6 ms·

This is consistently what Glenn Greenwald has done and the smear campaign against him by the DNC and liberal establishment has taken him from a world famous Osc

This is consistently what Glenn Greenwald has done and the smear campaign against him by the DNC and liberal establishment has taken him from a world famous Oscar and Pulitzer prize winning journalist to a pariah and supposed Russian right wing shill, kicked out of the organization he founded, The Intercept. His beliefs and ideas are clearly left wing and he has remained consistent, but by doing what you suggest he has been effectively destroyed. It's really sad to see. And I agree with you, I think he did the right thing regardless of the consequences.

threatofrain 5y ago
I think Glenn Greenwald was stressed into a place where he just kind of cracked, such as by governments actually hounding him. I have listened to his recent interviews and I think he's gone into classical conspiracy theories involving the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwal... https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/press-releases/article/brazil-government-threatens-and-harasses-journalist-glenn-greenwald.html https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/press-...
- colordrops 5y ago
  Could you cite a particular unfounded "conspiracy theory" that he is espousing? Most of the things he's written about the CIA, FBI, NSA etc that I've read are grounded in fact and sourced.. Are you suggesting that these three letter agencies aren't constantly involved in shady unethical often law-breaking activity? Have you not been reading hacker news at all? They make it to the front page regularly with their poor behavior.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine.
    - gkaly 5y ago
      Greenwald (and Tulsi Gabbard) quoted Nuland directly, who admitted that there were biological research labs. Greenwald had previously worked on the Anthrax story of 2001, where a couple of high profile people got sent a sophisticated Anthrax variant in the mail. It was supposed to be foreign terrorism at first, later it was found that the strain came from a U.S. research facility. Biological weapons aren't allowed by treaty. Research how to combat biological weapons however is allowed. So many countries produce strains in biological research facilities under the guise of defense. That is precisely Greenwald's point, he has never claimed that bioweapons are manufactured in Ukraine. He has claimed that dangerous biological agents might be present, like they were in the U.S. in 2001. It takes a lot of history and reading to understand Greenwald. The man is a walking encyclopedia, very careful in his statements and touches issues of great complexity. One can rarely refute him in a one liner.
      - watwut 5y ago
        > admitted that there were biological research labs Which is fairly normal thing to have in a developed country. And is much different thing the bioweapons lab. This muddying things does not make Greenwald's sound better. It makes him exactly what he is - someone building conspiracy theory.
        gkaly 5y ago
        [dead]
        watwut 5y ago
        The jump from "bioresearch lab" which to bioweapons. Making it sound as if there was something to "admit" in Ukraine having same labs as everyone has. Then you try to confuse it with bioweapons, anthrax attacks in America and completely irrelevant treaties about bioweapons. If he wanted to make historical point about Antrax, he did not had to make it in context of Ukraine. If he wanted to make point about bioresearch labs in general, he could have made that one. He did not wanted to do either. He wanted to muddy waters precisedly at the time when is sounded like Ukraine has bioweapons precisedly when they were invaded.
cycomanic 5y ago
I think it's not quite so simple. I previously believed in some of the strong ad honimems against him (and I have revised that position). However, I am very critical of some of his behaviour, he himself has used bad faith communication (often adopted from right wing pundits) strategies to criticise "his side/the left" and had the same time goes onto shows like Tucker Carlsson and does not use it to engage in critical dialogue with him, or call out his constant bad faith arguments, but instead "bash the left".
- colordrops 5y ago
  Attacking him for going on Tucker Carlson is a typical bad faith smear used against him and many others. CNN and MSNBC won't have him on despite him being willing to interview. Why must people only go on shows that are on "their side"? That's propaganda, not journalism. Every journalist has a particular topic and audience that they focus on. His topic and audience is around waking up left wingers to the bad behavior of the "their own side". This topic is almost completely unaddressed amongst the left. To attack the right would be singing to the choir, and also be part of the choir, because 99% of the rest of left wing media already focus all their effort on "the other side". Do you not think it's a waste of time to convince the left that trump and fox are bad? The fact is that most media are just cheerleaders for team red or team blue. Glenn is not a cheerleader, and thus not an establishment mouthpiece, and so he gets smeared by people like you.
  - watwut 5y ago
    > CNN and MSNBC won't have him on despite him being willing to interview. The majority of journalists and opinion writers wont ever be on CNN and MSNBC. Overwhelming majority of them, in fact. > Every journalist has a particular topic and audience that they focus on. His topic and audience is around waking up left wingers to the bad behavior of the "their own side". Well, in that case, he is massive failure. Probably because he argues in bad faith and also because hate is dripping out of him. > This topic is almost completely unaddressed amongst the left. The left is constantly engaged in in-fighting.
    - 5y ago
watwut 5y ago
Nah, Glenn Greenwald is not arguing in good faith and was not for a long time. And I did not needed to "smear campaign" against him to figure that out. All I needed was was to read his twitter feed regularly - as I was. He is good at strong words and insults, but not at good faith discussion at all. > His beliefs and ideas are clearly left wing and he has remained consistent, Kinda yes and no, not really. He has some lefty opinions, but that is it.
- bena 5y ago
  I mean, I don't think colordrops/gkaly is defending Greenwald in good faith either.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    What did I say that was underhanded or otherwise indicated bad faith? Your direct ad hominem labeling without any context or explanation is the most bad faith thing in this thread.
    - bena 5y ago
      Cycomanic pointed it out thoroughly enough that I'd only be repeating what they said. One of your bigger tells however is how you never actually defend your positions. You only attack the others' opinions. You constantly require everyone else to be on the defense while never actually defending your positions yourself. You're not here to engage in debate, you're here to rant.
      - colordrops 5y ago
        Are you not aware that you are doing everything you are accusing me of?
        bena 5y ago
        I'm not and you know it. I notice you also didn't engage with Cycomanic after he deconstructed your post and called out all of your bad faith tactics. I also pointed out another. You also like to sneak in hyperbole. You claim I said you were underhanded, when I did no such thing. It's an effort to get me to argue something I never said. This isn't so much an accusation as just pointing out what you're doing here.
TheGigaChad 5y ago

threatofrain 5y ago

I think Glenn Greenwald was stressed into a place where he just kind of cracked, such as by governments actually hounding him. I have listened to his recent interviews and I think he's gone into classical conspiracy theories involving the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwal... https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/press-releases/article/brazil-government-threatens-and-harasses-journalist-glenn-greenwald.html https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/press-...

colordrops 5y ago
Could you cite a particular unfounded "conspiracy theory" that he is espousing? Most of the things he's written about the CIA, FBI, NSA etc that I've read are grounded in fact and sourced.. Are you suggesting that these three letter agencies aren't constantly involved in shady unethical often law-breaking activity? Have you not been reading hacker news at all? They make it to the front page regularly with their poor behavior.
- watwut 5y ago
  Bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine.
  - gkaly 5y ago
    Greenwald (and Tulsi Gabbard) quoted Nuland directly, who admitted that there were biological research labs. Greenwald had previously worked on the Anthrax story of 2001, where a couple of high profile people got sent a sophisticated Anthrax variant in the mail. It was supposed to be foreign terrorism at first, later it was found that the strain came from a U.S. research facility. Biological weapons aren't allowed by treaty. Research how to combat biological weapons however is allowed. So many countries produce strains in biological research facilities under the guise of defense. That is precisely Greenwald's point, he has never claimed that bioweapons are manufactured in Ukraine. He has claimed that dangerous biological agents might be present, like they were in the U.S. in 2001. It takes a lot of history and reading to understand Greenwald. The man is a walking encyclopedia, very careful in his statements and touches issues of great complexity. One can rarely refute him in a one liner.
    - watwut 5y ago
      > admitted that there were biological research labs Which is fairly normal thing to have in a developed country. And is much different thing the bioweapons lab. This muddying things does not make Greenwald's sound better. It makes him exactly what he is - someone building conspiracy theory.
      - gkaly 5y ago
        [dead]
        watwut 5y ago
        The jump from "bioresearch lab" which to bioweapons. Making it sound as if there was something to "admit" in Ukraine having same labs as everyone has. Then you try to confuse it with bioweapons, anthrax attacks in America and completely irrelevant treaties about bioweapons. If he wanted to make historical point about Antrax, he did not had to make it in context of Ukraine. If he wanted to make point about bioresearch labs in general, he could have made that one. He did not wanted to do either. He wanted to muddy waters precisedly at the time when is sounded like Ukraine has bioweapons precisedly when they were invaded.

cycomanic 5y ago

I think it's not quite so simple. I previously believed in some of the strong ad honimems against him (and I have revised that position). However, I am very critical of some of his behaviour, he himself has used bad faith communication (often adopted from right wing pundits) strategies to criticise "his side/the left" and had the same time goes onto shows like Tucker Carlsson and does not use it to engage in critical dialogue with him, or call out his constant bad faith arguments, but instead "bash the left".

colordrops 5y ago
Attacking him for going on Tucker Carlson is a typical bad faith smear used against him and many others. CNN and MSNBC won't have him on despite him being willing to interview. Why must people only go on shows that are on "their side"? That's propaganda, not journalism. Every journalist has a particular topic and audience that they focus on. His topic and audience is around waking up left wingers to the bad behavior of the "their own side". This topic is almost completely unaddressed amongst the left. To attack the right would be singing to the choir, and also be part of the choir, because 99% of the rest of left wing media already focus all their effort on "the other side". Do you not think it's a waste of time to convince the left that trump and fox are bad? The fact is that most media are just cheerleaders for team red or team blue. Glenn is not a cheerleader, and thus not an establishment mouthpiece, and so he gets smeared by people like you.
- watwut 5y ago
  > CNN and MSNBC won't have him on despite him being willing to interview. The majority of journalists and opinion writers wont ever be on CNN and MSNBC. Overwhelming majority of them, in fact. > Every journalist has a particular topic and audience that they focus on. His topic and audience is around waking up left wingers to the bad behavior of the "their own side". Well, in that case, he is massive failure. Probably because he argues in bad faith and also because hate is dripping out of him. > This topic is almost completely unaddressed amongst the left. The left is constantly engaged in in-fighting.
  - 5y ago

watwut 5y ago

Nah, Glenn Greenwald is not arguing in good faith and was not for a long time. And I did not needed to "smear campaign" against him to figure that out. All I needed was was to read his twitter feed regularly - as I was. He is good at strong words and insults, but not at good faith discussion at all. > His beliefs and ideas are clearly left wing and he has remained consistent, Kinda yes and no, not really. He has some lefty opinions, but that is it.

bena 5y ago
I mean, I don't think colordrops/gkaly is defending Greenwald in good faith either.
- colordrops 5y ago
  What did I say that was underhanded or otherwise indicated bad faith? Your direct ad hominem labeling without any context or explanation is the most bad faith thing in this thread.
  - bena 5y ago
    Cycomanic pointed it out thoroughly enough that I'd only be repeating what they said. One of your bigger tells however is how you never actually defend your positions. You only attack the others' opinions. You constantly require everyone else to be on the defense while never actually defending your positions yourself. You're not here to engage in debate, you're here to rant.
    - colordrops 5y ago
      Are you not aware that you are doing everything you are accusing me of?
      - bena 5y ago
        I'm not and you know it. I notice you also didn't engage with Cycomanic after he deconstructed your post and called out all of your bad faith tactics. I also pointed out another. You also like to sneak in hyperbole. You claim I said you were underhanded, when I did no such thing. It's an effort to get me to argue something I never said. This isn't so much an accusation as just pointing out what you're doing here.

TheGigaChad 5y ago