Greenwald spends his days using his previous good journalism to tell people that the Hunter Biden laptop story is real and the Bill Barr is an ethical lawyer that would never serve at Trump’s bidding or cover things up. You’re extremely behind on your own personal rigor on journalistic integrity.
That appears to be the biggest disconnect here: Greenwald has been sprinkling lies and half-truths into his journalism for years, and has gotten worse with time. The fact is that he retreated to substack to milk the people that want to believe what he says uncritically and not because they are extra special megaminds who see through the code.
EDIT
I also should be fair, Greenwald’s investigative reporting of factual events as a journalist is and probably will always be exceptional. Greenwald’s editorial journalism is hot garbage and has been for a very long time. There’s a huge disconnect between the quality of the two.
Has it occurred to you that this is no longer possible due to the inundation of popular discourse with bad faith arguments from people “just asking questions” on the right and increasingly insane/racist/sexist/fascist gasbagging that they demand be taken seriously and given equal airtime? Can you explain to me how the free exchange of ideas is possible when one side has no ideas, only lies? Should we doubt our correctitude when we assert that human rights are for everyone, without exception? Think about it.
Also, has it occurred to you that Glenn Greenwald might not be the most reliable source of information on whether or not Glenn Greenwald is a fascist asshole?
Just to make sure people understand, it’s The Sun who are arseholes, just like they always are.
Is this anti-semitism? Because I know that being part of the Jewish diaspora is important to Pink Peacock but The Sun never bothered to mention that. The “No cops, no TERFs” rule has been in place since they opened, because it protects their regulars. They know their history and they know who were the early victims of the Nazis and who enabled fascism. I’m also sure that a consensus of workers deciding they don’t want troublemakers visiting does not make them bosses.
It looks like someone has only just noticed and is throwing a tantrum about it in a national newspaper.
It’s Turning Point style “logic”. They can’t imagine a world without bosses, therefore anarchists must have bosses, but anarchist theory says that there cannot be bosses so these “anarchists” can’t be real anarchists. They also can’t imagine a world where socialism isn’t centralised and hierarchical, even when they are shown real world examples.
Their “feminism” is the same “feminism” that attacked and excluded lesbians over 50 years ago, that attacked and excluded Black women 100 years ago, that attacked and excluded working class women 150 years ago. The same “feminism” whose response to Oswald Mosley becoming fascist was to offer their unquestioning support to him.
They may have changed their target, but they are the same arseholes deep down. There will always be someone who they think isn’t a real woman and is OK for them to attack.
Trans Exclusionary Reactionary implies fanatic, if that helps.
I still use TERF if the person or group has some claim to having been part of Radical Feminism in the 70s or 80s, even though they are neither today.
Talking of TERs, Britain has it’s own Gallery of Just Plain Arseholes
Looking at that list of presenters and guests I’d say that there isn’t anyone who hasn’t already been uninvited from crossing the threshold of my house.
I was blissfully ignorant of that starting yesterday, it was a fool’s hope that it had been quietly shelved. That review makes it sound like a mix of a Mitchell and Webb sketch and Alan Partridge. On the plus side it means it has become far easier to avoid a whole bunch of arseholes in one go.
(was thinking of it when I saw you post. Jinx.)
