-stark-divide-over-ice/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/07/24/growing-part...
      - shlant 5y ago
        > the polarization would be almost completely inverted And how are you going to go about proving causation between pinkwashing and support for intelligence agencies? Do you think maybe the Trump/Qanon rhetoric around the FBI/CIA/Deepstate might have had something to do with republicans opinion shift? (your own link alludes to that)
- dabbledash 5y ago
  The left i remember from the 90’s and early 2000’s would have been skeptical of huge corporations suppressing political dissent and providing political training at work, for example. They aren’t skeptical now because the corporations are “on their side” on the issues they now consider most important. Issues that conveniently don’t threaten corporate power in any way.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  It's just PR. Companies do this too, not just government agencies. You can say that PR doesn't work, but if done properly should at least generate some amount of goodwill. I mean, if PR didn't work, why would any organization spend money to do it?
shlant 5y ago
This causality claim seems like a real stretch. If Glen is just providing opinion, I will say that all the LGBT people I know (friends and internet personalities) are skeptical of a lot of pinkwashing and in fact many make fun of corps doing so. During this years pride my twitter timeline was filled with people laughing at how stupid and backwards it all was when corps like Raytheon and Axon pinkwashed their logos.

by zpeti 5y ago

finfinfin 5y ago

It’s a strongly expressed opinion that isn’t necessarily supported by evidence. Do you know of any statistical or anecdotal evidence? I personally don’t know anyone who changed their opinion of GCHQ for better because of their support of LGBT. I don’t agree that it’s so easy to draw such conclusions and exclaim “sure they spy on us but look at their flamboyant support of social justice”.

zpeti 5y ago
To give you the perfect example, I think all the types of people who were protesting (100% correctly) at the Occupy Wall Street movements have been completely neutered and neutralised with this woke movement in corporations. These bankers and banks basically destroyed the american dream like no other person/corporation in history, they did more damage to minorities than any "white oppressor", yet they've basically been forgotten because activists types feel like they can make a difference by introducing trans issues into corporations. No, you didn't. The same crooked billionaires are syphoning off even more cash, not to mention the government is now printing money for them to socialise their losses. I have to congratulate these corporations, it's been the perfect divide and conquer tactic. Almost everyone's forgotten the 2008 crises, who caused it, and what damage it did.
- notahacker 5y ago
  Name one person who has decided banks are no longer to blame for 2008 because rainbow flags. The Occupy movement failed because sitting in tents complaining about systems almost invariably fails, and people aren't as angry about a deep recession caused by subprime mortgage lending because it's 13 years later and the deep recession we experienced most recently wasn't caused by anything at all to do with the banking system. Some overlapping but largely different groups, with different priorities and strategies had more success in making a difference; perhaps not a difference you care for but a difference. Rather than wonder if certain groups of "woke" activists were better at organising and picking their goals, and can be learned from, you accuse them of "neutralising" unrelated causes you feel closer to, as if it's impossible for any activist to be opposed to homophobia and Goldman Sachs, and spend your message board days railing against "woke" activism instead of corrupt bankers. It's the perfect divide and be conquered tactic, and you can guarantee nobody appreciates your argument that the real reason billionaires got away with crookedness is some trans activists had a bit of success more than crooked billionaires.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    > Name one person who has decided banks are no longer to blame for 2008 because rainbow flags. The Democratic Party: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/16/wall-street-donors-line-up-behind-biden-in-massive-third-quarter-fundraising-haul.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/16/wall-street-donors-line-up-b... Parties are coalitions of voters. A lot of the anti-Wall Street populists are rural or working class whites who may have regressive views on social issues. As the Democratic Party moved to the left on social issues since 2010, it has replaced those working class white voters with high income professionals, including most of Wall Street. Remember, in 2009, Democrats held both Senate seats in West Virginia. Now, those working class white states have all flipped Republican. Biden’s 2020 run failed to recover Obama’s 2008 support in the Midwest. He won the presidency thanks to vote Reagan suburbs around Atlanta and Phoenix going Democrat. (My traditionally red Maryland county went +14 for Biden but +30 for Larry Hogan, during a blue wave. It voted for both Romney and McCain.) You can’t have a meaningfully left party when your marginal voters are socially liberal Republicans.
TechBro8615 5y ago
What? The statement doesn’t make any claims about GCHQ except that they take morally reprehensible actions like spying on people, scanning emails, etc. Is the idea that GCHQ (a spy agency) spies on people a claim that requires evidence?
- finfinfin 5y ago
  Greenwald is claiming that people are becoming less opposed to GCHQ’s spying due to their support for social issues like LGBT rights. I am asking whether there is any evidence to support that.
  - TechBro8615 5y ago
    Not sure about GCHQ, but in the US there is a stark left/right divide in support for intelligence agencies. Notably, if you could find similar polls from 2003, the polarization would be almost completely inverted. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/07/24/growing-partisan-differences-in-views-of-the-fbi-stark-divide-over-ice/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/07/24/growing-part...
    - shlant 5y ago
      > the polarization would be almost completely inverted And how are you going to go about proving causation between pinkwashing and support for intelligence agencies? Do you think maybe the Trump/Qanon rhetoric around the FBI/CIA/Deepstate might have had something to do with republicans opinion shift? (your own link alludes to that)
dabbledash 5y ago
The left i remember from the 90’s and early 2000’s would have been skeptical of huge corporations suppressing political dissent and providing political training at work, for example. They aren’t skeptical now because the corporations are “on their side” on the issues they now consider most important. Issues that conveniently don’t threaten corporate power in any way.
nextaccountic 5y ago
It's just PR. Companies do this too, not just government agencies. You can say that PR doesn't work, but if done properly should at least generate some amount of goodwill. I mean, if PR didn't work, why would any organization spend money to do it?

shlant 5y ago

This causality claim seems like a real stretch. If Glen is just providing opinion, I will say that all the LGBT people I know (friends and internet personalities) are skeptical of a lot of pinkwashing and in fact many make fun of corps doing so. During this years pride my twitter timeline was filled with people laughing at how stupid and backwards it all was when corps like Raytheon and Axon pinkwashed their logos.