Comments... I Get Comments

So, if all these allegations are true, at the very worst Glenn Greenwald (a) posted comments on right-wing blogs defending himself using an alias; and (b) subsequently lied about doing so.

And, if true, this supposedly discredits every substantive argument he makes and renders him nothing more than a "douchebag" who speaks nothing but lies.

"[I]t is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

— General Herman Goering, President of German Reichstag and Nazi Party, Commander of Luftwaffe during World War II, April 18, 1946.

Unfortunatelty, you all are proving Goering is still correct to this day. I'd love to see you spend half as much energy devoted to rebutting the merits of Greenwald's arguments rather than attempting to destroy him personally.

But wait -- bogocial didn't mean that to sound so harsh!

I do not mean to imply that you are the moral equivalent of a Nazi war criminal, but you should be aware that all this energy spent on personally attacking a person that fundamentally disagrees with you and your worldview, rather than rebutting the substance of what he says, is reminiscent of how Nazi war criminals were able to manipulate their country.

-- by bgocial, who will call people Hitler for food

Couple of points. Glenn Greenwald's cultists used to mention his resume at every turn to buttress his "substantive" points (which are basically "Bush sucks" and "Chrixxxtian Exxxtremists Are Going To Round You Up And Put You Into Camps" in 10,000 word essays, six times a week). In other words, they used to be quite keen on offering his personal credibility as a proof his "substantive" points were correct.

Now that his credibility is in grave dispute, they claim they want to keep this strictly on the "substance," and they've abandoned the appeal to authority. (H/t a commenter, John, I think.)

Furthermore, as is noted in the thread, Greenwald's jackass points have been challenged, and refuted, many times. Just not by me. "Rick Ellenburg," for example, appears in a post at Right Wing Nut House which attacks Greenwald's "substance." Maguire, LGF, NRO, etc., have all gotten their licks in on the "substance" of Greenwald's One Post, Rewritten Six Thousand Times.

I'm not challenging his "substance" because, frankly, I think he's beneath me.

And lastly: The sock-puppetry was, as I've said, a fairly minor thing. An embarrassing thing showing preening vanity and an comfort with dishonesty, but yet, still pretty minor. If on Day One of this, when I first nailed him for sock-puppetry, he had said, "Yes, I used other psuedonyms; I didn't want to post in hostile territory under my own name," or whatever, where would this have gone from there? No where, that's where. He would have been caught doing something underhanded and immature, but he would have been honest about it, and that would have been it. End of story.

But he didn't do that. He escalated it. He lied, consciously and deliberately and premeditatedly, not just to me, but to all of his cultists as well. And he has maintained that lie.

He made a fool out of all of you lefties, bgocials. Ya been had. Bamboozled. Glenn Greenwald chumped ya, son.

Since you're so fond of Hitler analogies, bgocial, I'll just note that Hitler came to power through lying.

And also, I suspect, sock-puppets, but I can't quite prove that. Yet.

posted by Ace at 12:49 PM

| Access Comments