I'm a fan of Joy Reid - also a fan of the truth...

[Drunken Irishman]

And I want to get to the bottom of it - whether she's lying about these posts or she was hacked.

One thing I don't get is why one of the supposed hacked posts made its way to DU in 2007?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x48020

This post is very similar to one she claims is not true - which is linked from that post - about Tim Hardaway being a homophobe. In that article, she mentions men kissing and her disgust with it - which she also references in the Snickers ad post done about ten days before.

You can view these posts here:

https://archive.is/pMYl8

http://archive.is/rSO2i

So, my question is: if she is claiming these were all hacks, and one is clearly not a hack, how does she reconcile that? How can we believe some of the comments are fake when others, which are fairly bigoted (outright, actually) about men kissing, are, in fact pretty clearly her's?

There's no way this was hacked ... the post was clearly linked to DU by Ian David back in 2007. If that's real, despite the fact she's claiming it's not, how can we trust the others aren't, either?

I hate this. I love Joy. I don't want this to be true...but evidence is there.

[Azathoth]

1. Wow, nice catch. Also notice that there are no comments on that article

Which sends the theory that the offending articles were "hacked" because they didn't have comments down the drain.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

57. Interesting, but not conclusive.

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. If her lawyer was actually enough of a fuckwit to bring in the FBI she has bigger problems.

Making false reports and statements is a potential federal offence.

[Azathoth]

15. She has plausible deniability

She can claim she didn't remember the posts (they were over a decade ago, after all) and concluded they must have come from somewhere else. Then she hired a security expert whose findings further justified her mistaken conclusion. All an honest mistake.

[uponit7771]

53. Again, she's already apologized for those post there's no reason why she would have

... say anything more to the people who have enough grace to move on.

Why in the hell would she have to say the post pushed by Breitbart et all (which are not in the OP) are false?

That's beyond insane

[Azathoth]

55. Why did she apologize for hacked posts?

[uponit7771]

60. She's not, she's saying they're hacked ... damn, what am I missing ?!

No one wants to post the blog entries of hers ...FROM ... her experts who are claiming she were hacked, I would at least like to see what the hell someone is talking about.

A link to the hacked post from Reid Blog not TWBM which are claiming those weren't hacks

[Azathoth]

61. You just said she apologized for the posts. Now you're saying she didn't

What are you trying to say?

[uponit7771]

92. She's not apologizing for inartful post she didn't write herself, what about that is confusing !?!?

[mythology]

120. She apologized for some posts about Charlie Crist, those are separate from

the posts that just came up like the Tim Hardaway post mentioned above.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

62. The fact that they brought in the FBI, knowing the risk, is a positive indication...

Joy is trelling the truth, don'tcha think?

[Spider Jerusalem]

64. Nope, she's not telling the truth.

Because all these blog posts were archived over a decade ago.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

69. Okay, so maybe the hacked blog post was what was archived years ago.

[Spider Jerusalem]

72. Only if it was "hacked" within 3 days of being posted.

[uponit7771]

76. Which is possible to be hacked within seconds of being posted

[Spider Jerusalem]

79. And possible for someone with an active blog to not notice a post they didn't write, themselves?

Bullshit.

[uponit7771]

82. Well, the large audience she had at the time didn't notice either which adds to her point

... that she was hacked.

Looks like we agree on something, she didn't say anything and neither did her rather large audience

[Spider Jerusalem]

83. it was archived three days after it was posted

which means it was there in February, 2007. Which means it wasn't hacked.

And I dispute the "large audience" claim; she was a regional radio host with a blog that probably didn't have a large readership at the time

[uponit7771]

84. Spider, it takes seconds to hack and seconds to spoof a post ... come on man

... it was 3 days between posted and being scraped.

Fact is, we both know little was said about it at the time ... either her or her large audience and 3 days is eternity on the net

[Spider Jerusalem]

85. Yes, but it's exceptionally implausible...

that someone who maintained an active blog would not notice unusual activity on their dashboard (like a post they did not make).

[uponit7771]

86. It's even more implausible that no one else noticed the posting or she didn't get crap

... for it at the time !!!

IE ... ONE ... of the circumstantial evidence that goes towards she was hacked.

[Spider Jerusalem]

87. Because of her acknowledged history of homophobic blog posts re Charlie Crist?

It fits a pattern. It's easy to believe that someone who has a history of saying some homophobic things may in fact have said other homophobic things. There is every reason to believe that those blog posts are in fact hers, because they're entirely consistent with other things she said at around the same time. There is no reason to believe they are not hers, because their having been archived near-contemporaneously to being posted makes that very unlikely.

[uponit7771]

89. No, at the time in 2007 she had a progressive audience and editors that would've jumped

... all over this like the Crist posting.

What some are asking folk to believe is a large progressive audience saw statements about LGBTQ folk and NO ONE (seeing there are no comments in the comment section) said a damn thing about them including her editors?

No comments in the comments section of those articles ?!

Nah, I'm going to believe my lying eyes.

[Spider Jerusalem]

91. She *admitted* and *apologised for* the things she said about Crist.

[uponit7771]

94. Cause a couple of trillion people noticed, like they did in 2007 right? ... NO !!! Cause those...

... things weren't posted in 2007.

It's more plausible she was hacked than it was that no one, out of a large audience of people and editors, noticed she said some rather inartful things about gay people.

I'll believe my lying eyes

[Spider Jerusalem]

96. Here, in case you missed it

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/msnbc-s-joy-reid-apologizes-insensitive-lgbt-blog-posts-n826091

And yeah, those things were posted in 2007. They were ARCHIVED in 2007. the web archive has timestamps of when the snapshots were taken. You can compare that snapshot to one taken at a later date if they have multiple snapshots of the same site. All the evidence says they were posted in 2007.

[uponit7771]

97. We agree on the date, looks like we differ on whether someone would've said something to her

... at least in the comments section about her inartful post about being a homophobe.

Seeing there was immediate backlash against the Crist post I don't see how in the hell she would've gotten away with posting the sentence on the Hardaway article without comment.

Reid isn't anti gay and I'm going to believe my lying eyes

[Spider Jerusalem]

99. She was a little-known regional radio host with a little-read blog

and there wasn't "immediate" backlash, in fact, she apologised for it a decade later.

[uponit7771]

101. Joan Walsh disagrees with that assessment about "little" I'll accept her knowledge of the Reid.

I'll also stick by the no comments in the comment section, highly unusual for a trafficked blog like Reid's.

Think some facts are being missed here

[Spider Jerusalem]

104. Comments aren't archived because they're on a separate page.

So that means nothing. And these posts are in multiple archives:http://ws-dl.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/2018-04-24-why-we-need-multiple-web.html

[uponit7771]

105. Not all comments sections are on different pages

[Spider Jerusalem]

106. But these are.

[uponit7771]

107. I don't see those pages being archived elsewhere I also give Reid TBOTD seeing nothing about her

... is anti-gay and nothing she's done recently shows she's against the LGBTQ community.

If she were a natural liar like Red Don I wouldn't believe her but she's the total opposite end of the spektrum so based off of those facts ... it's easy for me to believe her post were spoof after 3 days of sitting on the interwebs

[melman]

102. 'immediate backlash against the Crist post'

This didn't happen.

[uponit7771]

103. Relatively speaking yes it did

[TheSmarterDog]

133. So calling in the proper authories to investigate is an automatic sign of guilt?

That's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard.

[uponit7771]

3. Joy Reid is not anti-gay and she apologized for insensitive inartful post of the past. Few if any ..

... has brought any credible evidence that she wasn't hacked to prove she's lying outside of some strawman arguments, technical red herrings and non full disclosures on how spoofing works. ... that's fucked up.

Joy Reid has earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to credibility and deserves such <-- don't believe I have to post this here

Then some wont show any of the post where the aforementioned offenses come from outside the postings she's already apologized for.

We should at least see Reid's claims of what's hacked or what's not

Pit Nic away, Reid isn't anti-gay ... the rest is noise

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. We can prove she's lying

because archived webpages have timestamps of the date the archival snapshot was taken. The archived blog posts all have archival timestamps from over a decade ago.

[uponit7771]

5. That's not proof she's lying when scrapers like LoC and TWBM pic up changes to sites that

... could be hacked

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. If the site had been changed then that would appear with a newer archival timestamp

not one from 2005. Or 2006. Or 2007. As the posts in question in fact do. Which means that either the site was "hacked" prior to that date, or the claims that the site was hacked are nonsense.

[uponit7771]

9. You didn't post the blog inputs her experts says were spoofed, again I'm skeptical

... cause this is some bullshit that's being raised right here.

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. It's not my fault you don't understand how archiving works.

Here, I'll explain it in very simple terms. When something goes up on a website, at some point it's "crawled" by a bot for the Internet Archive (or another web archive). It is then archived in a "snapshot" with the date that snapshot was taken. The date of the snapshot appears on the Internet Archive page for the site. In the case of these blog posts? Those snapshots were all taken over a decade ago.

[uponit7771]

48. I understand ad homs via condescension, usually a tactic when one can't back up a claim

... as in you wont post the blog post Reid said were altered.

Either way, she apologized for those post long ago and Reid is not anti gay

[Spider Jerusalem]

49. Here you go:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070218173925/https://blog.reidreport.com/2007/02/tim-hardaway-is-homophobe-and-so-are.html

That was archived 18 February 2007, three days after it was posted. She claims it was "hacked".

[uponit7771]

56. Link and quote her saying this was hacked, again ... I want to read it from her or her

... experts that these are those post that were hacked not something TWBM.

And again, even if they where she's ALREADY APOLOGIZED FOR THEM ... the graceful already understand that.

Reid is not anti gay, the rest is noise

[Spider Jerusalem]

58. Right here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/msnbc-host-joy-reid-says-homophobic-blog-posts-were-not-n869136

And they're clearly her words and not "hacked", because the archive is from three days after it was posted.

[uponit7771]

65. Again, words she's already apologized for EVEN IF THEY WERE HERS. I'll give her TBOTD when

... it comes to credibility seeing she's done nothing lose it and has been one of the more fact based commentators on TV.

Reid is not anti-gay

[Spider Jerusalem]

70. Nope, she hasn't apologised for it, she's claimed it was "hacked" (n/t)

[melman]

63. No she has not apologized

She claims she didn't write them.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

66. Yes, that's true but for the latest comments that recently came to light...

the only issue is whether or not Joy is being honest about that. What's the evidence that she's lying? Haven't seen it.

[uponit7771]

67. This is false on its face, she did apologize for post she's written in the past she has not

... apologized for the ones she didn't write and shouldn't have to.

Again, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt seeing this is a non issue even if she did write them due to apology and change of heart.

The rest is noise

[melman]

75. What?

You said she apologized, now you're saying she didn't but shouldn't have to..but even if she wrote the blogs it's a non issue due to the apology she hasn't made.

[uponit7771]

77. Don't know what's confusing about not having to apologize for something she didn't do

... it's late, folk are tired

[Drunken Irishman]

6. I don't think she's anti-gay anymore...I agree.

I do feel, though, her posts from a decade ago clearly were homophobic. The problem isn't that she said it (well, it kinda is but she's human and not running for office) it's that she's apparently not going to own up to these posts and could be lying about 'em. IF she were to apologize and admit she has had an awakening, I could see why some would not be fully on board with her...or skeptical...but I'd wager most could look at her body of work the last few years and decide she absolutely has had a change of heart.

But that's not what she's doing. If she was hacked, then there's a lot of legitimate questions she still should probably address (the ones I linked to for starters). But it raises questions about her overall honesty.

[uponit7771]

8. I'm skeptical, you're posting about what she's apologized for in the past and not the post

... I've seen earlier on that contained ghosted text that she says weren't her.

Joy Reid is not anti gay

[Drunken Irishman]

10. She hasn't referenced the post I mentioned...

And the one that she claims was hacked was the Tim Hardaway post which references the Snickers ad she discussed in the post linked to DU (with the same style - and same feeling of being grossed out by two men kissing).

Is she anti-gay? Not anymore. Was she anti-gay in 2007? These posts kinda suggest that she was at least homophobic.

[uponit7771]

11. Then she apologized for her comments in the past already, I covered that. Reid isn't Anti-gay

Also, can you link and quote the post she is saying was hacked?

Thx in advance

[Drunken Irishman]

14. No she didn't.

She apologized for blog posts referencing Charlie Crist - not her response to the Snickers ad of two men kissing, which she claims was a hacked post where she showed disgust of for the ad. It's clearly not hacked as she references twice on her blog - once in a post directly linked to DU back in 2007.

[uponit7771]

24. Yeah, she did ... sigh

http://theweek.com/speedreads/769429/msnbcs-joy-reid-blames-hackers-newly-uncovered-homophobic-posts-old-blog

Reid apologized last December for a series of homophobic posts that were unearthed by Twitter user @Jamie_Maz from her website The Reid Report, explaining that her views on LGBT issues had changed over the years.

So she apologized and we've moved on and Reid not Anti-Gay

[Drunken Irishman]

25. Na'. She apologized for her posts on Charlie Crist.

These she's claiming are hacked. If we've moved on, Reid wouldn't be calling in the FBI.

[uponit7771]

29. BULL SHIT !!! Her quotes right here !!

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/04/liberal-msnbc-host-apologizes-for-homophobic-past/

“This note is my apology to all who are disappointed by the content of blogs I wrote a decade ago, for which my choice of words and tone have legitimately been criticized,” Reid wrote in a statement. “As a writer, I pride myself on a facility with language — an economy of words or at least some wisdom in the selection. However, that clearly has not always been the case.”

People have google in America

America

[Drunken Irishman]

31. My bad. I apologize.

I am really embarrassed now. I didn't know Joy had owned up to all her postings and isn't claiming these posts were hacked.

Good to know. Then what are we arguing about? This is silly then! She admitted she made the posts. Okay. You're right. We should move on. Not sure why everyone is talking about the site being hacked then.

[uponit7771]

37. The issue is there were more post that came up through an archive search that are about

...as inartful as these that she says she didn't post.

She could've just said nothing and left the issue alone but Briebart et al has been pushing SEO on the issue for the last 5 days.

[Drunken Irishman]

71. She posted em, tho.

[uponit7771]

74. She's saying she didn't and the FBI is looking into it, she's earned the TBOTD. I think that's

... were some people have a huge disconnect.

She's well known among PoC and progressives there's nothing about her that says anti gay or that she's a liar when silence would serve her better.

No one thing

[Hassin Bin Sober]

52. Heres the letter in its entirety.

[Cha]

88. Thank you for Joy's apology, uponit.

“This note is my apology to all who are disappointed by the content of blogs I wrote a decade ago, for which my choice of words and tone have legitimately been criticized,” Reid wrote in a statement. “As a writer, I pride myself on a facility with language — an economy of words or at least some wisdom in the selection. However, that clearly has not always been the case.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/04/liberal-msnbc-host-apologizes-for-homophobic-past/

[uponit7771]

90. NP, Some are trying to say Reid is anti-gay when there's nothing about her that says such

[hlthe2b]

12. the snickers commercial? really? I thought it was cute, but yeah there were probably cretins who

would react. No reason to pull the ad, but what she said--did you take that to mean she felt that way or was just commenting on how immature much of the country was/is? The latter is how I took it...

The other thing seems to be about some homophobic basketball player. While the article appeared on her blog, I guess I'm too stupid to see where that shows Joy's homophobia. Seems at first glance, at least, that she is EXPOSING homophobia. What did I miss?


Her comments about Charlie Crist were deplorable, I certainly agree, but I thought she'd long ago apologized for that.

I'm just getting the uncomfortable feeling that this is not only targeted, but a runaway train, just as with Al Franken. I doubt with this level of uproar, she will even get the chance to defend herself. sigh....

[uponit7771]

17. +1, all of this noise is to claim Reid is anti-gay. The one thing I would've changed in the

... Hardaway post is the seeming glibness about being homophobic.

The rest I agree with, she's basically saying America is immature about LGBTQ community and has since apologized and we still love her.

The rest of this is noise from Brietbart being pushed here

[Drunken Irishman]

18. This is what she said...

Now when you listen to the reactions, I can see where someone who is gay might have had their feelings hurt by hearing the reactions of rather typical straight men to seeing two men kiss. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but those reactions, if disheartening to a gay person, are very, very typical. EVERYONE at the Super Bowl party I was at reacted the same way. We can't ALL be violent homophobes. It's human nature to expect romantic pairings to be male-female. The visceral reaction people have to this ad is, I hate to say it, rather normal. Maybe gays don't want it to remain that way, but for now, it is.

[hlthe2b]

21. Well, I don't agree with her assessment, but hopefully I hang out with more enlightened people

If you were in a room of conservatives, she might well be right. But, yes, I find her stridency on this over the top. Still this was years ago and she apologized. I believe people do grow and evolve (at least those on the left side of the spectrum)

[Drunken Irishman]

22. She apologized for her Crist comments. She claims these posts were all hacked.

I don't buy that. If she's not going to own up to it then how do I know she's sincere in her apology?

[hlthe2b]

36. Well, I'm going to give her benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

I hate that we seems to be determined to make AL Franken-like examples of damn near everyone that strongly promotes liberal/progressive ideals. And today, I believe she DOES. Absolutely. Even though my beliefs about these kind of issues were pretty well formed decades ago, Gawd help me if anyone ever went back and pulled everything I ever said in any context. Because I'm sure a lot could be misconstrued-- in a myriad of ways. Heaven knows we have all had that happen on DU. Words can hurt, but so too can their intent and meaning be totally misconstrued.

And THAT is why I don't do social media... At least on forums you can try to explain yourself if that occurs. But I digress.

[uponit7771]

44. Reid actually apologized about ALL of her post not just the Christ one (link)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10540888

[hlthe2b]

45. ++++

So she DID.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

59. Heres the entire apology

[hlthe2b]

78. seems pretty comprehensive to me, even if she chose the Crist issue to focus on...

It seems a real apology-- not one of those "sorry if you were offended sort of things"

[uponit7771]

80. IKR !! At this point it looks like some are just pushing some true bullshit

[uponit7771]

26. +1, she apologized and moved on. They're working overtime to present her as anti-gay

[melman]

16. Wow

That's it. Wrap it up. Done.


Unless! These time traveling hackers might be even more unbelievably thorough than previously thought.

[uponit7771]

19. Sigh, there's no claim of hacking the post in the OP and the OP hasn't posted what

... Reid's experts says was hacked.

There are some working the midnight hours on this one, lets us all take not and govern accordingly

[peabody]

20. Why are you so eager to see a liberal

being taken down?

[melman]

23. I don't accept your framing

Sorry.

[uponit7771]

30. Even after she apologized for them, Reid is not anti-gay ...

[peabody]

35. Don't be sorry; just face

up to the fact that your being used to divide the left.

[NCTraveler]

129. You notice the excitement.

[mr_lebowski]

27. I'm as non-homophobic as a man could be ... in fact, I've smoked a pole or two on occasion ...

Last edited Thu Apr 26, 2018, 04:29 AM - Edit history (3)

And had it reciprocated a couple times, too.

This has been true in both my childhood, and my adult life ... mostly pretty random occasions, usually involving intoxication (except for the whole 6th grade boyfriend thing ... both of us in 6th grade, to be clear ... I was sober for that, lol) ... and I've been known to enjoy some M-M adult entertainment from time to time, as the mood struck, etc. I don't consider myself gay, or even bi (though I'm sure some would at least claim that to be case) ... yet I've NEVER kissed a male, and I find the idea repulsive, and don't like to watch it. I'd prefer to watch men just having sex, quite honestly.

I've been to SF Pride on >1 occasion, and generally speaking, I absolutely adore gays and lesbians, straight-up. I support every right they want and deserve, always have, always will ...

So ... not enjoying M-M kissing ... does that make me 'homophobic'? Or ... are 'things' maybe a little bit more 'nuanced' than labels such as the ones people are laying on Joy?

Just askin'

[Drunken Irishman]

28. Are you repulsed by two men kissing?

Because that's what she's referencing - not the idea of kissing another gay person.

If you are, that's okay...unless you're not repulsed by a man and a woman kissing.

[uponit7771]

32. She's saying AMERICANS are repulsed by it, why throw this bullshit ass'd shade?!

[Drunken Irishman]

34. lol no she's not. She's definitely including herself among those.

[uponit7771]

39. In the Hardaway post not the second one of two men kissing. I don't see where she said ".. I..."

... in that post feel that way.

[Drunken Irishman]

68. She said she couldn't watch Brokeback Mountain...

...because she didn't want to watch two males having sex (which isn't really in that movie anyway). Had she said people, instead of men, maybe I'd see your point. But it's clear, at least in 2007, she felt homosexual intimacy was uncomfortable. So.

[mr_lebowski]

93. People can desire ... or NOT desire ... to watch certain intimate acts ...

And their not preferring to watch them doesn't inherently mean that they must have hate/disdain ... for the people engaging in them. They just don't want to see that particular thing ... right before their eyes.

If I said I'd rather not watch a 90 year old heterosexual couple making love, does that mean I hate straights? Does it mean I hated my dearly departed grandparents, cause they were all old and stuff?

C'mon, man.

[stonecutter357]

126. I do not want to watch two males having sex .........

[mr_lebowski]

33. I clarified in my edit, and the answer is ... yeah ... more or less.

I'd sooner (pleasure) another guy ... than kiss him.

Go figure ...

And just to be clear, I 100% support anyone kissing anyone they want to ... I just don't enjoy seeing guys kiss. Not 'my thang'. I dunno why, but ... just how it is.

[uponit7771]

42. +1, I don't like movies where black men are sexualized by white women or teenage sex

... creeps me out.

[mr_lebowski]

51. Exactly. We all 'have our things we don't especially care to watch' but that doesn't mean ...

necessarily ... we despise the very idea, or the people, engaging in the acts. We just don't 'care to watch'. I don't see what's 'wrong' with that, in and of itself.

[uponit7771]

73. RIGHT !!!

[hlthe2b]

38. I can't answer your question, but too much PDA

makes me uncomfortable no matter whether who it involves. Guess, I'm old fashioned on that one or maybe just feel left out...

[mr_lebowski]

40. Sorry ... maybe I went too far in establishing my bona-fides ;)

Didn't mean to make ya uncomfortable. Just saying ... this kinda thing can be pretty complicated when it comes to 'real-life'. People ... are complicated.

But hey, just for fun ... would it make you uncomfortable if a person here admitted they'd actually indulged in oral sex with the someone of the opposite sex? Is that 'crossing the line' of PDA?

[hlthe2b]

41. Oh,hell I can talk about anything. It is sitting there with no where to look except to stare...

that makes me uncomfortable--more a third wheel kind of thing when it goes on and on and on.

ya know, the kind of scene that would have most yelling to "get a room"...

[mr_lebowski]

46. Fair enough ... what I'm really getting at is it's a far cry from 'homophobia' for someone to say ..

"I don't really care to watch intimate acts between people who are not my personal sexual proclivity" ... is it? I mean, even if you didn't care to watch sex between people of your OWN persuasion, that wouldn't you make 'phobic' of people of your same persuasion, right?

I think a person should be free to express that this, that, or the other ... is not something they prefer to 'watch happening' ... without accusations that they must 'hate' the people engaging in such things.

That make sense?

[hlthe2b]

47. I get your point...

Hell most of us flinched seeing our parents kiss each other, much less catching an unplanned peak in their bedroom...LOL (don't think that makes us anti-sex of any kind, just not when it involves our parents)!

[mr_lebowski]

54. Glad we agree in the end :) (nt)

[tirebiter]

43. Yesterday's papers

The villians are the ones looking for ways to divide us now.

[bluestateboomer]

50. I'm Tired

Of watching the circular firing squad go after another effective voice. Time is really running out and our opponents are not resting. Our movement logo should be a foot with a target over it.

[mr_lebowski]

81. Besides my other random ramblings on this thread can I just say ... I've known a lot of women ...

Last edited Thu Apr 26, 2018, 04:32 AM - Edit history (1)

in my day. Many girlfriends, family, friends, a wife ... And I've never, ever, not one time in my life ... heard a woman say that she enjoys watching men be intimate with one another.

In fact, I've heard many of them say 'I really don't want to watch that happening' ... even though most are 100% LGBTQ-supportive ladies.

So ... how exactly is Joy ... different?

[pnwmom]

95. She is NOT saying they are all fake. She is saying some were altered.

And MSNBC is saying the FBI is investigating. So let's let them investigate and stop pre-judging.

[mr_lebowski]

98. Seems to me like Putin is winning, again ... (nt)

[Spider Jerusalem]

100. The claim is "screenshot manipulation"

which isn't borne out by the text of the archived versions of said posts.

[janterry]

109. It's sad that she appears to be lying

I'm sad that this has happened. I wish I could believe her, but I do not. I suppose we'll learn more in the coming days.

[pnwmom]

110. SOME archived versions could have been manipulated, too. The one claim doesn't exclude the other.

[Spider Jerusalem]

112. There are timestamps of the date of archival.

So no, they can't have been.

Simple logic here: either someone with a known and admitted history of previous homophobic comments, for which they've apologised, made other and similar comments around the same time, OR said person is the target of a sinister campaign to damage their reputation involving making up fake blog posts remarkably similar to their already-known and apologised-for blog posts and altering archived versions of those blog posts on separate servers hosted by both the Internet Archive and the Library of Congress. Which scenario seems more plausible?

[pnwmom]

113. In view of everything that's happened this year, including the alteration of the DNC emails,

I think the second alternative is just as plausible.

And that we can expect more strategically timed events like this to happen, if this one works to damage the Dems.

[Spider Jerusalem]

114. The second alternative is not, in fact plausible

because Reid has a known and admitted history of making homophobic comments. If she had no such history, it might be plausible, but as it is, these things are not dissimilar to other things she said around the same time.

[pnwmom]

115. There is nothing implausible about the idea that Russian hackers could embellish and alter

some posts to make them worse than they originally were.

That would explain why none of the worst posts were objected to in real time.

[Spider Jerusalem]

116. So could the fact that casual homophobia was more acceptable a decade ago

all the stuff she admitted to saying about Charlie Crist and apologised for last December? Not so much of an issue at the time, either. http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/joy-reid-apologizes-homophobic-blog-posts-1202629278/

[pnwmom]

117. That's a dead link. n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

118. Works fine for me.

[pnwmom]

121. This is the message I get.

Lost?

Our server sentries tell us you probably shouldn’t be here. Maybe you’re lost?

If you’re sure this is the place you’re trying to go, please contact us and we’ll be happy to help.

[progressoid]

130. Works for me too.

MSNBC host Joy Reid has issued an apology for past comments she made in posts to her blog, The Reid Report, which have been criticized as homophobic.

According to Mediaite, the statements, which were posted between 2007 and 2009 — The Reid Report has been shut down for several years — speculate on the sexuality of then-Florida governor Charlie Crist, who Reid refers to as “Miss Charlie” several times throughout. The posts mock him for supposedly being a closeted gay man, including the conspiracy theory that Crist married his then-wife Carole Rome in order to further his chances of becoming John McCain’s running mate. Crist, at the time a conservative politician, was well-known for holding policy views against same-sex marriage, though he has since switched stances and political parties. Twitter user @Jamie_Maz was the first to call attention the posts after accessing them via an internet service.

“This note is my apology to all who are disappointed by the content of blogs I wrote a decade ago, for which my choice of words and tone have legitimately been criticized,” Reid said in a statement provided to Variety. “As a writer, I pride myself on a facility with language — an economy of words or at least some wisdom in the selection. However, that clearly has not always been the case.”

Reid continued that the posts were intended to call out Crist for his policy views, writing that his position on same-sex marriage “shared headlines with widely rumored reports that he was hiding his sexual orientation. Those reports were the subject of lots of scrutiny: by LGBTQ bloggers, writers and journalists, conservative blogs, a controversial documentary film called ‘Outrage,’ and even by the comedic writers at South Park.”

etc...

[Captain Stern]

135. It's obvious to me that there was no hack.

Any wounds that she's suffering now are ridiculously self-inflicted.

All she would have to have done when these ancient posts were pointed out is say something like:

"As I previously acknowledged in my apology for similar posts that I made during that time-frame, I indeed said some hurtful things. I deeply regret what I said. I sincerely apologize, and I assure you that those posts do not in any way reflect my thinking today."

Problem solved. Instead, she goes with 'It wasn't me. I was hacked'.

[Adrahil]

127. Here's my surprised face...

[Cha]

128. Ikr.. You saw it was

from 10 months ago, though?

I thought it was a recent petition but was informed otherwise.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

111. Could it be

Black Propaganda?
Are we eviscerating a liberal voice like we did the MN Senator? If she's guilty of the worst, is it worth it to lose her journalism now? Why do Dems do this when the rw gives us so much to loathe? Just asking.

[oberliner]

119. What would it take for people to believe these posts were not hacked?

I am curious to know what evidence people would need to reach that conclusion.

[pnwmom]

122. The network says they've turned info over to the FBI, which is investigating.

I'd like to know what the FBI says, rather than pre-judging Reid.

[oberliner]

123. The FBI will probably say nothing

There would be no reason for them to make their findings public.

[pnwmom]

124. If they indict someone they will. n/t

[Adrahil]

125. Ask why now? Why her?

She is getting Frankened.

Ask whose interests you are serving.... and not some naive "I serve the truth."

This is targeted attack.

[LexVegas]

132. He is my 2nd favorite Celtic of all time. nt

[treestar]

134. A hacker could see some comments and then

figure their hacks will be believable.

[mercuryblues]

136. Because she is not claiming all are hacks

Just the recent ones.

[scipan]

137. And the DU post date is the SAME as Joy Reid's post date.

So a hacker would have had to hack it the same day she posted...then just did nothing for a decade, waiting for her to get famous and influential...while also hacking multiple other posts, and her never noticing, even though they were also possibly hacked the SAME DAY...man you've really got to twist your mind into a pretzel to buy that.

I think she is fairly religious and probably got those ideas from church, or the church reinforced them. Also we really have come a long way in a decade. I didn't believe in gay marriage until I saw the ecstatic faces of people waiting in line in California to get a marriage license, and I realized just how much it means to them. Joy didn't say anything totally unforgivable in my book, given that we have all changed. Her mistake is denying she ever wrote them. I really like her: she's smart, insightful, an original thinker. She should just better fess up.