Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Glenn Greenwald RESIGNS From The Intercept Over CENSORSHIP!" video.

  1. Aaron Mate and his father are two of the best people on this earth.
    17
  2. This report on Glenn Greenwald's resignation from The Intercept is THE best one BY FAR, of any report made so far. Deepest appreciation!! We can rely on you. Thank you.
    15
  3. Perfect.
    8
  4.  @screwsinabell  This guy is copy pasting that completely misleading remark all over this comment section now.
    5
  5.  @roberttelford745  LOL, thanks.
    4
  6. Ryan Grim is excellent, and the reporting on prisons, the death penalty, and police violence and corruption are all outstanding. These, plus Scahill, do not make up the majority of the articles, however, and Maass in particular is not a very good journalist. So, I get why you say that. :/
    4
  7. @Сперти за правду Nope. Listen carefully to what he said. He said he would never fit in there because of his journalistic interests. He also conceded that if he were working on an entirely different beat, he would consider writing for them, because some journalists they publish do good work. The Intercept still has some outstanding reporting on prison, police misconduct, and the death penalty. Mate is being sincere and candid -- so of course someone comes along to distort it and attack him. Never fails. Doubtful he would have had a platform at The Nation without Katrina van den Heuvel as editor, frankly. She and her late husband went through some stuff because they don't hate Russians -- the one form of ethnic bigotry that is not only tolerated but encouraged. In fact, it has become a loyalty oath.
    4
  8.  @jpoeng  Are you in for some good times! Perfect for this week, and you know what I mean.
    3
  9.  @blitva1  Yes. Isn't it great to have some people around who are real people?
    2
  10. @Сперти за правду Ha! You didn't address my points.
    2
  11. He is also a genuinely nice guy.
    1
  12. Both of these guys are left.
    1
  13. The owner is. But I know what you mean.
    1
  14.  @RobertHDaGod  Look it up. The owner of The Hill is a major Trump supporter, meaning, with donations.
    1
  15.  @RobertHDaGod  I will say one thing in favor of The Hill: they will carry an entire press conference of the President, no editing whatsoever. Few outlets do. If Biden wins, let's see whether they continue. There should be places, plural, where everyone can watch ANY presidential statement in its entirety, no cuts whatsoever, because it is the President speaking. Simple. And I don't think Trump is qualified. (Nor do I think Biden is, nor were the Clintons, either one, for that matter. My opinion of the President has got nothing to do with it.)
    1
  16. I'd rather laugh than throw up, so . . .
    1
  17. He's not the owner, and the owner hired the editors.
    1
  18. In short, the editors were NOT talking about facts. They were claiming to be talking about facts, but were not.
    1
  19.  @TheHuxleyAgnostic  If you do not read the material Greenwald released -- his original draft, and the response it elicited -- then you won't know. That's how it works. If you don't read a text, you won't know what it says. But I mean, it's up to you.
    1
  20.  @TheHuxleyAgnostic  Maybe you don't realize that "censorship" is a much broader concept than government violation of First Amendment freedoms? (Thus, we have "self-censorship," and so forth, and censorship in violation of private contractual agreements, such as Glenn experienced.) Again, I recommend reading. Hashtags, sound bites, and tweets do not suffice.
    1
  21.  @TheHuxleyAgnostic  Did you read the contract? In America, we have very broad rights to enter into all kinds of contracts, with all kinds of terms. You don't know what a contract says when . . . you haven't read it. You also seem to forget Greenwald was a founding member of The Intercept, which is not (supposed to be) a storefront or a restaurant but a journalistic endeavor. Hence Greenwald had a lot of leverage to obtain contract terms that most people might not. See, . . . that's how stuff like that works. The debate wasn't about writing "whatever the hell he wants" and having The Intercept run it, but about a specific article -- which he demonstrates they tried to censor, and you decline to read. So, why double down? It's just dumb at this point. I mean, you don't have to read stuff you don't want to read, BUT THEN you don't know what it says.
    1
  22.  @TheHuxleyAgnostic  If a contract says it is, it is. Remember "trespass on the case?" Mixed questions of law and fact? You never read about all that, either? Your fact-freedom reminds me of a certain president . . Naw, won't go there. That's the province of others.
    1
  23.  @TheHuxleyAgnostic  Nowhere did I say, or imply, censorship is so broad as to be meaningless, much less that it is a good thing. Why are you lying about what I wrote? Isn't that a "tell?" Oh, I get it. You figure everyone is like you. They won't read it. Especially if they have to go to ALL THE TROUBLE of clicking "Read more."
    1
  24.  @TheHuxleyAgnostic  The contract for painting the mural didn't contain any clause that deals with "censorship," I'm supposing?
    1
  25.  @TheHuxleyAgnostic  If you don't understand the role of a free and independent press in the contemporary world, or why certain stories should not be censored from (what purports to be) a free and independent press in order to smooth the path to the U.S. presidency for one candidate or another, I certainly am not sufficiently gifted to teach you. Again, I see you don't read. No one can make you. And if you think a free press is the same as "I like one decorative painting on my WALL, and not another," all the more reason to leave you be.
    1
  26.  @TheHuxleyAgnostic  You don't seem to understand. I simply don't have the talent or the acumen to pursue this further. I'm not very smart. I'm not even a comedian with a podcast in my garage. I'm vastly out of my depth. If this were water, I'd have been dead by drowning hours ago. Yesterday, in fact. Why are you being so cruel?
    1
  27.  @TheHuxleyAgnostic  Wow. You said "cry" instead of "whine." I'm impressed. I would try a synonym for "meanie," however. Try the thesaurus online. EDIT: Oh no, wait. You did say "whining." Sigh. Oh well . . .
    1
  28.  @TheHuxleyAgnostic  No point, you've already gone the "whining" route. We are all waiting for "snowflake." The Intercept has already kindly provided us with "tantrum."
    1
  29.  @TheHuxleyAgnostic  Who . . . said you were? A limited vocabulary is not proof of one's politics. Not these days.
    1
  30. The remedy for bad speech is MORE speech. Debunk the film -- don't ban it.
    1
  31. The question was whether they faked the Hunter Biden materials. The answer is no.
    1
  32. The owner of The Hill is. Not really fair to say that of Krystal and Saagar's show.
    1
  33.  @Sjsharksfan88  True, it isn't.
    1
  34. In the present poisoned social environment, hearing Aaron Mate's voice is soothing to the mind and spirit. The abandonment of all logic and rational discourse IS Trumpism. The "joke" is on The Intercept editors, only it is a hideous joke.
    1
  35. Nicely stated.
    1
  36. Glenn wasn't the owner. It's called a corporation. /s
    1
  37.  @screwsinabell  LOL
    1
  38. @Сперти за правду Didya count? (???)
    1
  39. He is not the owner.
    1
  40. He resigned.
    1
  41. It gets better: 34:10 ROFL
    1
  42.  @layinlow77  You'll love it.
    1
  43. Possible. And frightening all right.
    1
  44.  @screwsinabell  You're right about that.
    1