The reason I'm so confident that the vast, vast majority of people condemning this verdict didn't watch much or any of the trial is because so many of their assertions reveal utter ignorance of basic facts, like this:https://t.co/F4VqabKGgX

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

Watch the damn game !!!

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

This is the world that radical white wingers want to live in.

this is grim https://t.co/QifQiGAJlV pic.twitter.com/Op5LSVp0Sb

— Matt Pearce 🦅 (@mattdpearce) November 19, 2021

---

Does this mean that if 10 democrats show up at a rally, and 1000 republicans show up, if some unknown gunshot is heard, the 10 democrats can now down the thousand republicans by claiming self defense?



Excuse me, but the line to vote starts behind this guy.

#NRA'sAmerica

---

This happened because Rittenhouse heard an unknown gunshot and then fired at people? Hard no.

---

No, I was commenting on the fact that everyone is now going to sho up packed, then claim self defense after they fire.
There's no responsibility. Law allows carry, and use.

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

This is the world that radical white wingers want to live in.

this is grim https://t.co/QifQiGAJlV pic.twitter.com/Op5LSVp0Sb

— Matt Pearce 🦅 (@mattdpearce) November 19, 2021

---

Does this mean that if 10 democrats show up at a rally, and 1000 republicans show up, if some unknown gunshot is heard, the 10 democrats can now down the thousand republicans by claiming self defense?



Excuse me, but the line to vote starts behind this guy.

#NRA'sAmerica

---

This happened because Rittenhouse heard an unknown gunshot and then fired at people? Hard no.

---

No, I was commenting on the fact that everyone is now going to sho up packed, then claim self defense after they fire.
There's no responsibility. Law allows carry, and use.

---

Blame the media for them having an incorrect view of what actually transpired.

"Rosenbaum died as he had lived, trying to touch an unwilling minor." - Tucker

going4roses said:

---

Watch the damn game !!!

---

Don't get paxc12 network.

BearForce2 said:

---

"Rosenbaum died as he had lived, trying to touch an unwilling minor." - Tucker

---

Judge in the Arbery case did not allow introduction of Arbery prior criminal record, and I believe that was true of Rosenbaum here as well.
But Tucker will use it to smear!

Travis McMichael stated that he wanted to rid his neighborhood of "vermin". I guess if one pre-judges, then it's okay to shoot and kill them?

Trump has committed as much, I'm sure. Does that justify shooting him, BF? I think that's what you're saying.

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

---

The independent newspaper ran the 3 black men died story. Yeah its a brit paper, but we live in a globalized world, and I'll see that paper referenced a lot on different social media sites.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

---

The independent newspaper ran the 3 black men died story. Yeah its a brit paper, but we live in a globalized world, and I'll see that paper referenced a lot on different social media sites.

---

They ran a mistaken bullet point and quickly corrected it.

Again, Greenwald's claim was that US media reported that the victims were Black and that foreign media got that misinformation from them. This does not appear to be true. The Independent (UK) made this mistake on their own.

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

---

This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

---

This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.

---

The explicit reference in this clip is to the Proud Boys. Rittenhouse is just in a brief video clip and not called by name. So no, not explicit, but could be called misleading.

This is also a politician's campaign material and not a news outlet. If we want to talk about misleading political ads I think we'd have a pretty long list.

Look who is in Englewood, FL today. Michael Flynn just happens to live in Englewood. Probably a coincidence. pic.twitter.com/GkuhsPsAzL

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) November 21, 2021

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

---

This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.

---

The explicit reference in this clip is to the Proud Boys. Rittenhouse is just in a brief video clip and not called by name. So no, not explicit, but could be called misleading.

This is also a politician's campaign material and not a news outlet. If we want to talk about misleading political ads I think we'd have a pretty long list.

---

Twitter bans "misleading" vaccine information and suspends and bans users. They certainly are acting as a news outlet when they are allowing the president to showcase Rittenhouse in a video about white supremists. Twitter knows who butters its bread.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

---

This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.

---

The explicit reference in this clip is to the Proud Boys. Rittenhouse is just in a brief video clip and not called by name. So no, not explicit, but could be called misleading.

This is also a politician's campaign material and not a news outlet. If we want to talk about misleading political ads I think we'd have a pretty long list.

---

Twitter bans "misleading" vaccine information and suspends and bans users. They certainly are acting as a news outlet when they are allowing the president to showcase Rittenhouse in a video about white supremists. Twitter knows who butters its bread.

---

Twitter is a platform, not a news organization. Twitter itself does not publish news, and not every account on Twitter is a news outlet (actually most of them aren't).

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

---

This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.

---

The explicit reference in this clip is to the Proud Boys. Rittenhouse is just in a brief video clip and not called by name. So no, not explicit, but could be called misleading.

This is also a politician's campaign material and not a news outlet. If we want to talk about misleading political ads I think we'd have a pretty long list.

---

Twitter bans "misleading" vaccine information and suspends and bans users. They certainly are acting as a news outlet when they are allowing the president to showcase Rittenhouse in a video about white supremists. Twitter knows who butters its bread.

---

Twitter is a platform, not a news organization. Twitter itself does not publish news, and not every account on Twitter is a news outlet (actually most of them aren't).

---

Yes, this is still Twitter:

A 17 year old white supremacist domestic terrorist drove across state lines, armed with an AR 15.

He shot and killed 2 people who had assembled to affirm the value, dignity, and worth of Black lives.

Fix your damn headlines.

— Ayanna Pressley (@AyannaPressley) August 27, 2020

Her tweet garnered more than 66,000 retweets and 235,000 likes on Twitter by Thursday morning.

Senator Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) called the shooter a "deranged white nationalist Trump supporter" in response to a tweet by Representative Matt Gaetz

This is Yahoo News:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/white-domestic-terrorists-kyle-rittenhouse-192659233.html

White domestic terrorists like Kyle Rittenhouse are held to a different standard

A Blue Lives Matter supporter, Rittenhouse was one of those armed white extremists hanging around Black Lives Matter protests and looking to cause trouble all with the support of the police with whom they share a common hatred of blackness and membership lists.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

---

This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.

---

This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.

I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

---

This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.

---

This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.

I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.

---

You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.


I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

---

This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.

---

The explicit reference in this clip is to the Proud Boys. Rittenhouse is just in a brief video clip and not called by name. So no, not explicit, but could be called misleading.

This is also a politician's campaign material and not a news outlet. If we want to talk about misleading political ads I think we'd have a pretty long list.

---

Twitter bans "misleading" vaccine information and suspends and bans users. They certainly are acting as a news outlet when they are allowing the president to showcase Rittenhouse in a video about white supremists. Twitter knows who butters its bread.

---

Twitter is a platform, not a news organization. Twitter itself does not publish news, and not every account on Twitter is a news outlet (actually most of them aren't).

---

Yes, this is still Twitter:

A 17 year old white supremacist domestic terrorist drove across state lines, armed with an AR 15.

He shot and killed 2 people who had assembled to affirm the value, dignity, and worth of Black lives.

Fix your damn headlines.

— Ayanna Pressley (@AyannaPressley) August 27, 2020

Her tweet garnered more than 66,000 retweets and 235,000 likes on Twitter by Thursday morning.

Senator Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) called the shooter a "deranged white nationalist Trump supporter" in response to a tweet by Representative Matt Gaetz

---

Pressley was wrong, yes. Again, though: politician, not a news outlet.

Shall we get into all the times right wing politicians lie about stuff on Twitter and get it shared around? I don't like any of that but it's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about hacks like Greenwald claiming that American news media lied about the race of the victims in the Rittenhouse case.

Why and how did so many major mainstream newspapers and media outlets around the world all falsely believe and publicly trumpet that Kyle Rittenhouse shot 3 black men? They didn't do this the day it happened but *this week*. Where do you think that false impression came from?

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 21, 2021

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

---

This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.

---

This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.

I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.

---

You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.


I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.

---

You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.

Here I will make it easier:

Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."

Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu

— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020

Conclusion: idiot conservatives (including GG) will believe anything that confirms their biases regarding media and "Libruls".

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

---

This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.

---

The explicit reference in this clip is to the Proud Boys. Rittenhouse is just in a brief video clip and not called by name. So no, not explicit, but could be called misleading.

This is also a politician's campaign material and not a news outlet. If we want to talk about misleading political ads I think we'd have a pretty long list.

---

Twitter bans "misleading" vaccine information and suspends and bans users. They certainly are acting as a news outlet when they are allowing the president to showcase Rittenhouse in a video about white supremists. Twitter knows who butters its bread.

---

Twitter is a platform, not a news organization. Twitter itself does not publish news, and not every account on Twitter is a news outlet (actually most of them aren't).

---

Yes, this is still Twitter:

A 17 year old white supremacist domestic terrorist drove across state lines, armed with an AR 15.

He shot and killed 2 people who had assembled to affirm the value, dignity, and worth of Black lives.

Fix your damn headlines.

— Ayanna Pressley (@AyannaPressley) August 27, 2020

Her tweet garnered more than 66,000 retweets and 235,000 likes on Twitter by Thursday morning.

Senator Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) called the shooter a "deranged white nationalist Trump supporter" in response to a tweet by Representative Matt Gaetz

---

Pressley was wrong, yes. Again, though: politician, not a news outlet.

Shall we get into all the times right wing politicians lie about stuff on Twitter and get it shared around? I don't like any of that but it's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about hacks like Greenwald claiming that American news media lied about the race of the victims in the Rittenhouse case.

---

No, because we are trying to stay on topic. This topic isn't about how politicians lie. It is about how misleading the narrative around Rittenhouse was.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

---

This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.

---

This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.

I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.

---

You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.


I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.

---

You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.

Here I will make it easier:

Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."

Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu

— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020

---

The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

---

This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.

---

This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.

I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.

---

You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.


I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.

---

You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.

Here I will make it easier:

Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."

Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu

— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020

---

The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.

---

Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

oski003 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

---

This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.

---

This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.

I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.

---

You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.


I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.

---

You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.

Here I will make it easier:

Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."

Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu

— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020

---

The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.

---

Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

---

Lol you can't even post a link so how can we expect you to watch it, let alone absorb it. I guess it's all the more obvious now why you fall prey to so much vaccine misinformation.

There’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

---

This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.

---

This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.

I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.

---

You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.


I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.

---

You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.

Here I will make it easier:

Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."

Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu

— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020

---

The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.

---

Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

---

Lol you can't even post a link so how can we expect you to watch it, let alone absorb it. I guess it's all the more obvious now why you fall prey to so much vaccine misinformation.

There’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020

---

??? Thanks for posting what I already posted and then told me what I couldn't post. Man, what is your deal?

Seems pretty clear this kid hasn't known what the heck he's doing at any point in this whole saga.

"I’m not a racist person. I support the BLM movement," Kyle Rittenhouse, who was recently acquitted for murder, told Tucker Carlson. https://t.co/v7F0Loid9g

— The Hill (@thehill) November 21, 2021

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

---

This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.

---

This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.

I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.

---

You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.


I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.

---

You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.

Here I will make it easier:

Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."

Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu

— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020

---

The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.

---

Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

---

Lol you can't even post a link so how can we expect you to watch it, let alone absorb it. I guess it's all the more obvious now why you fall prey to so much vaccine misinformation.

There’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020

---

??? Thanks for posting what I already posted and then told me what I couldn't post. Man, what is your deal?

---

You are continuing to lie about the tweet and either failing to understand why or acknowledge it. Your tweet doesn't embed properly in BI because of all of the extra at the end of the string. Mine embeds fine so people don't have to click a link to see the contents of the tweet.

I still don't think you've actually watched the video which is why your repeated assertions are so risible. No one who has seen the video is confused about this. They are either lying about it or they understand the only connection to Rittenhouse is when Chris Wallace mentioned Kenosha specifically right after he mentioned militia groups.

How anti-truth have you become?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Exhibit Q on why Glenn Greenwald is no more trustworthy than the "mainstream media" he loves to rail against:

Wait what US media reported the victims were black?

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

Literally all I do is criticize corporate media, you only criticize *liberal* corporate media. I do not go on corporate media, you have a permanent seat on the most watched corporate media show on the most watched corporate media outlet—which you mysteriously never criticize

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 19, 2021

I said explicitly that he distorted my argument. I wasn't claiming the major media outlets he was defending expressly said Rittenhouse shot black people. I said they deliberately cultivated that narrative, and it misled huge numbers of people and other media outlets.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2021

No, he never provided an answer to the main question ("Which US outlets reported that Rittenhouse's victims were Black?"). Greenwald criticizes the liberal media for pushing falsehoods that further a favored narrative by . . . pushing a falsehood that furthers his favored narrative. He's not any better.

---

Its fairly obvious. When killings are reported as caused by "white supremacy" or a "white supremacist" the implication is that the people who died were non-white. In the united states a great many people incorrectly believe that and the foreign press is making that same mistake in some cases.

---

Some people BELIEVE that, but where is the evidence that this was REPORTED by mainstream US outlets?

Remember, Greenwald said he would provide this evidence.

---

I think that's fair - they didn't explicitly report it. However, if they are calling the incident white supremacism or Rittenhouse a supremacist, what is being implied? Many mainstream media did (and continue to do) that. The narrative carries the implication that the victims where not white.

There are other arguments that can be made about that, but don't you think it is the clear (albeit incorrect) inference? What is the point of calling a shooter a "white supremacist" if the shooting is unrelated to white supremacist beliefs?

And for the record, notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, showing up to protest against and perhaps try to prevent rioting/looting does not make you a white supremacist, nor does saying "blue lives matter". Not saying that was a good choice for a 17 year old (particularly with the weapon) - it wasn't. But that does not make you a white supremacist.

---

Yes, if any outlet explicitly called Rittenhouse a white supremacist then that would be an unfair characterization and an example of jumping to conclusions. There isn't good evidence that this motivated his actions.

My point is that Greenwald is making the same mistake he accuses others of doing: because he FEELS like the liberal media told a lie about the race of the shooting victims, then it must have been true. Just like how some people FEEL like Rittenhouse must be an example of white supremacy even if the evidence doesn't support that. You don't make arguments against media inaccuracy and bias by also being inaccurate and biased.

---

This is Twitter and the President of the United States of America:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

Biden criticizes Rittenhouse for not condemning white supremists in a tweet of a video with a picture of Rittenhouse. Even those "explicit" is too a high bar, since misleading should qualify, I believe this meets the threshold of explicitly calling Rittenhouse a white supremist.

---

This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Biden did mention white supremacists but the video specifically mentioned WS and militia groups. Nowhere in the video or in Biden's tweet was Rittenhouse referred to as a white supremacist. In fact they showed a picture of the kid during the very moment Chris Wallace asked 45 about Kenosha.

I get that you like to play contrarian games, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.

---

You are peddling bull**** and you know it. The video literally asks if you are willing to condemn white supremist groups and not add to the violence as we saw in Kenosha and then displays an image of Rittenhouse.


I get that you blindly defend liberal causes and then use lawyer speak to justify it, but you can't possibly be daft enough to believe what you wrote.

---

You literally don't know what literally means and are literally misquoting Chris Wallace, which is nothing new for you. The actual question includes a reference to militia groups which is pretty damn relevant to Rittenhouse. Are you incapable of watching and understanding a 50 second video? If you watch it, and have a functioning brain, you would understand how wrong you are.

Here I will make it easier:

Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down..."

Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu

— Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020

---

The video is attached to Biden's tweet. Whatever DIFFERENT frame of reference you attach to it is irrelevant. Thanks.

---

Please take a minute, use your brain, and click on the link below.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1311268302950260737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311268302950260737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-19558365972812242231.ampproject.net%2F2111060251009%2Fframe.html

---

Lol you can't even post a link so how can we expect you to watch it, let alone absorb it. I guess it's all the more obvious now why you fall prey to so much vaccine misinformation.

There’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night. pic.twitter.com/Q3VZTW1vUV

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 30, 2020

---

??? Thanks for posting what I already posted and then told me what I couldn't post. Man, what is your deal?

---

You are continuing to lie about the tweet and either failing to understand why or acknowledge it. Your tweet doesn't embed properly in BI because of all of the extra at the end of the string. Mine embeds fine so people don't have to click a link to see the contents of the tweet.

I still don't think you've actually watched the video which is why your repeated assertions are so risible. No one who has seen the video is confused about this. They are either lying about it or they understand the only connection to Rittenhouse is when Chris Wallace mentioned Kenosha specifically right after he mentioned militia groups.

How anti-truth have you become?

---

Watched it for the third time. Clearly, it shows Rittenhouse right after asking if we are all ready to stand up to white supremacists. While the purpose of the message is to smear Trump (rightfully so), it absolutely strongly equates Rittenhouse to a white supremists. To think otherwise is absolutely insane.