AntiFash Gordon

I know, I was his law partner and ardently agreed we should do it. Greenwald was a gay Jew then, too. You know, a person his client thought belonged in an oven, but whose free speech rights Greenwald rightly knew had to be defended for his own safety's sake.

If his response to almost every disagreement didn't devolve into exactly this, i'd have more sympathy for that argument. It's not at all situational

His response is that b/c the same stupid shit keeps getting spewed, as it has here. You just do not like & cannot substantively deal w/ the fact that he's a gay Jew, & in an inter-racial marriage w/ black kids. The "he's a white guy" is quickly shown to be obscenely stupid. Deal.

my point is it doesn't matter what the argument is; glenn always goes to the same devices: you're just arguing w/ me to raise your own profile; i'm in more danger than you, which makes me right; you're a coward

but if you can tell me how the fact that he's a gay Jew, & in an inter-racial marriage w/ black kids means that michael tracey didn't actually say that the nazi threat is non-existent, and how wrongly claiming that he didn't is actually a plea for nuance, go off

because i see it as an argument from authority in an attempt to veil the fact that defending what tracey said is deeply stupid, but glenn can never just cop to having been stupid

Greenwald should have objected to the absolute of "non-existent" from Tracey, but was right to defend Tracey's larger point about how this alarm over Nazis is misused.

Do you agree that the day-to-day threat posed by lightening strikes is virtually "non-existent," even if the threat is not literally 0.0%?