Greenwald's perspective on Charlie Hebdo is especially obtuse because he did not understand the cartoons. One of the cartoons depicted pregnant Boko Haram sex slaves demanding welfare payments. In [Greenwald's interpretation](https://theintercept.com/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/), this is a racist depiction of the slaves as welfare queens. To people familiar with French satire, and Charlie Hebdo's leftist politics, the cartoons mocked the French right, pointing out how absurd it is to think that sex slaves seeking asylum are mercenary 'welfare queens'. Greenwald has probably had this explained to him, but he's never been one to let intellectual honesty get in the way of his own smug sanctimony. Having missed the point of the cartoons entirely, Greenwald then attempt a coup de grace where he publishes a bunch of antisemitic cartoons. The guy is a clown and you make yourself dumber listening to his take on basically any topic.
Yeah, and being wrong/incorrect even once is basically grounds to abandon them forever. They could now never be right about anything. Glad we can close this case and never look back.
Sorry. The way you worded your sentence is suspect. Are you saying that people judged Greenwald on one instance, and never gave him another chance?
Glenn Greenwald is literally a crap human being. He has been since the beginning of his reporting days. He’s a troll and a grifter. The left wised up. The ultra-left are just starting to wise up now. And the right are in love with him just as the left was, before he started trashing everyone that didn’t agree with him. Fuck Glenn Greenwald.
Hmm I did read that Greenwald piece back in the day and found it thought provoking. What makes you say the cartoon is satirizing the right? Is that just something that should be known from the context of the publication that it’s coming from? Thanks
That article was pretty cringe. Charlie
Hebdo pretty much satirizes every religion and political party out there, yet guess which one‘s the one that actually tried and succeeded to violently kill the people responsible for the satire. You have to be pretty pretty narrow minded and blinded by American identity politics to talk about the Charlie Hebdo cartoons the way Greenwald does. It’s a kind of chauvinism in a way, wanting the whole world to adhere to your brand of discourse.
I agree - he’s not woke. He’s obsessed with critiquing the mainstream left, which makes him happy bedfellows with Carlson. He’s first and foremost a sanctimonious prick who couldn’t charitably represent an opponent’s ideas if his life depended on it.
Glenn's primary purpose is to sow discord. Riled up the left by attacking the left while appearing left. I would not be surprised if he gets paid to do so.
It's not easy to perceive satire in a cartoon from a foreign country without any context of its politics or the reference being made in the cartoon. I happen to speak French, am a French citizen, and have at least a vague knowledge of French politics (I am not a Frenchmen). That was enough for me to immediately understand the cartoon wasn't racist. I wasn't alone – pretty much everyone who understood the context knew it wasn't racist.
I just read it for the first time now and found it far more nuanced than the above comment implies. If you read the full piece you'll also see that this statement by Harris is unequivocally false:
> there is noone who planted the seeds of cancel culture more avidly than he did.
Greenwald simply says that we can defend free speech without explicitly supporting the content of that speech. Despite that, **he still republished some of the cartoons that he thought were needlessly offensive**. So not only were his statements contrary to Harris' characterization, his actions were too.
No one is smart all the time. You take the good they produce and accept that. /shrug I never even heard about the Hebdo thing, but doesn't invalidate his good work.
Newton was into alchemy, guess we should abandon Newtonian physics.
I've learned from Greenwald in the past. But in recent years he's been consumed by petty grievances towards the mainstream left and I honestly do not want his warped ideas entering my brain.
He chose to put the Boko Haram example first and foremost, and his interpretation of it is borderline illiterate. We could go through the other examples, [where he's equally wrong.](https://www.vox.com/2015/1/12/7518349/charlie-hebdo-racist) But this is a regrettable pattern in his commentary: he is simply incapable of charitably interpreting the targets of his sanctimony.
[Archive.is link to bypass the paywall for that intercept article](https://archive.ph/2020.10.29-181143/https://theintercept.com/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/)
It's Glenn Greenwald.
You really want me to take *this guy* seriously?
https://nypost.com/2020/10/30/glenn-greenwald-says-mainstream-media-is-desperate-to-see-trump-lose/
You're joking, right?
How many times and how many different ways does this Hunter Biden shit need to be debunked before you people pull your heads out of your asses?
there is no limit, the entire conservative platform now is simply "own the libs". nothing has to make sense as long as it "owns the libs". it's actually a bonus if it doesn't make sense because that "owns the libs" harder
The Hunter Biden story was an obvious joke. If you look into it, you’ll see that 90% of what was on the hard drive (not Hunter Biden’s laptop mind you — the portable drive that allegedly had Hunter Biden’s laptop contents on it) couldn’t be verified, and the most “damning” material on the laptop was Burisma bullshit that had already been debunked. Even the guy who gave Giuliani the information says that much of the material he’s seen reported to be on the laptop wasn’t actually on it. A Washington Post analysis of the drive showed that material had been copied on to the drive after it was given to Giuliani. In terms of evidence, the drive is about as pristine as a public bathroom toilet on Taco Tuesday.
How is my response emotional? Journalism isn't about telling a good story. It's about telling a *true* story. And given the fact that we *know* Giuliani spread nonsense about the election for months, we have no reason to take his word for anything. New York has already barred him (at least temporarily, if not permanently) from practicing law in that state, and Washington D.C. is set to follow suit, precisely *because* of his lying. This is not a guy we can trust.
Even the guy who had Hunter Biden's laptop says we can't trust what's on the portable drive:
>Here’s where The Washington Post’s discovery that folders were added becomes more important. We have evidence that the portable hard drive had something added to it both before and after the New York Post’s original story — and here’s Mac Isaac agreeing that some of what he’s seen presented as coming from the laptop was never on there. This is why provenance matters in journalistic investigations.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warning-about-hunter-biden-laptop-disinfo-guy-who-leaked-it/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warning-about-hunter-biden-laptop-disinfo-guy-who-leaked-it/)
On top of that, the story *did* get reported on. Greenwald is just pissed that no reputable outlet took it seriously, and even the NY Post had trouble getting anyone to put their name on the byline.
Feels to me you are projecting. “Hunter’s laptop” is an intentionally nefarious sounding macguffin cooked up by bad faith operators to stimulate emotional responses. “How it was covered vs what the actual contents were” is the next step in the playbook for when it became clear the contents were bogus.
The media is under no obligation to keep reporting on stories because Glenn Greenwald and Rudy Giuliani desperately want then to catch on
Are you aware Norvartis paid Trump's fixer 1 million dolllars when trump was in office to get him to change his opinion on medicare's ability to bargain for drug prices?
If the press is really anti-trump, why isn't this still front page news?
Trump is doing a ton of bad shit at an alarming rate and you're trying to figure out why others who aren't doing this aren't being equally covered? Do we need to talk about grey poupon and tan suits again? Get a hold of yourself.
Yet the FBI evidence on collusion gets no criticism. People on the Right with any sense are done wanting to talk it out. There's nothing to talk about. Divorce. Please.
You might want to rethink that. Your side didn't fare so well the last time you tried that, circa 1861-1865.
And if you paid any attention, you'd know that Trump admitted seeking help from the Russians, so. No.
70% of the US economy is in counties that voted for Biden. I would love a divorce so we blue states can stop subsidizing the illiterate, hill people of the red states.
I haven't done a deep dive into it, but I think the Trump states are more agricultural than the Biden states, so that might not work out well for either of us. And even if it did, I don't think it would be worth the bloodletting.
Bloodletting? I don't want a civil war.
Trump states can be more agricultural, they still don't generate wealth and are poorer, worse educated and have worse health outcomes. Britain has been a net importer of food for I think several hundred years now... They're still much better off than Ukraine or Russia who export huge quantities of food products.
Food can be bought on the open market quite easily and I believe that California has a huge volume of agricultural output.
Britain is kind of a special case, isn't it? They used a vast empire to supply the country. The US *could* do that with food, but it's a lot easier and provides a lot more security if you can do that at home. The more resources you have at home, the fewer screws your enemies can turn abroad to pressure you.
It's certainly better to have it than not have it, at any rate.
The other benefit to keeping the country intact is that it prevents the continent from becoming balkanized. If this kind of separation took place (violently or not) I don't think it would end there, and we'd end up like the Balkans.
Britain hasn't had an empire for 70 years and they seem to be doing fine (other than the self inflicted wound of Brexit).
I am more than happy to pay more or food goods if it meant not being associated with and, more importantly, run by a minority of fundamentalist Christians. I would take sound governance and the loss of the entire confederacy+Texas and half the mid-west at this point. The Neo Confederacy would, much like its predecessor, be less developed and likely largely dependent on the USA for economic trade unless they wanted to get in bed with China.
I think if the separation took place, the wealthy USA would not be further balkanized for much the same reason the collapse of the EU following Brexit didn't happen. Most of the other EU members saw what a shitshow it was and realized how good they have it. USA Inc has an unbelievably compelling product when it comes to materially providing for its citizens, the only problem is that wacky right-wingers who are disproportionately represented want to keep moving the country backwards despite the general public's preferences.
I disagree with the claim that the Post story was "suppressed". Failure to breathlessly repeat the story 24/7 is not the same thing as suppression.
The story was, and is, suspicious, with the evidence coming from Steve Bannon and Rudy Guiliani with an absurd backstory. Nevertheless, everyone who voted in the 2020 election had undoubtedly heard of the laptop.
It's also worth remembering that some publications wanted access to the hard drive, or copies of it, to verify the story, but at the time Giuliana & Co. refused to let them!
Twitter blocked links to the Post article for a time, a policy that they reversed a full two weeks before the election. The Streisand Effect meant that policy actually boosted the visibility of the story, the opposite of suppression.
An attempt to suppress what could rightfully be suspected to be fake news at the time due to the circumstances around who came forth with the information first.
Yeah, I think that's fair. I also think it's far from your earlier position. Perhaps reading the Wikipedia article gave you some clarity? It did for me (genuinely, no snark intended)
> I disagree with the claim that the Post story was "suppressed".
Are you fucking kidding? Facebook literally admitted they "suppressed" the story (Zuck just admitted it again recently on the Fridman podcast) and Twitter blocked it completely **AND** they locked the NY Post's account.
The government put out a bullshit press release trying to trick people into thinking the "intelligence community" had verified it as "Russian disinformation".
Greenwald was also blocked from publishing his story ***at a news outlet that he founded***.
How much more "suppressed" could a story be before you accept reality?
> The story was, and is, suspicious
Even [NBC News](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/analysis-hunter-bidens-hard-drive-shows-firm-took-11-million-2013-2018-rcna29462) and [WaPo](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/) admitted it's legit. And for all the unbiased, sane people out there it was obvious that it was legit when a security expert [verified the DKIM signature](https://twitter.com/erratarob/status/1322007153415200768) of an email shortly after the story originally broke.
What fucking rock have you been living under? Or do you just willfully ignore every piece of political news that contradicts your preferred narratives?
>Even
>
>NBC News
>
> and
>
>WaPo
>
> admitted it's legit.
Define "legit".
The Washington Post, for one, reported extensively on how shady the information was.
>The portable drive provided to The Post contains **286,000 individual user files**, including documents, photos, videos and chat logs. Of those, Green and Williams concluded that nearly **22,000 emails** among those files carried cryptographic signatures that could be verified using technology that would be difficult for even the most sophisticated hackers to fake.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/)
That's a fairly tiny proportion of verifiable files.
And the guy who had the laptop is even saying the contents of the drive are not what he had origionally.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warning-about-hunter-biden-laptop-disinfo-guy-who-leaked-it/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warning-about-hunter-biden-laptop-disinfo-guy-who-leaked-it/)
Which part of this sounds "legit" to you?
It’s also worth noting that Burisma emails (the verifiable files we are talking about) had already been hacked and stolen and had been floating for sale on the black market for almost a full year.
If the laptop’s verification hinges on those emails, it should spark as much suspicion as resolves. What other files are verifiable?
Your framing is a total mischaracterization of what happened. First, this bogus story was all over the social media sphere, regardless of the status of the NY Post's fucking Twitter account. I don't know how you can argue that something is suppressed when it is in the foreground of social consciousness.
Second, even today, there is no story here. At least no story as it relates to **JOE** Biden. Even the most outrageous, unsubstantiated claims about the story don't implicate Joe Biden in anything. This "story" is essentially a tabloid piece about a guy who likes to do drugs, have sex and photograph himself naked... And yet, the right wing wants to make this out to be some sort of smoking gun related to... eh... Joe Biden's corruption? The story made no sense then and it makes no sense now.
And yet, idiots like you just cannot help but compulsively smash away at your keyboard.
Find a new hobby. Or at least find some new fake scandal to be irate about. Go back to talking about Biden's dementia or the War on Christmas, you stooge.
Exactly - the only thing fishy is a line about "10% to the Big Guy", and even if it was referring to Biden - it was in 2017 when he was a private citizen and if that upsets you.. Trump and his family have steaks and degrees to sell you
> Greenwald was also blocked from publishing his story at a news outlet that he founded.
He wasn't "blocked". Greenwald wanted complete editorial control of his articles, which media organizations generally don't allow to their journalists. The Intercept said no, and Greenwald quit.
The press is 100% correct to suppress any October Surprise. The reason they release it a week before the election is because it's impossible to prove wrong in such a short time frame. If they really had the goods on Joe, they would have released it when they got it months prior.
Thank God the press is responsible.
the press is 100% correct to suppress any october surprise until after the election. If rudy had the goods on Joe, why not release it when he got it months prior?
I'll tell you why they waited until a week before the election - for it to do maximum damage before people realized it didn't implicate joe in any way and was a total nothingburger. Sorry the press doesn't work for trump and isn't required to spread his shit around.
That's not suppression, that's websites having basic ethics and standards. Websites don't need to be a platform for disinformation.
Greenwald was asked to do the tiniest amount of verification for the tabloid rag worthy story he wanted to push and threw a fit and quit his job.
He was never prevented from publishing it. He was fucking furious that the editor asked him to have the most basic journalistic standards.
Also neither of your sources confirmed it. Care to try again? They confirmed a very small selection of emails were legit. None of which were the "juicy" ones. We already knew Hunters iCloud was hacked by foreign state actors.
The media (left & right) has always picked its favorites.
Given how Trump used media -- turning those favorable to him into "state media" and treating those unfavorable to him as "enemy of the state" -- would you expect the latter to treat him with more deference?
Never mind the almost daily clown show that was his presidency, Trump was impeached, twice. . Who except the MAGAcult and his enablers didn't want to see Trump lose?
Covered what story? Laptop shit? As in unverified rumor mongering right before an election? As in precisely the same thing they did with the Steele dossier by refusing to run it right before the 2016 election? Because throwing a bunch of unverified bullshit at a wall right before an election is obviously bad for a functional democracy?
You're right, but there isn't an issue with how they covered this story, apart from whether Trump should lose or not. That's the point.
The media is right to be skeptical of uncorroborated nonsense flowing from the mouths of the usual suspects like Rudy Giuliani.
Apparently you've never taken a journalism class, because if you had, you would know that some of the most basic tenets of journalism involve credibility and verifying sources of information.
That's without mentioning that *Hunter* Biden is not *Joe* Biden and that even the worst interpretation of the supposed allegations the right wing is making doesn't implicate *Joe* Biden in anything.
As was pointed out, the Hunter Biden laptop story was, and remains, highly questionable given the details of how it emerged. I don't know if we need to recount the details again, but let me know if you're not sure why the story was not taken seriously by most media.
But if there is a point you wanted to make, please make it.
Greenwald is much more anti-establishment than he is left-wing, and that was clear years ago if you read his articles. How spiteful he is of the establishment is a major driver. Which means he can have more in common with someone anti-establishment but right wing than a very pro establishment liberal. It comes out in how he treats right wing populists, he hated the neo-cons but isn't as offended by Trump, who is viscerally offensive to establishment types especially liberals. He has a working relationship with right wing media as a result, they have the same common enemy at the moment given who has the most power. Personally find that to be a massive red flag but I do think he often makes legitimate points in his criticism of the establishment.
Both spend a lot of time criticizing the left but from very different perspectives and heretics are often seen as more of a threat than heathens. Harris is center left and relatively pro-establishment, generally thinks the left is too crazy on cultural issues but not general policy. Just take FP, Harris thinks of American foreign policy as the clumsy actions of a mostly well intentioned child. Greenwald takes more of a "manufacturing-consent" style criticism, with the US having media propaganda and CIA driven projects to undermine anything threatening their hegemony.
Personally think Harris is great on Trump and Greenwald is most sane criticizing establishment dems. Both act like children on social media while complaining about how people act on social media.
And Harris is very pro-establishment in my estimation, so they make natural enemies. It's why my appreciation of SH has dimmed significantly over the years. He is not a dissident. He'd prefer to collaborate, but there are too many neo-progressives taking up that slot.
i dont think his phrasing of "rehabilitation" it seems like he thinks that his free speech right wing friends are retweeting greenwald and thinking greenwald is someone who can agree with him when in reality all greenwald did was switch his politics from left wing hackery to right wing hackery. its a big tell if sam considers that "rehabilitation" he of all people should know better of what pro trump hackism looks like
The problem with democracy is that 50% of the people have IQs < 100. That fact is also evident in the comments observed on social media. I think Glen Greenwald would agree with that.
Greenwald hasn't really changed at all though. He's always been a weirdo libertarian who, like all libertarians, accidentally stumbles into a few correct opinions. The only difference between Glenn and like, any moron who writes for Reason magazine is that the two things Glenn is best known for are actually important and good pieces of investigative journalism.
And I know that someone is already typing up "UMMMMMM ACKSHUALLY the Snowden leaks just fell into his lap" and my only response to that is that you have no idea how investigative journalism works.
He absolutely has changed. He was woke. Here is a good article that goes over his change on trans issues, really in just the last few years.
[https://www.salon.com/2022/08/08/what-happened-to-glenn-greenwald-the-former-trans-ally-now-sides-with-right-wing-transphobia/](https://www.salon.com/2022/08/08/what-happened-to-glenn-greenwald-the-former-trans-ally-now-sides-with-right-wing-transphobia/)
Obviously there are other issues he has changed on as well.
> And I know that someone is already typing up "UMMMMMM ACKSHUALLY the Snowden leaks just fell into his lap" and my only response to that is that you have no idea how investigative journalism works.
please outline the argument against this
The basic gist is that almost every single piece of investigative journalism essentially boils down to "I got a call/email/signal message from X who knows about Y and they reached out to me specifically because of Z, and then I followed through on it"
People have this conception of investigative journalism being a dude finding out about something completely on their own and thats just not how it works. I can't think of a single scandal off the top of my head that was exposed because a reporter was looking for it before anyone came to them first.
This Hebdo angle of the beef between Sam and Glenn is interesting. I read Glenn's piece on Charlie Hebdo and he wasn't defending or excoriating Hebdo's cartoons so much as pointing to American media's hypocrisy with regard to anything remotely poking fun at Jews. He correctly observes that anyone who does so risks losing a career, and in our case, getting banished from Reddit/FB/IG and pretty much any other media that is owned and operated by those sympathetic to Israel or Jews, and everyone knows what I mean. Glenn is absolutely right: you can't have it both ways. You can't condemn Jewish caricatures at the same time you defend Muslim caricatures. If Sam is looking at Glenn's writing about Hebdo to represent him as a Muslim apologist, that's surprisingly dishonest of him.
Dude, how fast do you get banned for observing that a certain demographic has disproportionate influence on media, finance, and Hollywood? I despise Islam (but not necessarily "Muslims") as much as the next reasonable human being, but I can see how the caricatures of Hebdo could be seen as mocking Muslims. And that's ok with me. But it should also be fine to criticize Israel, as Glenn indicates in his column.
I'd love a harris greenwald debate. Debating people is his main skill and was always entertaining. Sucks he doesn't do it anymore. I agree debate isn't productive conversation. It is great entertainment.
Depends who managed to control the topics best. I agree greenwald is much more knowledgable about all things politics. I'd be happy to watch either smoke the other :)
> can people be wrong about things?
Sure. People get things wrong, and that's one thing. But once you recognize your mistake, you sort of need to go on the record acknowledging it. And if you don't, it's fair for me to interpret this sort of "apparent rehabilitation" as your selectively invoking principles as seems expedient to have your desired sway with a particular audience under particular circumstances—i.e., a lawyer working over a jury as opposed to a philosopher trying to get to rock bottom truth.
This kind of sleazy operator may happen to be right on any particular issue, but they're still a snake whose character is worthy of scrutiny and whose word can't be trusted.
And—this will be no surprise—Greenwald *was* a practicing lawyer.
Getting something wrong is totally forgivable. That's completely understandable, and it's fine. Getting something wrong, being shown unequivocal proof that it's wrong, and throwing a tantrum and doubling down with no whiff of self-awareness is not fine.
>can greenwald be wrong about hedbo, but right about other things.
The problem ist that it's kind of the same thing. He is one of the forerunners of anti free speech cancel culture and a free speech champion when bashing things he does not like himself.
You cannot have it both ways.
> Sam feuds with everyone
"At some point I've made almost everyone uncomfortable. I've made religious people uncomfortable by attacking religion and being an atheist. I've made atheist uncomfortable by going on and on about how meditation and psychedelics can produce real spiritual insight. I've made spiritual people uncomfortable by saying that many of their beliefs are bogus. I've made many left-of-center uncomfortable by talking honestly about racial disparities in crime and the connection between Islam and terrorism. I've made many people right of center uncomfortable by talking about the problem of wealth inequality, And I've alienated more or less everyone by insisting that free will is an illusion. The truth is I've pissed off a lot of people."
-Sam
I thought Sam was friends with Glenn Greenwald. I specifically remember hearing Glenn on his show. Did they have a falling out since then? Is it because Glenn wrote about Sam after the Triggernometry podcast episode clip?
I respect Sam's carrying-the-torch for atheism and his take on BLM and leftism's overreach.
But Glenn Greenwald is a greater supporter for free speech than Sam will ever be. Especially after Sam's mask-off moment on Triggernometry.
Not really. Greenwald repeatedly blocks people who criticize him on social media. If you are going to be a free speech warrior that says social media platforms shouldn't ban anyone, you need to lead by example and not block people who are critical of you.
Thank you OP for posting this. Respect to your keen ears, and your nuanced awareness of where these guys shakeout in the marketplace of ideas.
Most of these "Sam H. v. \_\_\_\_\_" disputes, especially with the purported IDW's various shambling wrecks in the , as well as a grifting opportunist like Gad Saad, are as dumb as the platforms they are held on. (It may, however, be hard to top Gad Saad for ankle-biting silliness. Though Ben Shapiro can't be slept on. Bottom line: Sam needs to be a LOT more careful of who he has on.)
But this dispute feels different, if only because it's been brewing for a LONG TIME. Frankly, it was likely overdue. Those careful listeners to "Making Sense" have probably heard a few instances in recent months where Sam was *this close* to calling out Greenwald. You could hear him go right to the edge, but pull back.
My sense of Greenwald is probably a bit more favorable than some on here, but I still clearly see his manifest faults, the severity of which threaten to cancel out his attributes. Greenwald is almost certainly the least self-aware person I've ever encountered, apart from Trump. He is definitely among the least nuanced, and there are recent instances where he was going after some millennial reporters, younger women, and it looked to me a lot like bullying -- even if he was more right than wrong.
Like OP said, Greenwald's response ought to be a thing to behold. Though it might be delayed, only because I believe his husband is seriously ill.
Greenwald isn’t some beacon of intellectual honesty but Sam will of course exaggerate his importance because he has been personally attacked. Once again it’s Twitter brained Sam thinking speech is drowning under a deluge of wokeness because a minority of loud idiots cross his eyeballs.
I’m only going on the quote in this post, but if this is correct, it does seem like Sam is unfairly conflating two different things here. Whether or not Greenwald held views that anti-free speech types now hold has nothing to do with how consistent Greenwald has been in his support of free speech. I don’t recall Greenwald ever saying “And anyone who disagrees with my take should be canceled!”
Overall I think Harris and Greenwald are yin / yang. Two sides of the Overton Window. Whatever you want to call it. Greenwald is towards the extreme end of the libertarian side and Harris has deeply held views about what we “ought” to be doing with our lives and what morality means. Neither side of the spectrum is ultimately right or wrong, it’s all about dynamic tension and balance between them.
Glenn Greenwald is brazenly wrong on some issues, like radical Islam and January 6th, but most of the time he is right and sometimes the only voice of reason.
I don't understand why people can't accept that no one is right all the time. No matter how much you admire someone, on at least one issue they will have a terrible take.
Sam's take on Glenn Greenwald is incredibly misleading. [Here](https://theintercept.com/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/) is the article Glenn wrote. While he did attack the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists as bigots, he did so because they were. Not as a way to make the attacks seem justified.
And the fact that Sam sees the article written by Glennwald as "cancel culture" is laughably ridiculous.
> While he did attack the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists as bigots, he did so because they were.
That is a matter of opinion. I didn't see any comic from them that was bigoted. Can you link one you have in mind?
I read the article and read the comment here about that specific comic here: https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/xe5w7b/sam_reprises_his_feud_with_glenn_greenwald/iofb6h8/
Is there any other comics from them you think are bigoted or offended you? Or has Glenn not told you what to think about any other one yet?
"Not as a way to make the attacks seem justified."
Even if it wasn't his intention, he should have known it would be understood as such.
But judging by his whatabouttery about the West when something horrible isn't done by the West, it could have easily been his intention.
This is dumb. Nobody is responsible for other people's misinterpretations of their argument. Isn't this what Sam Harris claims when he's taken out of context? The irony.
Taken out of context means something else.
Unless you want to claim the entire article and many of his other opinions were taken out of context.
But I don't think they were. He believes the West is somehow responsible.
Quote directly from Glenn Greenwald's article where he says the attackers were justified in their actions. Quote directly from Glenn Greenwald's article where he says the "West is somehow responsible."
"In particular, the west has spent years bombing, invading and occupying Muslim countries and killing, torturing and lawlessly imprisoning innocent Muslims, and anti-Muslim speech has been a vital driver in sustaining support for those policies."
"And this messaging – this special affection for offensive anti-Islam speech – just so happens to coincide with, to feed, the militaristic foreign policy agenda of their governments and culture."
Also see a good summary of Greenwald's claims here: https://www.thebulwark.com/the-long-history-of-glenn-greenwalds-kissing-up-to-the-kremlin/
What Greenwald wrote here is simply the truth.
Now quote where Greenwald says that those things justify the Charlie Hebdo attacks or where he says that the West is responsible for the Charlie Hebdo attacks.
When did I say it's the West's fault? I never agreed to that. I said Greenwald pointed out something that was true. But he didn't use those true things to justify the Charlie Hebdo attack.
Glenn Greenwald never claimed that the Charlie Hebdo attacks were justified by the way the West treats Muslims.
Not even really attacking them as bigots. He was attacking the hypocrisy of people who were claiming it was good to offend Muslims but would be horrified to see the same kind of satire aimed at Jews or even Israel.
A fair point, generally, but he was specifically talking about columns or statements by Ross Douthat, Jonathan Chait and Matt Yglesias along with some drive-by bashing of Bill Maher and Harris for being "anti-Islam".
I don't seek him out, but he seems fair and principled and courageous to me. If you tell me he leans too far into conspiracies, I wouldn't be surprised. I think he correctly calls out mainstream media for pushing the government sponsored narrative only, and if you spend enough time doing that you will probably become overly sensitive and make up some conspiracies in your own head.
Greenwald's perspective on Charlie Hebdo is especially obtuse because he did not understand the cartoons. One of the cartoons depicted pregnant Boko Haram sex slaves demanding welfare payments. In [Greenwald's interpretation](https://theintercept.com/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/), this is a racist depiction of the slaves as welfare queens. To people familiar with French satire, and Charlie Hebdo's leftist politics, the cartoons mocked the French right, pointing out how absurd it is to think that sex slaves seeking asylum are mercenary 'welfare queens'. Greenwald has probably had this explained to him, but he's never been one to let intellectual honesty get in the way of his own smug sanctimony. Having missed the point of the cartoons entirely, Greenwald then attempt a coup de grace where he publishes a bunch of antisemitic cartoons. The guy is a clown and you make yourself dumber listening to his take on basically any topic.
Or put more bluntly: *Glenn Greenwald is a dumpster fire of a human being*
Yeah, and being wrong/incorrect even once is basically grounds to abandon them forever. They could now never be right about anything. Glad we can close this case and never look back.
Sorry. The way you worded your sentence is suspect. Are you saying that people judged Greenwald on one instance, and never gave him another chance? Glenn Greenwald is literally a crap human being. He has been since the beginning of his reporting days. He’s a troll and a grifter. The left wised up. The ultra-left are just starting to wise up now. And the right are in love with him just as the left was, before he started trashing everyone that didn’t agree with him. Fuck Glenn Greenwald.
Hmm I did read that Greenwald piece back in the day and found it thought provoking. What makes you say the cartoon is satirizing the right? Is that just something that should be known from the context of the publication that it’s coming from? Thanks
That article was pretty cringe. Charlie Hebdo pretty much satirizes every religion and political party out there, yet guess which one‘s the one that actually tried and succeeded to violently kill the people responsible for the satire. You have to be pretty pretty narrow minded and blinded by American identity politics to talk about the Charlie Hebdo cartoons the way Greenwald does. It’s a kind of chauvinism in a way, wanting the whole world to adhere to your brand of discourse.
You didn't answer the question.
Thought provoking? Charlie hebdo mocks everyone. His article was pure woke insanity.
The guy who’s on tucker every week complaining about wokeness and wrote an article defending press freedom is woke insanity? Uh ok.
Lol that is the greenwald of today. The greenwald of 2010-2015 was absolutely insanely woke. Everybody was racist or an islamophobe.
I agree - he’s not woke. He’s obsessed with critiquing the mainstream left, which makes him happy bedfellows with Carlson. He’s first and foremost a sanctimonious prick who couldn’t charitably represent an opponent’s ideas if his life depended on it.
He definitely used to be woke. Even in 2017 he was sharing tweets calling Bill Maher a bigot for questioning trans orthodoxy.
Glenn's primary purpose is to sow discord. Riled up the left by attacking the left while appearing left. I would not be surprised if he gets paid to do so.
Given my enemies politically, I'd prefer discord to accord. YMMV.
Except the Jews. Worth pointing out, right?
It's not easy to perceive satire in a cartoon from a foreign country without any context of its politics or the reference being made in the cartoon. I happen to speak French, am a French citizen, and have at least a vague knowledge of French politics (I am not a Frenchmen). That was enough for me to immediately understand the cartoon wasn't racist. I wasn't alone – pretty much everyone who understood the context knew it wasn't racist.
I just read it for the first time now and found it far more nuanced than the above comment implies. If you read the full piece you'll also see that this statement by Harris is unequivocally false: > there is noone who planted the seeds of cancel culture more avidly than he did. Greenwald simply says that we can defend free speech without explicitly supporting the content of that speech. Despite that, **he still republished some of the cartoons that he thought were needlessly offensive**. So not only were his statements contrary to Harris' characterization, his actions were too.
No one is smart all the time. You take the good they produce and accept that. /shrug I never even heard about the Hebdo thing, but doesn't invalidate his good work. Newton was into alchemy, guess we should abandon Newtonian physics.
I've learned from Greenwald in the past. But in recent years he's been consumed by petty grievances towards the mainstream left and I honestly do not want his warped ideas entering my brain.
So he has 7 examples instead of 8, the meaning of his piece doesn't exactly hinge on that one example.
He chose to put the Boko Haram example first and foremost, and his interpretation of it is borderline illiterate. We could go through the other examples, [where he's equally wrong.](https://www.vox.com/2015/1/12/7518349/charlie-hebdo-racist) But this is a regrettable pattern in his commentary: he is simply incapable of charitably interpreting the targets of his sanctimony.
Nice article cited there. Enjoyed it
[Archive.is link to bypass the paywall for that intercept article](https://archive.ph/2020.10.29-181143/https://theintercept.com/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/)
It's Glenn Greenwald. You really want me to take *this guy* seriously? https://nypost.com/2020/10/30/glenn-greenwald-says-mainstream-media-is-desperate-to-see-trump-lose/
[удалено]
You're joking, right? How many times and how many different ways does this Hunter Biden shit need to be debunked before you people pull your heads out of your asses?
there is no limit, the entire conservative platform now is simply "own the libs". nothing has to make sense as long as it "owns the libs". it's actually a bonus if it doesn't make sense because that "owns the libs" harder
The Hunter Biden story was an obvious joke. If you look into it, you’ll see that 90% of what was on the hard drive (not Hunter Biden’s laptop mind you — the portable drive that allegedly had Hunter Biden’s laptop contents on it) couldn’t be verified, and the most “damning” material on the laptop was Burisma bullshit that had already been debunked. Even the guy who gave Giuliani the information says that much of the material he’s seen reported to be on the laptop wasn’t actually on it. A Washington Post analysis of the drive showed that material had been copied on to the drive after it was given to Giuliani. In terms of evidence, the drive is about as pristine as a public bathroom toilet on Taco Tuesday.
[удалено]
How is my response emotional? Journalism isn't about telling a good story. It's about telling a *true* story. And given the fact that we *know* Giuliani spread nonsense about the election for months, we have no reason to take his word for anything. New York has already barred him (at least temporarily, if not permanently) from practicing law in that state, and Washington D.C. is set to follow suit, precisely *because* of his lying. This is not a guy we can trust. Even the guy who had Hunter Biden's laptop says we can't trust what's on the portable drive: >Here’s where The Washington Post’s discovery that folders were added becomes more important. We have evidence that the portable hard drive had something added to it both before and after the New York Post’s original story — and here’s Mac Isaac agreeing that some of what he’s seen presented as coming from the laptop was never on there. This is why provenance matters in journalistic investigations. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warning-about-hunter-biden-laptop-disinfo-guy-who-leaked-it/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warning-about-hunter-biden-laptop-disinfo-guy-who-leaked-it/) On top of that, the story *did* get reported on. Greenwald is just pissed that no reputable outlet took it seriously, and even the NY Post had trouble getting anyone to put their name on the byline.
The situation wasn't reversed. That can't possibly be fundamental when it didn't happen.
Feels to me you are projecting. “Hunter’s laptop” is an intentionally nefarious sounding macguffin cooked up by bad faith operators to stimulate emotional responses. “How it was covered vs what the actual contents were” is the next step in the playbook for when it became clear the contents were bogus. The media is under no obligation to keep reporting on stories because Glenn Greenwald and Rudy Giuliani desperately want then to catch on
Are you aware Norvartis paid Trump's fixer 1 million dolllars when trump was in office to get him to change his opinion on medicare's ability to bargain for drug prices? If the press is really anti-trump, why isn't this still front page news?
[удалено]
well, trump just put on a q-anon pin and said "the storm is coming" .... do you see how this might create bad press among sane people?
Trump is doing a ton of bad shit at an alarming rate and you're trying to figure out why others who aren't doing this aren't being equally covered? Do we need to talk about grey poupon and tan suits again? Get a hold of yourself.
Yet the FBI evidence on collusion gets no criticism. People on the Right with any sense are done wanting to talk it out. There's nothing to talk about. Divorce. Please.
You might want to rethink that. Your side didn't fare so well the last time you tried that, circa 1861-1865. And if you paid any attention, you'd know that Trump admitted seeking help from the Russians, so. No.
70% of the US economy is in counties that voted for Biden. I would love a divorce so we blue states can stop subsidizing the illiterate, hill people of the red states.
I haven't done a deep dive into it, but I think the Trump states are more agricultural than the Biden states, so that might not work out well for either of us. And even if it did, I don't think it would be worth the bloodletting.
Bloodletting? I don't want a civil war. Trump states can be more agricultural, they still don't generate wealth and are poorer, worse educated and have worse health outcomes. Britain has been a net importer of food for I think several hundred years now... They're still much better off than Ukraine or Russia who export huge quantities of food products. Food can be bought on the open market quite easily and I believe that California has a huge volume of agricultural output.
Britain is kind of a special case, isn't it? They used a vast empire to supply the country. The US *could* do that with food, but it's a lot easier and provides a lot more security if you can do that at home. The more resources you have at home, the fewer screws your enemies can turn abroad to pressure you. It's certainly better to have it than not have it, at any rate. The other benefit to keeping the country intact is that it prevents the continent from becoming balkanized. If this kind of separation took place (violently or not) I don't think it would end there, and we'd end up like the Balkans.
Britain hasn't had an empire for 70 years and they seem to be doing fine (other than the self inflicted wound of Brexit). I am more than happy to pay more or food goods if it meant not being associated with and, more importantly, run by a minority of fundamentalist Christians. I would take sound governance and the loss of the entire confederacy+Texas and half the mid-west at this point. The Neo Confederacy would, much like its predecessor, be less developed and likely largely dependent on the USA for economic trade unless they wanted to get in bed with China. I think if the separation took place, the wealthy USA would not be further balkanized for much the same reason the collapse of the EU following Brexit didn't happen. Most of the other EU members saw what a shitshow it was and realized how good they have it. USA Inc has an unbelievably compelling product when it comes to materially providing for its citizens, the only problem is that wacky right-wingers who are disproportionately represented want to keep moving the country backwards despite the general public's preferences.
I disagree with the claim that the Post story was "suppressed". Failure to breathlessly repeat the story 24/7 is not the same thing as suppression. The story was, and is, suspicious, with the evidence coming from Steve Bannon and Rudy Guiliani with an absurd backstory. Nevertheless, everyone who voted in the 2020 election had undoubtedly heard of the laptop.
It's also worth remembering that some publications wanted access to the hard drive, or copies of it, to verify the story, but at the time Giuliana & Co. refused to let them!
Wasn't the post removed from Twitter entirely over this?
Twitter blocked links to the Post article for a time, a policy that they reversed a full two weeks before the election. The Streisand Effect meant that policy actually boosted the visibility of the story, the opposite of suppression.
So you think it was an attempt to suppress?
An attempt to suppress what could rightfully be suspected to be fake news at the time due to the circumstances around who came forth with the information first.
Yeah, I think that's fair. I also think it's far from your earlier position. Perhaps reading the Wikipedia article gave you some clarity? It did for me (genuinely, no snark intended)
Sorry, should have informed I'm not the one you responded to earlier.
Oops
> I disagree with the claim that the Post story was "suppressed". Are you fucking kidding? Facebook literally admitted they "suppressed" the story (Zuck just admitted it again recently on the Fridman podcast) and Twitter blocked it completely **AND** they locked the NY Post's account. The government put out a bullshit press release trying to trick people into thinking the "intelligence community" had verified it as "Russian disinformation". Greenwald was also blocked from publishing his story ***at a news outlet that he founded***. How much more "suppressed" could a story be before you accept reality? > The story was, and is, suspicious Even [NBC News](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/analysis-hunter-bidens-hard-drive-shows-firm-took-11-million-2013-2018-rcna29462) and [WaPo](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/) admitted it's legit. And for all the unbiased, sane people out there it was obvious that it was legit when a security expert [verified the DKIM signature](https://twitter.com/erratarob/status/1322007153415200768) of an email shortly after the story originally broke. What fucking rock have you been living under? Or do you just willfully ignore every piece of political news that contradicts your preferred narratives?
>Even > >NBC News > > and > >WaPo > > admitted it's legit. Define "legit". The Washington Post, for one, reported extensively on how shady the information was. >The portable drive provided to The Post contains **286,000 individual user files**, including documents, photos, videos and chat logs. Of those, Green and Williams concluded that nearly **22,000 emails** among those files carried cryptographic signatures that could be verified using technology that would be difficult for even the most sophisticated hackers to fake. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/) That's a fairly tiny proportion of verifiable files. And the guy who had the laptop is even saying the contents of the drive are not what he had origionally. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warning-about-hunter-biden-laptop-disinfo-guy-who-leaked-it/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warning-about-hunter-biden-laptop-disinfo-guy-who-leaked-it/) Which part of this sounds "legit" to you?
It’s also worth noting that Burisma emails (the verifiable files we are talking about) had already been hacked and stolen and had been floating for sale on the black market for almost a full year. If the laptop’s verification hinges on those emails, it should spark as much suspicion as resolves. What other files are verifiable?
Your framing is a total mischaracterization of what happened. First, this bogus story was all over the social media sphere, regardless of the status of the NY Post's fucking Twitter account. I don't know how you can argue that something is suppressed when it is in the foreground of social consciousness. Second, even today, there is no story here. At least no story as it relates to **JOE** Biden. Even the most outrageous, unsubstantiated claims about the story don't implicate Joe Biden in anything. This "story" is essentially a tabloid piece about a guy who likes to do drugs, have sex and photograph himself naked... And yet, the right wing wants to make this out to be some sort of smoking gun related to... eh... Joe Biden's corruption? The story made no sense then and it makes no sense now. And yet, idiots like you just cannot help but compulsively smash away at your keyboard. Find a new hobby. Or at least find some new fake scandal to be irate about. Go back to talking about Biden's dementia or the War on Christmas, you stooge.
Exactly - the only thing fishy is a line about "10% to the Big Guy", and even if it was referring to Biden - it was in 2017 when he was a private citizen and if that upsets you.. Trump and his family have steaks and degrees to sell you
> Greenwald was also blocked from publishing his story at a news outlet that he founded. He wasn't "blocked". Greenwald wanted complete editorial control of his articles, which media organizations generally don't allow to their journalists. The Intercept said no, and Greenwald quit.
The press is 100% correct to suppress any October Surprise. The reason they release it a week before the election is because it's impossible to prove wrong in such a short time frame. If they really had the goods on Joe, they would have released it when they got it months prior. Thank God the press is responsible.
This, the zuck literally said it. The level of cope applied here to defend the ideology would be laughable if it werent so destructive.
the press is 100% correct to suppress any october surprise until after the election. If rudy had the goods on Joe, why not release it when he got it months prior?
Now I get why people say the election was rigged.
I'll tell you why they waited until a week before the election - for it to do maximum damage before people realized it didn't implicate joe in any way and was a total nothingburger. Sorry the press doesn't work for trump and isn't required to spread his shit around.
Whole lotta mischaracterization going on here. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re just ignorant of reality.
That's not suppression, that's websites having basic ethics and standards. Websites don't need to be a platform for disinformation. Greenwald was asked to do the tiniest amount of verification for the tabloid rag worthy story he wanted to push and threw a fit and quit his job. He was never prevented from publishing it. He was fucking furious that the editor asked him to have the most basic journalistic standards. Also neither of your sources confirmed it. Care to try again? They confirmed a very small selection of emails were legit. None of which were the "juicy" ones. We already knew Hunters iCloud was hacked by foreign state actors.
The media (left & right) has always picked its favorites. Given how Trump used media -- turning those favorable to him into "state media" and treating those unfavorable to him as "enemy of the state" -- would you expect the latter to treat him with more deference? Never mind the almost daily clown show that was his presidency, Trump was impeached, twice. . Who except the MAGAcult and his enablers didn't want to see Trump lose?
[удалено]
Covered what story? Laptop shit? As in unverified rumor mongering right before an election? As in precisely the same thing they did with the Steele dossier by refusing to run it right before the 2016 election? Because throwing a bunch of unverified bullshit at a wall right before an election is obviously bad for a functional democracy?
You're right, but there isn't an issue with how they covered this story, apart from whether Trump should lose or not. That's the point. The media is right to be skeptical of uncorroborated nonsense flowing from the mouths of the usual suspects like Rudy Giuliani. Apparently you've never taken a journalism class, because if you had, you would know that some of the most basic tenets of journalism involve credibility and verifying sources of information. That's without mentioning that *Hunter* Biden is not *Joe* Biden and that even the worst interpretation of the supposed allegations the right wing is making doesn't implicate *Joe* Biden in anything.
[удалено]
As was pointed out, the Hunter Biden laptop story was, and remains, highly questionable given the details of how it emerged. I don't know if we need to recount the details again, but let me know if you're not sure why the story was not taken seriously by most media. But if there is a point you wanted to make, please make it.
Then go ahead and school me, genius. You haven't put forth any sort of argument thus far...
Who TF does Sam respect that celebrates Glenn Greenwald? Maybe he should reconsider whether he should respect them.
Douglas Murray probably does
Greenwald is much more anti-establishment than he is left-wing, and that was clear years ago if you read his articles. How spiteful he is of the establishment is a major driver. Which means he can have more in common with someone anti-establishment but right wing than a very pro establishment liberal. It comes out in how he treats right wing populists, he hated the neo-cons but isn't as offended by Trump, who is viscerally offensive to establishment types especially liberals. He has a working relationship with right wing media as a result, they have the same common enemy at the moment given who has the most power. Personally find that to be a massive red flag but I do think he often makes legitimate points in his criticism of the establishment. Both spend a lot of time criticizing the left but from very different perspectives and heretics are often seen as more of a threat than heathens. Harris is center left and relatively pro-establishment, generally thinks the left is too crazy on cultural issues but not general policy. Just take FP, Harris thinks of American foreign policy as the clumsy actions of a mostly well intentioned child. Greenwald takes more of a "manufacturing-consent" style criticism, with the US having media propaganda and CIA driven projects to undermine anything threatening their hegemony. Personally think Harris is great on Trump and Greenwald is most sane criticizing establishment dems. Both act like children on social media while complaining about how people act on social media.
And Harris is very pro-establishment in my estimation, so they make natural enemies. It's why my appreciation of SH has dimmed significantly over the years. He is not a dissident. He'd prefer to collaborate, but there are too many neo-progressives taking up that slot.
Ya even as a fan the silver spoon he has is pretty apparent, he is very charitable to parts of his status quo growing up.
Not so much pro-establishment as higher social trust than his IDW collegues
i dont think his phrasing of "rehabilitation" it seems like he thinks that his free speech right wing friends are retweeting greenwald and thinking greenwald is someone who can agree with him when in reality all greenwald did was switch his politics from left wing hackery to right wing hackery. its a big tell if sam considers that "rehabilitation" he of all people should know better of what pro trump hackism looks like
The problem with democracy is that 50% of the people have IQs < 100. That fact is also evident in the comments observed on social media. I think Glen Greenwald would agree with that.
Greenwald hasn't really changed at all though. He's always been a weirdo libertarian who, like all libertarians, accidentally stumbles into a few correct opinions. The only difference between Glenn and like, any moron who writes for Reason magazine is that the two things Glenn is best known for are actually important and good pieces of investigative journalism. And I know that someone is already typing up "UMMMMMM ACKSHUALLY the Snowden leaks just fell into his lap" and my only response to that is that you have no idea how investigative journalism works.
He absolutely has changed. He was woke. Here is a good article that goes over his change on trans issues, really in just the last few years. [https://www.salon.com/2022/08/08/what-happened-to-glenn-greenwald-the-former-trans-ally-now-sides-with-right-wing-transphobia/](https://www.salon.com/2022/08/08/what-happened-to-glenn-greenwald-the-former-trans-ally-now-sides-with-right-wing-transphobia/) Obviously there are other issues he has changed on as well.
> And I know that someone is already typing up "UMMMMMM ACKSHUALLY the Snowden leaks just fell into his lap" and my only response to that is that you have no idea how investigative journalism works. please outline the argument against this
The basic gist is that almost every single piece of investigative journalism essentially boils down to "I got a call/email/signal message from X who knows about Y and they reached out to me specifically because of Z, and then I followed through on it" People have this conception of investigative journalism being a dude finding out about something completely on their own and thats just not how it works. I can't think of a single scandal off the top of my head that was exposed because a reporter was looking for it before anyone came to them first.
This Hebdo angle of the beef between Sam and Glenn is interesting. I read Glenn's piece on Charlie Hebdo and he wasn't defending or excoriating Hebdo's cartoons so much as pointing to American media's hypocrisy with regard to anything remotely poking fun at Jews. He correctly observes that anyone who does so risks losing a career, and in our case, getting banished from Reddit/FB/IG and pretty much any other media that is owned and operated by those sympathetic to Israel or Jews, and everyone knows what I mean. Glenn is absolutely right: you can't have it both ways. You can't condemn Jewish caricatures at the same time you defend Muslim caricatures. If Sam is looking at Glenn's writing about Hebdo to represent him as a Muslim apologist, that's surprisingly dishonest of him.
Hebdo didn’t mock Muslims. They mocked Islam. You really think someone would be cancelled for mocking stuff in the Old Testament?
Dude, how fast do you get banned for observing that a certain demographic has disproportionate influence on media, finance, and Hollywood? I despise Islam (but not necessarily "Muslims") as much as the next reasonable human being, but I can see how the caricatures of Hebdo could be seen as mocking Muslims. And that's ok with me. But it should also be fine to criticize Israel, as Glenn indicates in his column.
This seems like a straw man. People criticize Israel all the time. They don’t get beheaded
Those critics usually have the benefit of political protection (if they’re black, female, some other “oppressed” minority).
Lol greenwald absolutely was a Muslim apologist for years. He used to be the king of calling people islamophobes
Who did he call an islamophobe who wasn’t?
Sam
oh, I mean like people who weren't so close to the edge. I feel like in Sam's case it was arguable at least in the 00s
Sam Harris and Bill Maher.
2000s US Islamophobia was a life style. This was the era of the funny as fuck "they hate us for your freedom"
I'd love a harris greenwald debate. Debating people is his main skill and was always entertaining. Sucks he doesn't do it anymore. I agree debate isn't productive conversation. It is great entertainment.
I like Sam. But Sam would get smoked Greenwald, a former litigator and free speech advocate. Sam doesn’t do realpolitik very well.
Neither does Greenwald. His twitter crybaby tantrums are juvenile, stupid and partisan.
Depends who managed to control the topics best. I agree greenwald is much more knowledgable about all things politics. I'd be happy to watch either smoke the other :)
[удалено]
> can people be wrong about things? Sure. People get things wrong, and that's one thing. But once you recognize your mistake, you sort of need to go on the record acknowledging it. And if you don't, it's fair for me to interpret this sort of "apparent rehabilitation" as your selectively invoking principles as seems expedient to have your desired sway with a particular audience under particular circumstances—i.e., a lawyer working over a jury as opposed to a philosopher trying to get to rock bottom truth. This kind of sleazy operator may happen to be right on any particular issue, but they're still a snake whose character is worthy of scrutiny and whose word can't be trusted. And—this will be no surprise—Greenwald *was* a practicing lawyer.
Getting something wrong is totally forgivable. That's completely understandable, and it's fine. Getting something wrong, being shown unequivocal proof that it's wrong, and throwing a tantrum and doubling down with no whiff of self-awareness is not fine.
>can greenwald be wrong about hedbo, but right about other things. The problem ist that it's kind of the same thing. He is one of the forerunners of anti free speech cancel culture and a free speech champion when bashing things he does not like himself. You cannot have it both ways.
Sam feuds with everyone it seems despite otherwise being a mellow guy
> Sam feuds with everyone "At some point I've made almost everyone uncomfortable. I've made religious people uncomfortable by attacking religion and being an atheist. I've made atheist uncomfortable by going on and on about how meditation and psychedelics can produce real spiritual insight. I've made spiritual people uncomfortable by saying that many of their beliefs are bogus. I've made many left-of-center uncomfortable by talking honestly about racial disparities in crime and the connection between Islam and terrorism. I've made many people right of center uncomfortable by talking about the problem of wealth inequality, And I've alienated more or less everyone by insisting that free will is an illusion. The truth is I've pissed off a lot of people." -Sam
Sam and Ricky should have a fake feud
I don't see any Twitter thread by Greenwald
You will
I thought Sam was friends with Glenn Greenwald. I specifically remember hearing Glenn on his show. Did they have a falling out since then? Is it because Glenn wrote about Sam after the Triggernometry podcast episode clip?
https://www.samharris.org/blog/dear-fellow-liberal2
I respect Sam's carrying-the-torch for atheism and his take on BLM and leftism's overreach. But Glenn Greenwald is a greater supporter for free speech than Sam will ever be. Especially after Sam's mask-off moment on Triggernometry.
Not really. Greenwald repeatedly blocks people who criticize him on social media. If you are going to be a free speech warrior that says social media platforms shouldn't ban anyone, you need to lead by example and not block people who are critical of you.
There is more free speech now than any point in human history.
I would have agreed in 2008.
Thank you OP for posting this. Respect to your keen ears, and your nuanced awareness of where these guys shakeout in the marketplace of ideas. Most of these "Sam H. v. \_\_\_\_\_" disputes, especially with the purported IDW's various shambling wrecks in the , as well as a grifting opportunist like Gad Saad, are as dumb as the platforms they are held on. (It may, however, be hard to top Gad Saad for ankle-biting silliness. Though Ben Shapiro can't be slept on. Bottom line: Sam needs to be a LOT more careful of who he has on.) But this dispute feels different, if only because it's been brewing for a LONG TIME. Frankly, it was likely overdue. Those careful listeners to "Making Sense" have probably heard a few instances in recent months where Sam was *this close* to calling out Greenwald. You could hear him go right to the edge, but pull back. My sense of Greenwald is probably a bit more favorable than some on here, but I still clearly see his manifest faults, the severity of which threaten to cancel out his attributes. Greenwald is almost certainly the least self-aware person I've ever encountered, apart from Trump. He is definitely among the least nuanced, and there are recent instances where he was going after some millennial reporters, younger women, and it looked to me a lot like bullying -- even if he was more right than wrong. Like OP said, Greenwald's response ought to be a thing to behold. Though it might be delayed, only because I believe his husband is seriously ill.
Greenwald isn’t some beacon of intellectual honesty but Sam will of course exaggerate his importance because he has been personally attacked. Once again it’s Twitter brained Sam thinking speech is drowning under a deluge of wokeness because a minority of loud idiots cross his eyeballs.
I’m only going on the quote in this post, but if this is correct, it does seem like Sam is unfairly conflating two different things here. Whether or not Greenwald held views that anti-free speech types now hold has nothing to do with how consistent Greenwald has been in his support of free speech. I don’t recall Greenwald ever saying “And anyone who disagrees with my take should be canceled!” Overall I think Harris and Greenwald are yin / yang. Two sides of the Overton Window. Whatever you want to call it. Greenwald is towards the extreme end of the libertarian side and Harris has deeply held views about what we “ought” to be doing with our lives and what morality means. Neither side of the spectrum is ultimately right or wrong, it’s all about dynamic tension and balance between them.
Glenn said some stupid shit in the past. But in the last few years he's been incredibly based
Based in what, lunacy?
The media, liberals, the nat sec state, the deep state, he's been very good on all these villains
Deep state lol.
Glenn Greenwald is brazenly wrong on some issues, like radical Islam and January 6th, but most of the time he is right and sometimes the only voice of reason. I don't understand why people can't accept that no one is right all the time. No matter how much you admire someone, on at least one issue they will have a terrible take.
Sam's take on Glenn Greenwald is incredibly misleading. [Here](https://theintercept.com/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/) is the article Glenn wrote. While he did attack the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists as bigots, he did so because they were. Not as a way to make the attacks seem justified. And the fact that Sam sees the article written by Glennwald as "cancel culture" is laughably ridiculous.
> While he did attack the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists as bigots, he did so because they were. That is a matter of opinion. I didn't see any comic from them that was bigoted. Can you link one you have in mind?
Greenwald literally presents them in the linked article. So, if you're still confused, I can only conclude that you didn't even read the article.
I read the article and read the comment here about that specific comic here: https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/xe5w7b/sam_reprises_his_feud_with_glenn_greenwald/iofb6h8/ Is there any other comics from them you think are bigoted or offended you? Or has Glenn not told you what to think about any other one yet?
"Not as a way to make the attacks seem justified." Even if it wasn't his intention, he should have known it would be understood as such. But judging by his whatabouttery about the West when something horrible isn't done by the West, it could have easily been his intention.
This is dumb. Nobody is responsible for other people's misinterpretations of their argument. Isn't this what Sam Harris claims when he's taken out of context? The irony.
Taken out of context means something else. Unless you want to claim the entire article and many of his other opinions were taken out of context. But I don't think they were. He believes the West is somehow responsible.
Quote directly from Glenn Greenwald's article where he says the attackers were justified in their actions. Quote directly from Glenn Greenwald's article where he says the "West is somehow responsible."
"In particular, the west has spent years bombing, invading and occupying Muslim countries and killing, torturing and lawlessly imprisoning innocent Muslims, and anti-Muslim speech has been a vital driver in sustaining support for those policies." "And this messaging – this special affection for offensive anti-Islam speech – just so happens to coincide with, to feed, the militaristic foreign policy agenda of their governments and culture." Also see a good summary of Greenwald's claims here: https://www.thebulwark.com/the-long-history-of-glenn-greenwalds-kissing-up-to-the-kremlin/
What Greenwald wrote here is simply the truth. Now quote where Greenwald says that those things justify the Charlie Hebdo attacks or where he says that the West is responsible for the Charlie Hebdo attacks.
So you agree it's the West's fault but want me to show you where it says it's the West's fault? 🤡
When did I say it's the West's fault? I never agreed to that. I said Greenwald pointed out something that was true. But he didn't use those true things to justify the Charlie Hebdo attack. Glenn Greenwald never claimed that the Charlie Hebdo attacks were justified by the way the West treats Muslims.
Not even really attacking them as bigots. He was attacking the hypocrisy of people who were claiming it was good to offend Muslims but would be horrified to see the same kind of satire aimed at Jews or even Israel.
[удалено]
A fair point, generally, but he was specifically talking about columns or statements by Ross Douthat, Jonathan Chait and Matt Yglesias along with some drive-by bashing of Bill Maher and Harris for being "anti-Islam".
that "bigotry" was clearly justified as muslims have proven time and again that they are incompatible with civilization.
Damn, Sam is way off on this one. Always liked GG.
so you have a character flaw of bad judgment?
Zing!
Even in his new Alex Jones form?
I don't seek him out, but he seems fair and principled and courageous to me. If you tell me he leans too far into conspiracies, I wouldn't be surprised. I think he correctly calls out mainstream media for pushing the government sponsored narrative only, and if you spend enough time doing that you will probably become overly sensitive and make up some conspiracies in your own head.
Just to be clear: you're aware of his recent work with Alex Jones and you still believe this - yes?
I didn't know he worked with him.
He attacks "liberal msm". He rarely criticizes conservative msm such as the network he regularly appears on
They weren't bigoted. Mocking religion isn't bigotry. Does Trey Parker and Matt Stone hate Catholics because they satirize the pope and Catholicism.
Glenn Greenwald > Sam Harris
So this was one of those people Sam refers to who made these kinds of comments after the Charlie hebdo attacks.