There is a lot to read here, so let me see if I understand the purpose of the thread
Glenn Greenwald is a toady to Trump or Russia (or both).
Bigots want us to provide them soapboxes and megaphones.
@DemonTree is focused on getting us to provide said soapbox and megaphone to a transphobic author.
Several people who appear to agree with one another for the most part are arguing around the edges.
Did I miss anything?
Unfortunately I haven’t necessarily had enough in-depth conversations with people about free speech to know what people from each generation on average are thinking, but from my subjective view reading articles on the interwebs, it does seem like mostly GenX/Boomer types who I’ve seen be more critical of cultural/corporate censorship (eg. signatories to Harper’s letter), but at the same time there are plenty of GenX/Boomers who dismiss it as a problem as well. I think part of it is that GenX/Boomers are more established within traditional media than Millennials/Gen Z so their views on anything are going to seem more prominent. I don’t use decentralized media like Youtube/social media to a massive extent, so I am not very skilled at figuring out what broader populations think; I tend to just stick to my own bubble within social media which is what I think probably most people do - my bubble is pretty moderate and not very political so people don’t feel too strongly about this issue, but I’d say on average my friends (who are largely Millennials) are more critical of “Cancel culture” than, say, the average Redditor, or members of this board.
I actually think this is a much better example of the problem with “cancel culture” and is more upsetting to me than Glen Greenwald’s concern with Strangio calling ideas dangerous - the fact that Strangio ended up self-censoring (by deleting the tweet) is EXACTLY the sort of problem that cancel culture critics claim to be worried about. I think Greenwald failing to comment on this either shows he’s hypocritical, or has significant blinders on. Personally I think it’s a bad thing that Strangio received calls for him to be for his tweet, and that he took the threats seriously enough to feel the need to self-censor. To me it’s a textbook case of cancel culture in action.
@DMC You missed Rinse and repeat and repeat and repeat.
I did show my work. I explained why it can be helpful. It seems like you agreed.
It’s great that you take time out of your day to look at what the crazy people are saying. I have neither the time nor inclination to do so pro-actively. That is why I rely on this message board and reliable news media that I consume, to curate for me things I ought to be paying attention to, specifically by people whose views I’m unlikely to agree with. That may be Greenwald, or Douthat, or Sullivan. It’s unlikely I would seek them out unless they were regular contributors on media I read. Now, maybe I should invest more of my time and energy in seeking out right wing media. Perhaps I’m being lazy. But I feel like I get what I need from people sharing stuff on this message board and from the above cited sources. I don’t follow twitter or facebook because that is a quagmire I want no part of. So yeah, that’s my argument for accepting some “dishonest and terrible” reporting.
, 
, 
,
I still don’t get it. It sounds like you’re describing reporting on conservative issues, and conspiracy theories. That’s not necessarily “dishonest and terrible” reporting. I think Sullivan’s often a jackass, but I think he’s rarely if ever in the same ballpark of dishonesty and terribleness as Greenwald. I don’t think Douthat is even nearly as bad as Sullivan – Douthat is kind of just naive and dumb sometimes, and too kind to conservatives. I’m saying that Greenwald is much closer to the “lizard Jews from space!” nonsense ballpark than “decent reporting even from a conservative slant/POV” ballpark. There is no place in decent media for “lizard Jews from space!”, or anything close, which includes Greenwald. Do you disagree with this? Should prominent media publish “lizard Jews from space!” sometimes, for balance, or to get you out of your bubble, or whatever? I don’t think so. I don’t mind if they sometimes report on/about the conspiracy nonsense that others are wasting air and time on, but that’s not the same as actually reporting “lizard Jews from space!”. “Some people say it’s lizard Jews from space, but that’s total nonsense and evidence-free” is fine reporting. “Lizard Jews from space did it!” is not.
Sorry, you’re right, I shouldn’t have. Do you think this is finally a good example of cancel culture, then?
You know what, if “Lizard Jews from space!” is trending on right wing media and trusted media decides I should know about it, I’m reasonably comfortable in them doing so via their conservative contributors. I can then reserve judgement about whether or not they needed to waste my time with this bullshit. But at least they saved me having to look for it on Breitbart or some other cesspool.
That’s fine with me too. But that’s not what Greenwald does – he doesn’t report on and debunk “Lizard Jews from space!” – he says “why aren’t the media reporting on lizard Jews from space – after all, Rudy Giuliani found a laptop with a picture of a lizard Jew from space!”. There’s no place for that. Or do you think that’s fine?
Please give an example of something Greenwald has published that is equivalent to “lizard Jews from space”.
Also, are you only talking about the stuff he’s published in the US? I’m most familiar with the Snowden and Lava Jato leaks.
The Hunter Biden laptop nonsense is in the same ballpark as “lizard Jews from space”. Maybe on the reasonable end of “lizard Jews from space”, but certainly much closer to that than actual factual reporting.
Agreed. Nevertheless, I’m glad I was made aware of it. Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.
Then you’re not disagreeing with me, it appears.
Don’t be so sure.
That a whole bunch of people criticized him for asking for something to be deplatformed?
That he chose to take back his statement in support of censorship, due to public outcry?
That the only consequence that he faced was entirely on social media, where he took back an unpopular statement?
If it is, then it’s a very interesting example of people who are against cancel culture taking part in it themselves.
Question for you, did you send him a tweet criticizing his tweet? If it is the case that you didn’t hear about it until it was over, and so didn’t get a chance to do so, would you have?
If you had tweeted to criticize him, would you have been participating in cancel culture?
I don’t understand your position.
Why are you so against free speech? Cancel culture is a glorious expression of free speech. The people’s voices are being heard by the giant corporations.
Okay, things that I think that we are in agreement on:
Reputable media should not press a story, “Lizardman from space.”
If the “Lizardman from space” story has been pressed by other less reputable outlets, then it may be a good idea to have a story, “There are no Lizardmen from space.”
That does not mean that reputable outlets need to have proponents of the lizardman theory, nor that they have to show the “evidence” that those pushing it have fabricated.
Is there anything there that you disagree on?
Look, you think they should make Greenwald put a sock in it. I’m saying, let him speak. There is something to be gained from hearing him say some nonsense. There is value in the exercise of debunking bullshit.
I don’t think that that is what @iiandyiiii is saying at all.
He’s just saying that they shouldn’t have to have Greenwald on their shows to debunk him. No one should have to promote him.
Who is the “they” in your “you think they should make Greenwald put a sock in it.”?