Anti-Greenwald and Miranda feeling on DU: how much is closeted homophobia?

[Ken Burch]

You'd have to figure that some of that comes into those who think that Miranda got what was coming and that Greenwald, rather than the British authorities, is to blame for his partner's ordeal in London.

[HERVEPA]

1. pretty much almost none

[Recursion]

2. There's definitely been some

I don't think it's predominant, anymore than racism is predominant in the anti-administration posts, but they're both there in small doses, and troubling.

[last1standing]

11. Spot on.

I came to say the exact same thing.

[hrmjustin]

3. How so?

[LearningCurve]

4. Not as much as some people think

More than others would like to admit.

[JaneyVee]

5. ...

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Greenwald's sexual orientation is just another attack point.

It is clear that the BOG, or whatever you want to call it, will defend anything and everything this administration does and will use anything they think will work to do so.

[Summer Hathaway]

28. Would you care to back up that statement

by citing any post in the BOG that has used Greenwald's sexual orientation as a talking point?

[Cha]

122. He can't do it because his job is just to

project his own bullshit to shut down discussion that isn't in Lock Step with his own.

[Summer Hathaway]

123. Yeah, well, I know that

and you know that.

I was just curious as to whether he had anything further to say on the subject.

Apparently he does not.

But when it comes to "projecting his own bullshit", you have to admit that he's very good at his job.

[Cha]

124. Indeed.

[madokie]

71. I wasn't even aware of his sexual orientation

until this last dust up. I'm color blind but can see the rainbow if you get my drift

[Quantess]

102. Yes, I agree. (no text)

[Hekate]

125. It's the other way around, sorry. DEFENDING his sexual orientation has become an attack point...

... against those of us who question his motives and his means. I find that bizarre, but sadly not all that surprising in Neo-DU, where someone can actually start a thread celebrating our "schism."

[Warren Stupidity]

141. Authoritarian Booster League Derp at its finest.

Yes it is upside down and backwards over at the ABL. Thanks for the laugh though. You guys! You all really crack me up. Too bad that the issue is so deadly serious.

[Hekate]

142. Uh huh

[ForgoTheConsequence]

7. I think a lot of it is homophobic.

Which is where I also believe a lot of the original Glenn Greenwald hate came from. Can't have a gay ex-pat criticizing our hetero, spreading peace around the world, god fearing, phone spying government! We're American dammit!

[jazzimov]

8. For me - NONE!

If Greenwald truly LOVED Miranda, he never would have let this happen.

I don't care what sex either of them are. We are talking LOVE vs "being used" here.

Greenwald USED Miranda for his own sick purposes. This is true no matter their sex.

[HangOnKids]

14. Thanks Dr. Phil n/t

[RetroLounge]

16. "If Greenwald truly LOVED Miranda"

wow, didn't know you could diagnose love over the intertubes.

impressive.



RL

[Luminous Animal]

44. So what you are saying is that Miranda is an infant and can't make his own

decisions.

[pnwmom]

106. Either Miranda is a full participant in this or he was a victim.

You can't have it both ways.

If he was a full participant, then he is responsible for the stolen materials in his possession. The UK doesn't have a constitution guaranteeing freedom of the press, so he should have realized that he and the materials were at some degree of risk in Britain.

I'm not going to defend Britain's laws here. They are what they are. When we wrote our Constitution, we deliberately wrote in freedoms and protections that are not guaranteed in Britain.

[HumansAndResources]

115. Stolen Materials? Proof?

Oh, like the Pentagon Papers, you mean (guy was out on bail and speaking in public during legal proceedings - contrast that to Manning).

Except, in this case, we only have the word of a reporter he possessed anything "stolen" at all. In fact, since Greenwald and Poitras both got copies of everything in Hong Kong, why would they need to trade anything except their work-product?

It was the work-product the International Security State Enforcers for the Transnational Corporate Leech-masters wanted to get.

I guess when they break the encryption, in the year 12,035 or so, we can find out for sure. Until then, its just speculation whether any of Snowden's stash was with him.

[ocpagu]

118. "stolen materials"

Oh, poor NSA... somebody stole their information which consisted of... well... private data stolen from American and foreign citizens...

Forgive me If I'm not moved to tears...

[sabrina 1]

59. So it is a Journalist's fault when a Government goes off the rails and decides to abuse

it authority and utilize it's 'terror' legislation for political purposes, or to try to save itself or/and its allies from further exposure?

Did Greenwald call them up and ask them to make idiots of themselves around the globe? Was Greenwald also responsible for the UK raiding the basement of a News Organization and ordering the destruction of their hard drives? Do you understand how serious this all is, seriously.

Do you know what kind of countries do this kind of thing, crack down on the Press to protect themselves?

I can't believe some of the things I see here.

The reason, just FYI, Greenwald had no concerns for his partner helping him and another journalist with their work by bringing back Source Material to him, is that his partner was NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL, and clearly he was mistaken to think the the UK would never in a million years do something one would expect only in a third world dictatorship.

WHO in their right mind would have expected this to happen.

I am sure you know that nothing Miranda did was illegal?

[Scootaloo]

66. Wow. That's an... ah... "interesting" argument you've got there

Let me know how it works out for you.

[Little Star]

79. lol. That's one of the dumbest things I've read in a while. Sorry but it just is.

[Thinkingabout]

137. I totally agree with you, jazzimov, if GG does love and care for Miranda he would have

Insisted on making the trip himself. While GG hid behind the big barrier and threatened the US and UK he was going to print more information. Someone used Snowden as a patsy and now GG has used the one he loves and cares for as a mule. GG does not treat those around him as I would and it should not have anything to do with sexual orentation.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. What does the fact that they're married gay men

have to do with the fact that they are in possession of classified material that Snowden stole and leaked? And has anybody here suggested that they were (or should have been) targeted because they were gay? If Greenwald gave his husband classified information to carry, he most certainly did put him in a precarious position legally IMHO and nothing would be different if Miranda was a woman instead of a man. I got issues with Greenwald/Snowden but Greenwald being gay ain't one of them.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

10. Keep a close eye on this thread.

The homophobes will be the ones who get verrrrrrry defensive.

[Ken Burch]

12. That's already beginning to crop up.

thanks for the observation.

[RetroLounge]

17. They already did

RL

[one_voice]

18. Is like when...

the racists get verrrrrrrrrrry defensive in threads about racism and Obama?

And 27 verrrrrrrrrrry defensive threads pop up?

Like that?

[last1standing]

13. Here's a great example of homophobia directed at Greenwald.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023502108

OP calls Miranda Greenwald's "lover" then rants about how Greenwald should have protected his "lover" from the big, bad world.

I'm surprise he didn't ask which one of them was the "wife."

[HangOnKids]

15. It is happening again up thread.

It is sad.

[hrmjustin]

19. Thanks for posting. I was not sure what the OP meant.

[last1standing]

27. As I said upthread, there aren't many homophobes at DU, but there are a few.

That poster is one example. There's another just below.

[hrmjustin]

29. I am on Mirt and we see our fair share of them.

[last1standing]

30. When I was a mod, during the DU 2.0 days, we saw plenty as well.

I always liked to think that the number of homophobes vs. the number of active posters was really very small. I hope that hasn't changed.

[hrmjustin]

32. I like to think that as well. In the past 10 days or so there were several who were removed in part

due to homophobic posts. The admins don't play around with that.

[last1standing]

33. I have to admit, I'm not encouraged by the results of my alert.

Perhaps I should have posted it as a TOS violation but I thought the content was rather obviously homophobic.

[hrmjustin]

37. You can re alert and hit the tos again. The alert will be recieved by the admins then.

[last1standing]

39. Thanks. For some reason I thought I could only alert once.

n/t

[hrmjustin]

41. No. You can always re-alert and hit the TOS. But you can't get a new jury, lol.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

21. Very unfortunate that seemingly unDemocratic homophobic trolls abound.

[Zorra]

22. That's a common form of DU homophobic post, the type that juries consistently let slide. nt

[last1standing]

23. I know, I alerted on it.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Frankly, I think you're stretching. But either way, this should be discussed in the thread rather than in an alert message.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Yeah "lover" in this context is cringeworthy. Plus it's just flamebait.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This is pure paranoia and prissiness.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Speaking as a homosexual, I don't find this post homophobic. I would also suggest that the alerter might be feeling a tad sensitive if they feel this post is alert-worthy on those grounds.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

That's what a "jury of our peers" decided at DU. I love how Juror #3 managed to put in his own little touch of homophobia by calling the alert "prissiness."

[Zorra]

47. At least Skinner has seen a lot of these posts, and tombstones the bigots

after they show their hand one too many times.

It has become clear to most folks in the DU LGBT community that many who participate in the jury system here are either not the brightest candles in the halls of justice and democracy, and/or they are homophobic themselves.

[Summer Hathaway]

24. When did use of the term "lover"

become a homophobic slur - or even a word associated with homosexuality, as opposed to heterosexuality?

Ever read "Lady Chatterley's Lover"? Did YOU ask which one was the wife?

[last1standing]

25. ^^^^^^^And another example crawls out from under a rock.

N/t

[Summer Hathaway]

36. Bwahahahaha!!!

Pointing out that the term "lover" is NOT a homophobic slur is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of homophobia?

"Lady Chatterley's LOVER"

"LOVER, Come Back"

"Friends & LOVERS"

"LOVERS in a Dangerous Time"

"LOVERS and Other Strangers"

"Friends Should Always be LOVERS, Too"

"The Night Belongs to LOVERS"

Yup, the world is full of homophobes - otherwise they'd never use THAT word in book titles, movie titles, song titles, etc.

[last1standing]

40. There's certainly one and they're in this thread right now.

Do you find racism against African Americans as funny as you do hatred of gay people?

[Summer Hathaway]

46. Find a post of mine

where I have expressed hatred - or even a tingling of a misgiving - against gays or lesbians.

Let me save you the trouble - you won't find any, because there aren't any.

If you have read my posts on Miranda, you will find that I have invariably referred to him as Greenwald's spouse. I think that is the proper term, as they are married. But referring to either of them as the "lover" of the other does not imply anything other than the fact that they love each other, and are partners in that relationship.

Over my time posting on message boards, I have learned that when someone has nothing to offer, fact-wise, by way of a rebuttal to what someone has said, they will almost invariably sink to calling someone a homophobe.

They will, of course - as you have done - make that accusation without anything to back it up, and without any evidence to support their accusation.

It is always the last resort of an extremely stupid person who thinks that - well, who doesn't think. And it is that very lack of thinking skills that leads to name-calling and false assertions being thrown around, seemingly in lieu of having something of substance to say.

I'm sorry if I hit a nerve by pointing out that the word "lover" has nothing to do with homosexuality, and is NOT a homophobic slur. In fact, it has been used (as I also pointed out) in movie titles, song lyrics and TV show titles for decades - and I can assure you none of those uses were in any way homophobic slurs.

Get out more - read more - educate yourself. You might just learn (though it's doubtful at this point) that intelligent people do not accuse others of being homophobes simply because they themselves don't understand the meaning of a word, and are ignorant as to its usage.

[last1standing]

60. You spit out the bullshit you posted above and then tell me to educate myself.

I don't ever want to learn what makes you the way you are. I have too much respect for myself. Thanks anyway.

[Summer Hathaway]

65. You accused me of being a homophobe

without any evidence whatsoever.

And now you spit-and-sputter because you've been called out for doing so.

I don't have to "learn what makes YOU the way you are", because I already know. You are rather typical of your ilk - if you can't defend your opinions with facts, you hurl unwarranted accusations at others in the delusional belief that you are distracting attention away from your own ignorance.

Your childish poutrage is duly noted. And if you consider your ignorance to be a sign of self-respect - well, whatever gets you through the night.

[Egnever]

113. I dont know why you are justifying yourself to this obvious troll.

Nor why I am kicking this flaimbait thread for that matter.

[Summer Hathaway]

117. You're absolutely right.

I shouldn't take the bait - especially from a troll.

But it has become a pet peeve of mine, this trotting out of the 'homophobe' accusation as a last resort when someone is losing an argument.

It is trite, petty, and ignorant in the extreme. And it is just one of those things I feel compelled to speak out against it when I see someone doing it.

[HooptieWagon]

107. First of all, they're married.

So using the term "lover" is demeaning. I believe "partner" is acceptable, since Miranda is Greenwald's #1 assistant....so they are professional and domestic partners.

[one_voice]

99. I wouldn't have guessed using...

the term lover was a homophobic slur. I would have thought it was a weird choice of word to use, but not homophobic. Hetro people use lover as well.

Anyway to my point, once I used a term--bugger--I said someone was a persistent little bugger--having no idea that it was a homophobic slur.

Someone was kind enough to pm and explain that to me. I'm thankful they did that and didn't call me out in front of everyone because it really was an innocent mistake.

My granny used to call us 'buggers' when we were little, so of course I didn't think it was a bad thing, and certainly not a homophobic slur.

The person that pm'd me, is now a pretty good friend.

[backscatter712]

75. That's exactly what it is.

They can come up with whatever cover story they want, it's still lipstick on a pig.

[RZM]

81. I'd say party/Obama loyalty accounts for almost all of it

The Democratic Party is not just an idea. It's an actual entity.

[treestar]

90. Glenn is the leader, or principal on this issue

On other issues, David may be the leader.

A straight women could be a reporter and have her husband get involved in her doings.

[Hekate]

127. So the language has shifted? Lover, partner, significant other, spouse? ...

Do any of these apply? None?

Care to enlighten us on the most up-to-the-minute terminology for referencing an out LGBT person's human companion with whom they live and share a life?

Make it an OP if you will. Also, for those of us of good intent but maybe slow on the uptake or just not hip and edgy, kindly update it weekly.

I for one would appreciate it greatly.

[Zorra]

134. Example: Obama used his lover, Michelle, HIS LOVER, to campaign for him!

Would you ever say something like that?

Glenn and David are married. Husband or spouse would have been appropriate.

How often to you use the term lover to describe a husband or wife?

The term lover was used as an insult, in a denial of the validity of their same sex marriage

RW homophobe trolls have been doing things like that for years here. Most of them have been tombstoned for homophobia, and sometimes sexism.

[Hekate]

138. Really? Do the OP thing, okay? Because at one time in my lifetime "lover" seemed to be The Word...

It used to give me a little jolt every time, because it seemed like Too Much Information, you know? But maybe that was the intent: "I'm not allowed to marry, so I'm going to linguistically transgress by letting you know it's a physical relationship and we are not just good pals." I myself did not use "lover."

An insult? Outdated terminology would be my guess. I use "spouse" for committed same-sex couples, myself, because it's gender neutral.

Go ahead, have a good time scouring around for intentional or unintentional slights and insults and fightin' words. Apparently the magnificent gayness of Glenn Greenwald and his ... spouse? is that acceptable? ... was unknown to many of us here who just don't keep track of the private lives of public people.

I don't like him or his journalism or how people end up in jail or on the run when he's done with them. See that flying pig on my post? That's how much I care about his private life. It's himself I don't like.

[Zorra]

143. Here's the OP thing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023504049

[kenny blankenship]

20. oh. They just reach for any weapon that's handy. Broken bottles, board with rusty nails, a big rock.

homophobic expressions just seem expedient to police 'taters. I don't take it personally.

[TheKentuckian]

62. I think this is the case for most. There are some that reach for that particular object

early and often though.

There is also a petty element that is mostly bitter about Obama being taken to task for his goofy overtures to the bigot set.

Bleh...these jokers are terrible.

[Safetykitten]

26. I would say some...

[Cleita]

31. Many of the gays here on DU don't like me after the Catholic bashing wars, but

the lovely hugs Greenwald gave Miranda when they were reunited made me feel so very good. I hope they get through this and can go on with their lives after it is all over with.

[Behind the Aegis]

34. Very little.

There will always be some who will use homophobia as a manner of attack, but there are also those who are using Greenwald's sexual orientation as a weapon; both are despicable! After almost three weeks of being told we weren't really protesting Russia's anti-gay law, we were simply defending Obama/the administration/slamming Snowden, it became quite obvious that some only care about our lives and our rights when it is fucking convenient; otherwise, we are on our own. "It's only one song!" "Can't you control your sex drive for two weeks?" "The FDA discriminates against gay people in the US and that's worse than Russia." So, yes, there is plenty of homophobia on this site, there are also quite a few opportunists who will now use our rights/lives/liberties for their political games. Enough! Some need to realize that many GLBTA people here are smart enough to see through the "white knight" routine some are playing.

[Cha]

121. Mahalo, Behind the Aegis! n/m

[Hekate]

130. Thanks, Behind the Aegis, for this...

There will always be some who will use homophobia as a manner of attack, but there are also those who are using Greenwald's sexual orientation as a weapon; both are despicable!

I'm actually grateful for you saying that -- seeing it and saying it.

[Rstrstx]

35. What about the flip side of the coin?

Has it made anyone here more sympathetic to Greenwald?

[grasswire]

38. I see the undertones

And it isn't just here -- it's in many places around the Internet message boards and comments sections. The very same memes expressing bigotry: Greenwald is a drama queen (!) and attention seeker who misused his lover. He's hysterical and emotional and manipulative. That stuff is repeated many places.

[Cali_Democrat]

42. What if a made a post titled: "anti-Obama feeling on DU: how much is closeted racism?"

Hmmm.....

I wonder how DUers would react. In fact, I do recall a post along those lines and DU absolutely exploded.

I've been critical of Greenwald, but I didn't even find out he was gay until recently and I didn't even find out he was married until today.

I don't give a damn about his personal life and any homophobia expressed toward him should be condemned.

[last1standing]

43. I don't have the post you're referring to before me...

but didn't it suggest that all or most anti-Obama sentiment at DU was racist? If I could remember who posted it I'd look it up.

Regardless, the OP asked a question in rather moderate tones and the answer has been almost entirely that very few posters are homophobic, but there are some - just as there are some anti African American posters at DU but not many.

[Union Scribe]

49. Doesn't feel so good, does it?

To be put on the defensive about your disagreement with someone because the specter of prejudice has been tossed out. That's how a lot of us felt. That's why "DU absolutely exploded." Note that I'm not associating that tactic with you, just trying to add to what you brought up about that thread (actually multiple threads/comments). No one likes to be implicated in bigotry for disagreements on an issue. And for the record I don't think much criticism (here anyway) of Greenwald is based in homophobia.

[Cali_Democrat]

50. So you agree with me that this OP is silly?

[Union Scribe]

54. In that I've not seen anything about the Miranda incident

that I read as homophobic, and I've read a lot of the threads, then yes I'd say it's a rare enough component of Greenwald/Miranda criticism that it shouldn't be used against their critics. Thus it didn't really warrant a thread wondering about the extent of homophobia in those criticisms as the effect of that is, intentionally or not, the impression that some significant percentage comes from prejudice. Greenwald critics should not be assumed to be motivated by homophobia any more than Obama critics should be assumed to be motivated by racism.

I thought I should expound more than just calling it silly, hope you don't mind.

[Cali_Democrat]

55. fair enough

[Union Scribe]

110. An addendum to clarify based on today's revelations.

Upon being informed that a source is bigoted, people arguing in good faith should abandon such a source. If they continue using it, I can't assume they are acting in good faith here. Otherwise, my previous statement covers it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023505867

[Warren Stupidity]

69. That charge has been made repeatedly.

Greenwald's personal life, and Snowden's have been brought up repeatedly as diversionary attack points.

[Bobbie Jo]

139. Exploded....

Heh, try mocked mercilessly. It was quite the malicious display.

[otohara]

45. Yes... One Must Figure The Worst Possible Reason

for disliking Glenn Greenwald is because he's gay.

I can think of all sorts of reasons why I've never like Glenn Greenwald and none of them have to do with his sexual preference.
Raw Story has an article up about GG titled "Just because you are mean doesn't make you wrong. A defense of Glenn Greenwald".
For some reason, or for many reasons a lot of people don't like Greenwald...For me, it's his gigantic ego and tendency to be a thin skinned bully. I don't like Rand Paul either - he's not gay, but he is admired by Glenn Greenwald.

From Raw Story

I don’t know Glenn Greenwald personally. He could be the world’s kindest, most pleasant, incredibly generous individual in real life, with smiles for all passers-by and 25+ percent tips for every server. He could whistle happy tunes while feeding the city’s homeless, be the understanding shoulder on which all his close friends and family members cry, and even nurse abandoned animals back to health and find them good homes in between 2,000-word articles and argumentative tweets.

Why does that seem so unlikely to some of you? You’ve never met someone who’s nicer in real life than on the Internet? Bullsh*t.

I have “met” Greenwald on the Internet. It was, to put it mildly, not exactly a pleasant experience. Insults and straw man arguments mixed wildly with what might otherwise have come across as legitimate critiques, complaints were lodged, high dudgeon was evinced, grudges were held, distance was kept (and much of this was mutual). Anyone who has mixed it up with Greenwald online — and this is a vast universe of people, let us be clear — would likely agree that their interactions follow much the same pattern (after which one can expect a wave of Greenwaldian fan boys to descend on one’s Twitter account like L. Frank Baum’s flying monkeys, all bared-teeth and vicious insults brandished on behalf of the supposed honor of their idol). But this doesn’t mean I know what kind of person the real-life Greenwald is — or that my knowledge of that or lack thereof even matters, when it comes to his reporting or his opinion work.

But I get it. People don’t like Greenwald (or at least the Internet Greenwald). And I get that it is hard to not hold a grudge after being flamed by someone, and it’s hard not to let one’s negative personal opinion of someone impact one’s impression of their work (and, Glenn, if you’re reading, this goes for you, too). And, I see quite clearly the potential for professional jealousy to be evinced by some reporters’ reporters over a “mere blogger” getting what is likely one of the biggest scoops of 2013 (but anyone who has a bigger one can email me) or those people who see his (and his allies’) criticism of the Obama Administration as the major threat to this President’s legacy (which it is and rightly should be). http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/19/just-because-you-are-mean-doesnt-make-you-wrong-a-defense-of-glenn-greenwald/

[Bluenorthwest]

82. Being gay is not a 'sexual preference' .

The term itself is bigoted, it implies a choice is being made. A choice, like when a person selects words from a wide lexicon of possibilities and goes with 'preference'.

[UTUSN]

48. In the name calling starting with"Authoritarians," it took this long for "homophobia" to surface. nt

[Rowdyboy]

51. I feel so stupid. I only discovered Greenwald was gay yesterday when stories about Miranda started

coming out. Discovering that he is a gay man in a relationship with another man doesn't affect my opinion at all. I didn't like Greenwald or his tactics yesterday and I still don't like him today. His sexuality is entirely irrelevant.

[Cha]

120. "His sexuality is entirely irrelevant." Exactly, Rb, which is why there's

no need to "feel stupid".

[KittyWampus]

52. How many shrieked the only reason for discussing Russia's anti-gay laws was Snowden?

Thereby minimizing a real issue that is timely due to up-coming Olympics?

I could pick out a significant number of DU'ers who jumped on that wagon just last week.

So I think this thread is ill-advised.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. Um I think that would be approximately two people here, both evicted.

[KittyWampus]

86. No, you only have to scroll back a few pages and find the fairly large number

But whatever. Glad I stayed away from that mess.

[Warren Stupidity]

87. Please alert on anyone who is dismissing the overt repression of LGBT people in Russia.

The admins have been pretty good about handling this.

[KittyWampus]

100. Thank heavens that mess died down.

[bravenak]

53. I hope none.

That would be stupid.

[snot]

56. Good god. How could anyone look at what authorities did, & not be horrified?

On ANY forum, let alone DU.

[uponit7771]

57. They might not be taking an asshole book pimps word for it!? Jus sayin, if everytime the asshole

...is challegened about Snowden and he retorts to ad homs then it's a tell tale his positions are week.

[snot]

58. What are you trying to say? That what no one denies happened, didn't?

[uponit7771]

63. No one whom? I don't trust SnowGlen looking at the facts that are NOT in dispute they're both idiots

...who no doubt have an agenda that has NOTHING to do with the 4th amendment

I work in IT

The words they're using is full of sophistry...'touches n number petabytes"....as if "touching" = grepping or analyzing

Then one pimps a book on the matter and the other runs to Russia with pooty poot to escape persecution because the US justice system isn't 110% perfect as if every person of color doesn't know that already.

The second I see Snowden supporters advocating people of color doing the same thing Snowden did for the same reasons I can trust the amount of FUD spread on DU

Till then, I still wait and day by day Glen and Snowden prove themselves assholes...

Like Greenwald didn't know his spouse was going to be hemmed up

[LeftishBrit]

61. No one is denying that this happened

There may be debates about the reasons for it, but not about the facts.

[uponit7771]

64. Neither am I, I'm not denying I'm supporting it and under the terror arrest because of what they

...COULD be doing.

Steal gov info for the sake of "leaking" something people know that has been going on since 2006 and then run to Russia to escape persecution and

....at the end of the day, expect benefit of the doubt!!??!!


FUCK NO


We don't know what Snowden is doing with the info, sharing with AQ, China, Russia...whatever


Der Speigel, you know, that bastion of shill type reporting...said they would NOT reveal all of what Snowden has in order to protect peoples lives.

That's fucked up, these guys are putting peoples lives in danger...

I'm supposed to support that bullshit!?

[Bluenorthwest]

91. Just so you know, any reason or intellectual validity your arguments might have are lost in the

hyperbolic nature of your language and the use of terms such as 'Snowglen' and 'pimp' and then devolving into attacks on other posters who do not share you intense hate for these men. The need to characterize and toss yellow verbiage highlights the vapidity of your 'arrest them for what they might do' concept which is un-American and servile as can be.
Others are having a reasoned discussion, along you come with nicknames and adjectives and profanity. The arsenal of the morally absent.

[uponit7771]

109. You preach to me about hyperbolics and claim I "intensly hate" these men?! Really?! come on...

...this is weak on its face...

Let me use my hyperbole and you use yours and not run from the central argument that these people broke the law, there was a better way of going about doing what they wanted to do and they decided not to take it.

A benefit Snowden (better?!) supporters have YET... YET to extend to EVERY SINGLE person of color in America

[SwissTony]

67. How many of us even knew Greenwald was gay before Miranda was detained?

I didn't and don't recall anyone bringing it up on any of the many Greenwald/Snowden threads pre-Miranda.

[Capt. Obvious]

80. I knew

The homophobic attacks against him were vicious in 2009.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. Here is an epic 2011 thread attacking him for being gay and smearing DU's gay community along

with it. The Original poster was ppr'd in the end, but many of the defenders of the post are still here making the EXACT same arguments. Take a gander:
"I have found out that Greenwald is Gay, and I know from a lot of posts here at DU that many of the LGBT community here at DU are disenchanted with Obama. I find that interesting, because all of the LGBT community outside of DU strongly - and I mean STRONGLY - support him! I have many friends and co-workers who are LGB ( I had two friends who were T in the past, but we have lost touch as happens so often with friends) and they are appalled at Greenwald’s portrayals of Obama’s policies."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297376

[SwissTony]

93. Thanks, Captain and NWB. I avoid homophobic threads like the plague. n/t

[cali]

68. I doubt that it's more than a tiny percentage. Just

pathetic hate for anyone who doesn't worship at the feet of this administration.

[The Link]

72. Some of it is.

[brooklynite]

73. Flip it around; is ANYTHING an LGBT person does immune from criticism?

[Bluenorthwest]

84. You are claiming that it is not possible for criticism to be racist or

homophobic if the criticism is accurate at the core? , So 'your cooking stinks fag**ot' is not bigoted if the cooking actually stinks?
Are you claiming there is some warrant that allows folks to indulge in homophobic or racist language if the minority member is in your eyes 'in the wrong'? You are claiming it is not possible to criticize a minority without using the minority status as part of your line of attack?

Your question is so specious it demands very specific clarification. Please proceed, brooklynite.

[brooklynite]

88. I'd be delighted to proceed...

The OP offers no examples of homophobic behavior...no insults, no allegations, nothing. Just open speculation. Which leads to the inference that criticism of Greenwald and Mianda couldn't possibly be based on the merits, so there must be a more insidious cause. I would therefore like to understand what criticisms ARE acceptable in the OP's opinion.

[Bluenorthwest]

95. Allow me to educate. GLBT people are just like other people, so criticism of us follow the same

rules as criticism of other humans. Dragging unrelated matters such as race, sexuality, weight or religion into one's criticism is gauche and potentially bigoted. I'm sure you have experience in disagreeing with people who are minority members and that you are aware that it is fully possible to disagree with them without making their minority status an element in the disagreement.
It's not rocket science. You live in NYC and you don't know this shit? How can that be, brooklynite? Your questions seem disingenuous and obtuse. Most adults could play the 'walk a mile in the shoes' game and figure out how to criticize policy without getting sexist or homophobic or racist.

[brooklynite]

98. and I repeat...show me any example of criticism of Greenwald or Miranda....

....that gets into unrelated matters.

[Zorra]

104. See post #13 in this thread.

Do tell.

[Zorra]

105. Great post, Blue. nt

[backscatter712]

74. I've seen a good amount of homophobia from the Greenwald bashers.

And that homophobia should have no place here.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. I didn't realise HiPoint Dem was a 'Greenwald basher'

And unless I missed something, that homophobia ended up having no place here...

[Democracyinkind]

76. I notice the homophobia too... Also with Manning...

But I don't think it's the homophobia that informs the anti-Greenwald, anti-Manning people.

I think it's rather just that authoritarianism and homophobia nicely complement each other. Most homophobes are authoritarians and most authoritarians are homophobes. At least that's the way I see it. What you are noticing is just one of those spilling over into the other...

[Violet_Crumble]

78. Not much...

I saw a bit while I was on MIRT, and I also saw the very public and hard to miss homophobia displayed by HiPointDem/Hannah Bell, who defended homophobia in Russia and accused anyone who spoke out against Russia of being Snowden haters and that sort of thing. So, even though there's very little of it, it's not confined to one 'side', and in fact comes across most of the time as though people are using LGBT rights as nothing more than a weapon to hit their opponents over the head with...

[Bluenorthwest]

85. Much of it is. Much.

But then again we are dealing with a community that accepts vicious xenophobic comments about Latinos if it suits the Centrist agenda. The Centrists are much like the Republicans they admire, so if left unchecked they will very quickly alienate Democratic voters with bigotry so casual they don't even understand it is bigotry. So they hate gays but not JUST gays....

[treestar]

89. None whatsoever

If they were straight, I would have the same opinion exactly.

Julian is straight. This is about the issues.

[Bluenorthwest]

97. You claim " There there is only one right you do not have" to gay people but we have no right to

be protected from discrimination in 29 of the 50 States and no Federal law offers protections. So your 'pov' on LGBT related issues is not well informed of the facts....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2952192

[Bragi]

92. It's mostly closeted authoritarianism /nt

[warrior1]

94. I would say it's zero

[stevenleser]

96. Trash thread. nt

[greatauntoftriplets]

101. Joining you in that.

[JoePhilly]

103. This line is just as silly as the "all Obama critics are really racists" meme.

Pushing the discussion in either of these directions is simply a way to move away from the meaningful details and start a fight.

If you see a post that you think is homophobic, alert on it.

If you see a post that you think is racist, alert on it.

These meta discussions on DU are fairly ridiculous. Here on DU, there are very few examples of actual homophobic attacks on Greenwald, or racists attacks on Obama. Although both do occur occassionally.

Out in the real world, the number of BOTH increases significantly in comparison.

[Puglover]

108. The "Gigi" schtick

was in your face gay taunting. The same poster referred to Greenwald as a "bugger" Which is am antiquated term but still is a gay slur.

Why that poster wasn't immediately Tombstoned is disturbing to me.

The rest? Honestly I am not seeing it. But I am not the most intuitive creature on the face of the earth.

[LeftyMom]

111. Well, it's all the same people who were shouting about ponies

and poutrage and it's just one prayer until Obama read a poll and evolved, so you tell me.

[William769]

114. Care to elaborate on that comment?

It seems very cryptic.

[Ken Burch]

132. what the heck did he say?

send it to me in a pm if you'd rather not repeat it in the thread.

[William769]

133. Let's just say it was bad enough to be removed from DU.

I don't remember exactly and I don't want to paraphrase the comment from memory.

[Ken Burch]

135. fair enough.

[Hekate]

119. None here. Didn't even know he was gay until a few days ago.

I was gobsmacked to discover that some people thought he was being criticized not because he talked a second person into putting that person's life and freedom at risk, but because he, Greenwald, was gay. (Or perhaps it was the other way around and Greenwald was sought out... sorry if I am getting brain cramp.)

It was very convoluted reasoning, imo -- if someone, such as perhaps a journalist, encourages another person, such as perhaps someone with a security clearance, to risk their life and freedom by breaking a law, then neither of them should be surprised to have their motives questioned, critiqued, and so on -- but somehow the implication was that since Greenwald is gay he shouldn't be attacked, and if you did attack you were homophobic. There were some strange threads. You note I am not using his initials as an abbreviation for his name.

That was pretty much how I learned that he is gay.

I don't know about the rest of this place. There are a few homophobes, but I don't think they are exactly "closeted."

[kestrel91316]

126. I have no opinion on Greenwald or Miranda. I no longer have any opinion on anything having to do

with any LGBT persons or issues on DU.

No matter what opinions I express, somebody goes all thin-skinned and misinterprets or misunderstands what I have to say. So nope. Don't know, and don't care as far as DU is concerned.

LGBT folks had no bigger supporter than me. Now I'm just gonna keep my mouth shut.

[Hekate]

131. I think I can understand that

completely.

[tridim]

128. Why is Neo-DU so obsessed with sexual orientation?

It's really odd.

People are people. Period.

[LadyHawkAZ]

129. About the same amount as are attacking Obama because of his race n/t

[markiv]

136. oh, good night nurse

i'm as much opposed against the greenwald critics as anyone here, but it's ludacrous to insinuate that they are driven by 'homophobia'. This site is about as homophobic-phobic (fear of homophobia) as a site can get.

their criticism may be driven by a number of wrong things, but that isnt one of them

[Swamp Lover]

140. none here.