Skip to main content

View Diary: I Don't Get It (158 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for the context. (18+ / 0-)

    What disheartens me is that people have such a hard time with something that should be trivially easy. One can both be sharply critical of Obama and his administration and be suspicious of ridiculous hyperbole.

    Thanks for stopping by.

    •  What happened is... (15+ / 0-)

      That Kos wrote.

      I don't give a shit (180+ / 0-)

      Seriously, I just don't care.

      NSA spying is bad! So is stop and frisk. So is splitting up families by deporting children to countries they've never been to and don't speak the language. So is harassing American muslims.

      Government overreach is bad. But to act like having the government track who you call is the height of government abuse is a very white privileged view of the privacy issue.

      But as for Greenwald and Snowden? Seriously, I don't give two shits.

      I highlighted the statement that seems to have caused one of the DKos cliques to get the vapors.  For them any criticism of Snowden or Greenwald means that you do not take their pet issue seriously.  If you notice, Kos didn't even criticize them, merely said he didn't care about them as a subject whatsoever.  They like to claim that it is others that are focused upon Snowden and Greenwald and yet they are the ones that always bring them into the conversation.

      As to what Kos really said, has to do with a matter of perspective.  The simple fact is that NSA spying and spying on Americans is not something that is recently begun.  That the hyperbolic concern over it only started occurring when white America was let in on the fact that they were being spied upon as well.  That while they are spending their entire efforts focused on that issue and yelling at anyone that is not similarly maniacally focused upon the issue but instead writing/working against voter suppression, immigration rights, reducing gun violence, gay rights or other racial issues are not caring about what is happening in this country.  Oh and if you don't agree that Snowden and Greenwald deserve to replace every monument than you are just a blind Obama worshiper.

      As a side note, it is an entertaining subnote that most of that clique are the same ones that started screaming that Obama was a sellout within the first weeks he took office, if not prior.

      A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

      by Tempus Figits on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 12:09:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  dialing that down (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fou, Quicklund, Onomastic, etherealfire

        Snowden and Greenwald can be removed from the discussion.

        As far as I can tell, the sentence you highlight ticked people off, not because of anything to do with S&G, but because they are reading it as something like "people who fuss about the NSA are full of white privilege."

        I think that's silly, especially in context. But I don't think it's about putting S&G on monuments.

        Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

        by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 12:33:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  read what they posted in response (5+ / 0-)

          A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

          by Tempus Figits on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 12:45:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  well, I did (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Onomastic, indubitably, etherealfire

            I think it's not too far off to say that kos's critics read his comment as "people who fuss about the NSA are full of white privilege." Some of the criticisms are fairly reasonable IMHO, while others seem like simple misreadings. Few if any seemed based on Snowden or Greenwald worship.

            Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

            by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 01:16:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "White peoples' problems" (6+ / 0-)

              That's the way I read Kos' comment. That the problem looms larger in white folks eyes because they don't have as many in-your-face problems to compete for attention.

              Be that as it may, Kos' comment was not phrased as well as it could have been.

              Myself, I gave it a rec over Kos' sympathies for Misters Greenwald and Snowden. The NSA criticism is a good tpoic for a national conversation, but that doesnot mean these two deserve a free pass for everything they've said or done.

              That's the problem with rec's. People give them for diffent reasons. From a Rushian megaditto, to I agree with some of this, to I don't agree but you agrue your point well, or eeven simply to mean "I read your reply".

              •  yes, that's a problem with recs (5+ / 0-)

                In this diary, I'm pretty freely reccing for discussion. In some diaries, I'm reluctant to do that (or I say "reccing for discussion," which is labored).

                I think a lot of people recced kos's comment to say, more or less, "Thanks for demonstrating that it is OK to say that here."

                "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." --Susan from 29

                by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 03:28:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I rec'd kos' comment because I agree that (6+ / 0-)

                  much of the hyperbole in the debate over NSA surveillance is a product of white privilege.

                  I'm sorry, but when I see Ed Snowden, I guy who earned six figures with a GED, tell me that everything is being recorded? When I hear that, I think of the fact that almost 70% of the people in the world aren't even online.

                  When I was last in Africa, I was lucky if my connection lasted more than a half hour.

                  This is obviously not to say that we shouldn't have a debate about this. Also, the fact that the FISA court is not adversarial is of great concern to me. I think that's unsustainable.

                  But when I see some guy put himself at the mercy of Vladimir Putin because he doesn't want to live in a world with mass surveillance?! Good Lord. I'm sorry, but in my estimation, Snowden is a "dude-bro" hacker Libertarian with nary a clue how the other half lives.

                  •  good points (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fou, Quicklund, etherealfire

                    By the way, congratulations on this diary and comment thread. Apart from some silliness that I contributed to, it's been one of the more civil and thoughtful discussions in recent memory, and you share much of the credit for that.

                    Possibly one reason I'm softer on Snowden is that I've barely seen (or heard) him at all, although I've read a lot of what he has said. People tend to form strong sight impressions; I don't have one or want one. We're perhaps hard-wired to care more about people than principles; I'd rather avoid the distraction when I can. (For a similar reason, if I stumble into a quarrel with someone on DKos, I try not to pay much attention to the identities; I would rather not have an enemy list in the back of my head, although a few handles do reliably make me wince.)

                    Anyway, yeah, kos made that point about hyperbole pretty eloquently, although many people missed it, and some seem to be going out of their way to miss it. I didn't mean to downplay simple agreement as a cause of recs. (I don't even remember whether I recced it. It was the sort of comment that I would be ambivalent about reccing.)

                    "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." --Susan from 29

                    by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 07:37:40 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  I can definitely agree with that. (4+ / 0-)

                Unfortunately, it left way to much room for people to insert their own fears and hopes into the statement.  Especially on the fear part, the ensuing comments and diaries bear out that it could have been phrased better.

                A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

                by Tempus Figits on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 04:08:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  some specific ones... (10+ / 0-)
          Most of the users who will weaponize kos' (34+ / 0-)

          opinion on Snowden don't need an additional excuse to argue from authority as a way to shut down discussion of Obama's NSA.

          They're doing it already.

          When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

          by PhilJD on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 02:07:08 PM PDT

          Exactly (23+ / 0-)

          Because you're still here racking up additional HRs since that one to which Phil refers.

          As for Snowden, it matters little what any one particular member here thinks about him, unless/until Markos declares that, on his site, no one ELSE is allowed to care about Snowden, then I'd hold off on celebrating his above words as some kind of victory for Snowden haters.

          So, to directly answer your question, it's "hilarious" only to people like you who are under the impression that it makes anything effectively different than it was yesterday.

          But you'll still likely show up in future diaries pertaining to Snowden and remind those participating therein that "Markos doesn't care about Snowden," and that you and your imaginary majority also don't care about Snowden, wielding it as if it's some kind of decree granting you the right to shit on any discussion trying to otherwise take place.

          I'm sure it's just the cynic/pessimist in me that's misread your intentions, though.

          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

          by DeadHead on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 05:31:59 PM PDT

          You don't give two shits about the 4th Amendment? (61+ / 0-)

          Seriously?  Good to know.

          Crashing the gates, my ass.

          We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

          by Dallasdoc on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 02:02:36 PM PDT

          Please note that he said he didn't give two shits about Snowden and Greenwald, not about NSA spying.
          You don't think the Snowden story involves the 4th (40+ / 0-)

          ???

          Greenwald and Snowden are in the news because of the comprehensive domestic spying program their revelations have substantiated.  That's the entire point of the story.  So if you "seriously dont give two shits" about them, what else are we to think?

          It's easy to say "NSA spying is bad," but if you don't give two shits about the story involving the people who have given us the clearest illustration of it then that's the impression you're leaving.  As is made clear by the cheers of other people who have amply demonstrated they don't give two shits about it either.

          We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

          by Dallasdoc on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 02:29:38 PM PDT

          There are more, and that is just from the comment thread and not the actual diaries that spun off it claiming that they were now being suppressed and shut down.

          A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

          by Tempus Figits on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 12:59:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The last two comments are particularly noxious. (9+ / 0-)

            We've gone from "it's not about Snowden" to "if you don't care about Greenwald or Snowden, you don't care about the 4th Amendment."

            That's really fucking stupid.

            •  That is about how it typically degenerates. (7+ / 0-)

              I don't even bother opening those diaries for the most part.  Which is sad because I have been opposed to the NSA's mission and generic spying (being different from targeted spying) since I became politically aware.  However, if you have any nuance in what is or isn't legitimate or if you do not agree that it proves that Obama is worse than Bush you end up being attacked just like Kos was.  My hope is that now he has experienced it, maybe he might work to tone down the animosity.

              A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

              by Tempus Figits on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 01:11:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, suppressed whilst on the top of the rec list (13+ / 0-)

            Oh the hardship....and irony.

            Wonders are many, but none so wonderful as man.

            by Morgan Sandlin on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 01:06:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  we still disagree (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Onomastic, fou, etherealfire

            As PhilJD's comment makes clear, the weird move here is to see an effort to "shut down discussion of Obama's NSA." kos's comment is being construed as a signal to dial down the NSA stuff, or something like that. People are reacting in particular to the "white privilege" remark, not primarily to the last sentence. If every reference to Snowden and Greenwald were deleted, the thread would not be much different.

            "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." --Susan from 29

            by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 01:29:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What shutting down? (5+ / 0-)

              Saying that it is not his belief that it rises to the freak out level that a vocal minority of posters on this site.  That there are other more tangible issues that deserve attention as well that are getting drowned out with multiple postings of diaries with no new information on a daily basis?

              So where is this shutting down of conversation occurring?  

              Exactly who is being silenced?

              And considering exactly who is reacting to the comment, when it started and the fact that the revelation was that it wasn't just blacks and browns who were being tracked.  It is hard not agree with the statement when looked at objectively.

              A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

              by Tempus Figits on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 03:09:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  oh, I agree with you there (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fou, PsychoSavannah, etherealfire

                The stuff about shutting down discussion seems pretty lame to me. (For evidence, look downthread.... :)

                I think kos's comment goes beyond objective analysis, but really, who cares?

                "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." --Susan from 29

                by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 03:20:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  <chuckle> (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fou, etherealfire

                  In the grand scheme of things, no one of real significance.  Either way.  :)

                  In all honesty, I was surprised Kos responded at all.  No matter what he said, it was likely to draw ire.  Admitting to my own bias, I do believe that people that are currently objecting are doing so more stridently than if it was in support of Snowden and Greenwald.  I have not seen very many comments trying to assert that if you support either that you are not a real Progressive.  I have seen many asserting that not supporting them means that you are not a real Progressive.

                  My personal take is that Greenwald is inserting himself unnecessarily and to the detriment of the cause of limiting the NSA's ability to operate with limited oversight and outside of anyone's ability to seek redress of harm.  MSM didn't have to try make it about him.  Greenwald was an active participant.

                  As for Snowden, I have a hard time being sympathetic or even believing someone professing that upset over violations of privacy and treatment of whistle blowers by seeking asylum in a country that runs over protesters with tanks and doesn't even bother to hide that they respect neither.  Then when it becomes apparent that they might extradite him, he runs to a country that just held a kangaroo court to silence a political opponent.  One that is run by the ex-head of an agency that doesn't just collect phone records of everyone it can but hires multiple informants in each neighborhood of the country to track the gossip on each of its citizens.  

                  Then there is the fact that in both of those countries came in with the Intel equivalent of multiple high yield nuclear weapons in his possession.  Where they have the ability and desire to pretty easily extract it from him by hook or by crook without him even being aware its being done.

                  I have serious problems with actions this government has done and is currently doing.  However, crippling it, even temporarily, while advancing two of the worst major powers on this planet, I can not condone.  We may not be doing the best that we can but we give it lip service at the least.  That can not be said of either China or Russia.

                  A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

                  by Tempus Figits on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 04:04:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  oh, that's interesting (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fou, etherealfire

                    I guess you've gone a few rounds on Snowden and Greenwald yourself. I've managed to avoid that, with maybe a few trivial exceptions.

                    Every meta war brings people who act out on both/all sides, but in this one, I think the acting out is more obvious on the anti-administration side because, in fact, most people on DKos are critical of the administration. There's a whiff of mob psychology, not for the first time, and not always in this direction. It's as if events destroyed the equilibrium between suxxers and roxxers, and the suxxers disproportionately are running amok -- although that can vary from thread to thread.

                    Anyway, I'm softer on Snowden than you are, but mostly I just want no part of all that (and I definitely see your point of view). We're stupid enough when we're dealing with each other's personalities, never mind celebrities'. I like the discussions where I actually learn something about surveillance issues.

                    "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." --Susan from 29

                    by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 06:09:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I was soft on Snowden initially, but when he (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      HudsonValleyMark, etherealfire

                      issued his threat and started revealing what we do in other countries, he lost me completely.

                      It's one thing to tell us what's been done to us. That's our business. It's quite another to tell the world what we have a sovereign right to keep secret.

                      •  yeah, I get that (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        fou, etherealfire

                        Honestly, I don't know if I agree, because I see no point in forming an opinion. But it makes sense.

                        I think by that point, many of the sharpest critics of NSA surveillance here got very emphatic about separating the surveillance issue from the personalities. I thought that was a reasonable move (although some of the meta surrounding it isn't reasonable).

                        "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." --Susan from 29

                        by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 07:10:00 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  I was sympathetic at first as well. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      fou, etherealfire

                      Though I admit Greenwald's holier than thou attitude has been wearing on me for a couple of years now.  

                      It was Snowden's actions after fleeing to Hong Kong and conspiracy theory interviews that started souring me on him despite wanting the NSA and various Intelligence Organisations to be reigned in, if not disbanded.

                      I have been following, as much as possible, what has been happening as well as the history behind the various US Intelligence Agencies since my teen years in late 70's and early 80's.  Most of what I saw thoroughly disgusted me and I have been arguing for the declassification of top secret documents throughout.  I also understand that doing so isn't as easy the President simply signing an Executive Order as some on this sight seem to think.

                      That is the irony of the current Meta-wars.  I am sympathetic to the cause espoused but feel that their tactics are fatally flawed.

                      A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

                      by Tempus Figits on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 07:49:10 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I agree with this. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        etherealfire

                        The thing that disturbs me about the NSA's data collection isn't the data collection and analysis; it's the fact that it's justified in a secret court with no adversarial function. This to me is wholly unconstitutional and completely unsustainable.

                        •  The problem is... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          fou, etherealfire

                          No one has been allowed standing to challenge it in court.  I'm not sure if it is or isn't constitutional but it is definitely against the spirit and intent of the concept that every citizen is part of the collective sovereignty of the United States.

                          A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

                          by Tempus Figits on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 08:07:15 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site