The echoing futility of attacking Greenwald with shallow discourse

[quinnox]

Ok, I know everyone just loves to see another Greenwald thread (sarcasm) but I just wanted to say I think the continuing attacks against Greenwald are rather ineffective and futile.

So far, I'm not seeing substantive and intelligent rebuttals of any of his arguments, but instead a steady drum beat of cheap and one line personal attacks on either his character, or his supposed political leanings as the par for the course. There has even been other more repellent attacks that pertain to sexuality, which I will not go into for the sake of civility. I suggest this in good faith, to help the critics of the man, if your aim is to make people reconsider what Greenwald says in his columns, then attack his arguments with sound and logical arguments in return rather than shallow and ineffective drive by postings. In my view, this is the way to join the debate, approaching it with reason and an honorable intention.

Indeed, when I see the kinds of attacks leveled at Greenwald of late, it makes me want to read his work more, not less. Because if someone generates this much controversy with super heated and wild resistance, they are bound to be interesting and have important things to say.

People are certain to take the logical arguments approach much more seriously and give it all due consideration than the other "low brow" form. Speaking for myself, I think Greenwald is a brilliant writer, but that doesn't mean I think he is always right or correct in his writings. If I see a well reasoned argument on the other side of what he proposes, then I give that much more credence and credibility. I try and take a fair approach to these matters. My two coppers.

[frazzled]

1. And ditto for ...

the echoing futility of defending him with shallow discourse. The one side will not convince the other. I think everyone has said what they have to say, and the positions have been taken.

But you're just starting this up again: saying everyone who disagrees with him is providing weak evidence and "shallow discourse." No, that's not the case. Both sides have their opinions. Why can't you just respect that?

Do you disagree with his support for the Citizen's United decision? I don't. There, that's not an empty argument or a character attack.

[quinnox]

4. good for you then

I'm sure I have not seen all the threads and so on, so if you are one who is using this approach, more power to you. My intent is to not debate about Greenwald in this thread though.

[Wilms]

2. Greenwald regularlly soiled diapers when he was an infant.

So obviously his progressive utterances are merely the ploy of a closet Republican.

[quinnox]

7. lol

[FarLeftFist]

3. I've seen plenty of intelligent rebuttals to Greenwald. Here's the thing though

We GET that Obama has done some great things, some OK things, and some things we disagree with. It's the people who believe that Obama is anything other than a mere mortal that makes us question people's sanity. Who is this straw-man president that everyone is comparing Obama to? Was there a President in your lifetime that was 100% perfect? We GET IT. But, we would rather have Obama; a clear-headed, rational human being with a heart and a soul then some looney bat-shit crazy RW'er. Sometimes I think these people would RATHER have a KING than a President.

[MNBrewer]

5. What does any of that have to do with it?

The fact that there has never been a 100% perfect President is no excuse for Obama's shortcomings. Greenwald isn't arguing for a monarchy, rather he's arguing that we should maintain our republic by not giving monarchical powers to the executive.

[FarLeftFist]

8. I'm responding to the OP, not a specific Greenwald article.

[Wilms]

6. No one is perfect. Yeah. That's it.

[FarLeftFist]

10. Yeah, that IS it. Being 'perfection' is in the eye of the beholder.

He's president of the Libs AND Cons AND Independents.

[Wilms]

11. And which one of those groups pressed him on indefinite detention?

[FarLeftFist]

12. Congress and senate who have the votes to override a veto.

But it is his administration that is looking to repeal certain provisions.

[Wilms]

13. So?

Let them over-ride it.

I'm not buying that.

[FarLeftFist]

14. You DO KNOW that the bill WASN'T just about that one section, right? There's actually alot of good

In there. ALSO, by Greenwald attacking Lefty posters undermines EVERYTHING the Democratic party stands for: Unity. The D party is a big tent party with LOTS of differing opinions, we pride ourselves in NOT being some weirdo uber 'march-in-lockstep' political party.
All are welcome. Workers, disabled, gays, minorities, unemployed, middle class, environmentalists, etc etc.

[Wilms]

15. I used to believe that "Big Tent" stuff, too.

Now it includes those who would codify the antics of the bush*II admin.

Not buying it.

[FarLeftFist]

16. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions I guess.

[getdown]

18. not on civil liberties

they is or they ain't

Dems usedta understand -- AND STAND FOR -- that

[FarLeftFist]

23. I believe they are looking for a repeal of certain provisions.

[Wilms]

24. I'd find that refreshing.

Here's to "hope".

[getdown]

25. yeah

good luck with that

[Luminous Animal]

17. And supporters of murder of Pakistani children... a country we are not at war with.

And supporters of the racist drug war... far more damaging than any racist rant in a Ron Paul publication.

[FarLeftFist]

19. Who supports murdering Pakistani children? Or a racist drug war?

[Luminous Animal]

27. When you vote for most Democrats, you are also

voting for policy. Our policy is to engage in undeclared wars in Pakistan & Yemen in which we utilize drone warfare that has (conservatively estimated) killed hundreds of civilians... dozens of them children.

The Democrats in congress and the White House also not only continue the racist drug war but also, year by year, decade by decade, expand it.

While you personally may or may not agree with either policy, you DO implicitly support both policies when you vote for most Democrats, including the current President.

[FarLeftFist]

29. SO your solution is to vote republican? Or just not vote at all?

[Luminous Animal]

30. I never said that. That's kind of like the "you're with us or with the terrorist"

argument, yes?

My point is (and Greenwald's point) is when you vote Democratic you need to be honest about what you are actually voting for.

So yes, you will be voting for tighter EPA rules
You will be voting for expanded gay rights (within certain limitations)
Etc.

But you will also be voting for the expansion of the "Global War on Terror"
The continuation of the racist drug wars
The breaking of teachers unions
The expansion of the surveillance state
Etc.

[FarLeftFist]

34. But I expect everyone to know this info. We don't need some journalist to make up our own minds.

Looking forward to Greenwald's article about knowing what you're voting for when you vote republican.

[Puregonzo1188]

28. Our President for one thing. And nearly all of our elected officials of either party.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

20. Greenwald has attacked "Lefty posters"? Excuse my skepticism. Do you have a link for such attacks?

What I've seen is that some have attacked Greenwald and some have not

I have also seen that those who have attacked Greenwald have been upset with those of us who have not.

In addition, I've seen the use of ad hominem attacks against both Greenwald and against those of us who have not joined in attacking Greenwald.

If Greenwald is so important and so wrong, why aren't those who are attacking him engaging in discussions on the merits.

Now you say that he has attacked "Lefty posters." Is this true? I don't know whether it is or not. But if this is true, and if such so-called attacks on "Lefty posters" exist and are important for some reason, why not (1) provide a link or two to such attacks and (2) why such so-called attacks, if any, are important.

Why is it necessary to destroy his reputation? What purpose does it serve?

[FarLeftFist]

22. I have NO POWER whatsoever to destroy Greenwald's reputation, nor do I have interest in doing so.

Greenwald accused a poster here on DU of being "simple-minded". Also, Greenwald is the one with a national platform to inject his message into, I am a mere bystander who voices my opinion, which I should add, is probably what Greenwald wants considering he chooses to write on a platform that allows comments. Also it should be noted that I in fact agree with Greenwald at times and disagree with Greenwald at times. All I'm doing is voicing my opinion. Is that still allowed?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

36. That's not responsive and does not support your claim that Greenwald attacked "Lefty posters".

If you have support for your claim that he attacked "Lefty posters," why not post a link or two to where he did so.

Of course, if that claim is not supportable, the best rhetorical approach might be to use diversion.

You say, without a link, that "Greenwald accused a poster here on DU of being 'simple-minded'." Maybe he did or maybe he didn't. If he did, it certainly does not follow that he attacked "Lefty posters." And, if he did, it does not follow that any person accused of being "simple-minded" was, as you say, one of the "Lefty posters." In addition, if that person posted on DU, it also doesn't mean that the particular person wasn't simple minded.

Certainly you should agree that persons can use Rovian tactics to pretend that they are liberals or progressives while they are actually simple minded.

[Odin2005]

21. Several of the people in that painting owned slaves.

[Wilms]

26. Well, in that case...

...their every utterance was ruse. Like Greenwald's.

[treestar]

9. Ineffective against what?

His effectiveness? At what?

[grantcart]

31. I just got a call from an old friend who has been a lifelong Democrat and spends about 25% of his

time working for liberal candidates in the LA area.

He is president of one of the Democratic Clubs there and they not only organize support for candidates but

they run symposiums on issues like homeless and veterans issues.

I asked him what he thought about the Glenn Greenwald controversy.

He responded; "Who is Glenn Greenwald".

This isn't inside ball, it is the inner dream of inside ball.

Outside of a dozen sites on the internet no one knows anything about this controversy, but thats just my two coppers.

[MilesColtrane]

32. It's a piece of lint gazing at its own navel, inside of a navel being gazed at.

[quinnox]

33. heh, thanks for that report

I agree, we can be an insulated community here at DU. Inside baseball indeed. I would be the first to admit this is a tempest in a teapot.

[MjolnirTime]

35. Is the criticism of Greenwald hitting too close to home for you?