Talk:Glenn Greenwald

	This Media related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Glenn the Regressive?

Recently, I've seen Glenn listed as a regressive on the Regressive Left page. What do you guys think? Is this legit? I've argued on the Talk page that this classification is pretty misleading while others think its just b.s. Should we add that to this page? AmericanExceptionalism2016 (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I hate the goddamn label, the infighting among the left and other communities, and the utter vitriol surrounding the whole thing. We're really going to spend millions of hours trying to fit people into categories like: "oh, are they a regressive or aren't they?" I'm sick and tired of the damn pigeonholing and everything bad that it's supposed to imply. The dispute is so petty and pointless that I don't even know what the labels are supposed to mean anymore, despite witnessing the dispute myself. It's so damn tiresome. If people have anything meaningful to say, they should just say it instead of spouting out buzzwords and negative labels. Just say what's on your mind, don't hide it. If someone thinks Glenn Greenwald is a muslim-supporting piece of shit, say it! Don't try to use sneaky phrases and buzzwords. I'd actually have more respect for one or the other faction if both weren't so damn dishonest about the other side's views. PBfreespace (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. While there definitely is regressive behavior from the left, the way this "anti-Regressive Left" Witch hunt campaign has evolved seems to be reminiscent of Maoism (in the sense that a bunch of advocates use dehumanizing, misleading, purest characterizations to denounce people who aren't in 100% alignment with them). The more I follow the people in this campaign, the more I see them use the same logic they denounce to advocate for their points. While I don't mind people being pissed at Glenn, this is just madness. AmericanExceptionalism2016 (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Cult of personality

Apparently, Glenn has a very strong cult following that will unleash their anger on anyone who criticizes him. This list includes those on his right, like Dan Murphy, Joshua Foust , and Charles Johnson to those on his left, like Ohtarzie, Jonathan Cook. Do we think this is relevant?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Appears highly relevant. Allow this metaphor: if the claims are true, the above goes under a headline called "Cult of personality". If the claims are not true, the above goes under a headline called "Crank complaints". Worthy of mention either way. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but we have a page on Little Green Footballs another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Some objections

Pluto, your edits are very well done but there are some issues.

• Firstly, POTUS is in charge of all of the federal prisons in the US and Gitmo is a federal prison. Congress can't ban the president from closing Gitmo. The Poltifact article points out that Amnesty still criticizes Obama's plan because it will continue the indefinite detention which Greenwald points out in his article.
• Secondly, the purist claim about Clinton is fairly dumb; it conflates criticisms of Clinton with supporting Trump which implicitly means that Clinton can't be criticized lest we want Trump to be elected.
• Thirdly, his criticism of Clinton's relationship with despots is that she was praising them not that she was simply meeting with them.
• Fourthly, Khorasan Group is a complete fabrication. He doesn't claim that the civil is a "false flag" only that the supposedly dangerous Khorasan Group is fake.
• Fifthly, the comment that Greenwald "blamed the racial tension in Ferguson, MO" is wrong according to the source. He incorrectly, at least ostensibly, claims that the Ferguson PD were being trained "police training" when they were actually being trained in counter-terrorism; I would say the difference is quite small since the police will use said tactics when they police a community.
• Sixthly, the Foreign Policy story doesn't actually link to his supposed comments about Awlaki; when I searched for said statements I found that they were misquoted and that he had actually said, ""he was deemed by the very same U.S. Government to be the face of moderate Islam".
• Seventhly, Greenwald also did not endorse a conspiracy about Benghazi; he states that Obama made a false claim that the attack was incited by an Islamophobic film which is actually true.
• Lastly, your statement that, "There is no such thing as an 'Indefinite Detention Bill'" seems to contradict with your statement that "To imply there is means you’re also implying that Obama could have veto that bill without killing the entire NDAA."

--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

1. This is correct. Another source was added to clarify the President and Greenwald's positions.
2. This added nothing of substance and was removed.
3. Glenn wins this one.
4. Glenn wins this won.
5. This is correct. Changed the language slightly.
6. A winrar is Glenn. Removed entirely.
7. I'm leaving this one alone for now. Owlman's point is valid, it just requires a little care and attention.
8. See #1. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to edit it until you read through some objections first. Lot of good info so around, though.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem to backtrack on a lot of your claims, Pluto, once they are refuted, which begs the question, why make them in first place? Did you think no one would ask questions and you could get away with a few untruths? ^{— Unsigned, by: Levi Ackerman / talk / contribs}

Regarding Thatcher and bin Laden

It seems like he's actually saying basically the same thing in both cases, which is that we should not use the emotional reaction we have to a person's death as an excuse to ignore facts or avoid discussing them. With regard to Thatcher, he doesn't say people should celebrate the fact that she's dead, only that people shouldn't whitewash her indefensible actions out of a sense of respect for the dead. With regard to bin Laden, he argues that just because the goal of killing bin Laden was achieved does not mean we shouldn't raise questions about the morality of the means used to achieve that goal. I can't say I disagree on either point. 99.225.204.31 (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletions from personal experience

@Tea Sagan -- I was flipping through pages that had gotten recent changes, and noticed that you removed several bits of info a few weeks ago, claiming to know Glenn or his family. The issue is that anyone can claim that they know someone online without proof. I could, for example, claim that I am good friends with former Senegalese president Abdoulaye Wade and say that he enjoys his thiéboudienne with tartar sauce (I'm not, and I have no idea how he eats thiéboudienne).

So, can you elaborate on why you believe those should be removed, please? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Resignation from The Intercept

Glenn has resigned from The Intercept. He accuses them of censorship. The Intercept counters that he can't just copy-paste Trump Campaign agitprop and call it journalism. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)