LGBT
Related: About this forumWhat the fuck is this shit?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023491461#post66This is some bullshit, no I didn't alert because I already alerted in that thread, but look at this bullshit. Please tell me I'm reading it wrong.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)about the NSA scandal.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I may have given in to a hair trigger after all of this going on. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I admit it.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)I think it was satirizing the some of the personal attacks on Snowden and Glenn Greenwald.
On a side/related question: am I overreacting/misreading in sensing a homophobic undertone when people (mostly detractors) go for the "cutesy" GG/Gigi nickname?
Warpy
(111,245 posts)Either that or the guy is really, really confused.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)so I'm going to assume the poster meant to write "this poster's (i.e., the OP) first defense" rather than "the poster".
It might have been deliberate, though - to deflect a charge of "personal attack" on the OP and getting hidden for that reason.
The post itself reads as a defense of Greenwald and his partner, Aerows. I think you are reading it wrong.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Damn, I guess I'll have to try harder to improve my track record of "Aerows get's it right". Thanks all. I'm actually pleased to be wrong.
Skittles
(153,147 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)The Fox News version of telling the news by saying "sources say" something. This method is used to suggest an agenda by trying to legitimize it by saying someone else suggests it's true. The poster is claiming that progressives say... that we should demonize Greenwald for being gay. Of course, that's fucking stupid.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Could also have said "the standard DUer response would be..." and had the same meaning, given the homophobia rampant here in this den of "progressivism".
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Not well done, but not malicious.